Re: [asa] Anti-Creationist Psychobabble On the Web

I respond to this point, from David Clounch:

>>> David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> 4/3/2009 10:14 AM >>>
Bill,

It doesn't matter. Public schools taught science just fine without MN. MN
exists only to assuage the concerns of certain religionists. It belongs
down the hall in the philosophy classroom or comparative religion
classroom,
not in the science classroom. Along with all questions about
metaphysics.

-Dave C

***

I am unclear, David, on just what you mean, by saying that the schools
teach science "without MN." Pretty much everything in standard science
texts is a scientific conclusion that has been reached after assuming MN. I
say this on the assumption that MN is, to quote something I wrote many years
ago, "the belief that science should explain phenomena only in terms of
entities and properties that fall within the category of the natural, such
as by natural laws acting either through known causes or by chance."

Perhaps you are using a different implicit definition of MN, or perhaps you
are thinking of ways in which such an assumption is not really behind the
science taught in schools. Either way, I would appreciate having more of
your idea made explicit here.

Thanks,

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 3 10:41:56 2009