home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.origins
- Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!usc!rpi!vccnw07.its.rpi.edu!johnsd2
- From: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
- Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
- Message-ID: <zcq376f@rpi.edu>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: vccnw07.its.rpi.edu
- Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1
- Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
- References: <1993Jan26.231136.8562@nmsu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:20:05 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- In article 8562@nmsu.edu, epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
- >In article <1jvlplINNl54@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com
- >(Jon Livesey) writes:
- >> In article <C1DrDw.39y@world.std.com>, pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C
- >Duggan) writes:
-
- [deletia- ususal stuff about science not being able to test spiritual stuff]
-
- >> You can have a material test for the material effects of immaterial
- >> influences.
- >>
- >> jon.
- >
- > No, you can't. Anything observed is always assumed to have a
- >natural cause, whether or not a naturalistic explanation is immediately
- >apparent. The supernatural is automatically cut out of science.
- > Erik Powers
-
- I think this rather depends on what you mean by "supernatural"; this
- may be true. BUT it isn't inherint in science to assume a cause
- upon find an effect. You postulate the cause then look for the
- affect. If the cause is supernatural, fine.
-
- Alternately, I don't have a clue what science is. But I doubt that.
- (I sure hope I have a close)
- ---
- - Dan Johnson
- And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
-
- These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
- You'll never know whose they are.
-