Re: [asa] Where does TE differ from NOMA? (was: Re: Schools and NOMA)

Quoting Keith Miller <keithbmill@gmail.com>:

>
> I also reject NOMA, as commonly expressed, because it implies that science
> and religion (and other ways of knowing) are somehow in hermetically sealed
> compartments. They are not. Science impacts our understanding of reality
> as gained from non-science sources, and similarly, our understanding of
> reality derived from outside of science impacts how we understand and
> interpret our scientific conclusions. At the same time, there are very
> important distinctions in the purpose of scientific and theological inquiry
> (and in the types of questions that can be asked of nature and of
> scripture).
>
> Keith
>

> ... similarly, our understanding of
> reality derived from outside of science impacts how we understand and
> interpret our scientific conclusions.

I lifted this one statement (re-pasted above) out of your post, Keith. This is
what ID people seem to keep insisting they want to hear TEs explain. The mantra
is something like "show us how a TE's faith affects their science." While I
many not be a strong ID person myself, I'm still interested in how you would
respond.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 22 14:54:27 2009