RE: [asa] (what's a fact?) Brilliant article by Dawkins

Moorad said:
" I believe that the difference between geocentricity and heliocentricity, which is a mere shift of origins--the earth or the sun--is what one sees if one is outside of the solar system and at rest with the far distant stars--the absolute frame of Newton."

After going around in this with circles with George Murphy prior, I think that George and I both concluded, in agreement, that ultimately, scientifically, geocentricity is scientifically wrong (it is not reality). No matter your frame of reference, there are certain things that can't be done with geocentricity because it is an error. George mentioned the detail in earlier emails.

Moorad said:
"A miracle is expressed as a historical fact, in the form of historical proposition, but can never be part of a law of Nature."

A miracle is a 'fact' in the sense of it is a building block for other more complex beliefs, such as "Why do you believe in God?" Because of miracles.

But it is another question to ask if miracles are a true fact. Some can be proven (such as a claim that a guy's short leg grew 1 inch to match the other- is it true? Let's look and see). Others can't be tested at all, so they are faith either way, believe or disbelieve (Jesus rose from the dead, or Joseph Smith saw a vision of the Father in his bedroom).

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] (what's a fact?) Brilliant article by Dawkins

A scientific fact is expressed in a historical proposition, "I did X and the result was Y." The work of the scientist is done in time, therefore, in a sense, everything is history. However, it is the generalization of historical propositions that make up a law of Nature. Not a single scientific fact but a multitude of scientific facts. Therefore, the laws of Nature are statistical in nature. I believe that the difference between geocentricity and heliocentricity, which is a mere shift of origins--the earth or the sun--is what one sees if one is outside of the solar system and at rest with the far distant stars--the absolute frame of Newton. It makes sense to place the sun at the center owing to its great mass. A miracle is expressed as a historical fact, in the form of historical proposition, but can never be part of a law of Nature.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:36 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] (what's a fact?) Brilliant article by Dawkins

Moorad said:
" Is there a difference between a scientific and a historical fact? When are they the same and when different?"

Facts are pieces of data to which you use to infer other facts or to form opinions. A 'scientific fact' is based on science, and 'historical fact' is based on history.

A scientific fact from ancient history, now known to be wrong:
Geocentricity

It is replaced with the modern scientific fact called heliocentricity.

...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:22 AM
To: Jack; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins

Is there a difference between a scientific and a historical fact? When are they the same and when different?

Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Jack [drsyme@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:33 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins

I dont know about it being brilliant. He spends a lot of time talking about how evolution isnt a "theory" its a fact, when we all know that the word theory has more meanings than the sense that he is using it.

I also bristle a bit at his suggestions on what preachers should preach about. This is disingenuous isnt it? What he really wants is for there to be no church, no preachers, and no religion. Perhaps he wants the preachers to say that the existence of Adam and Eve isnt factual just to create dissension, not to spread truth. Since evolution does not necessarily negate the historicity of Adam he is straying to far from his area of expertise here.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Roberts<mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: christians_in_science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:christians_in_science@yahoogroups.com> ; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; acg@list.dordt.edu<mailto:acg@list.dordt.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:04 PM
Subject: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins

No, I am not joking. There was an absolutely brilliant article in The Times today on the menace of creationism. Excellent stuff, not one attack on Christianity. It does have a few necessary comments on bishops and clergy put in an understatement.

Ii is on http://tinyurl.com/nhgu7m

Michael

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 25 15:05:30 2009