> Historically, that's very wrong. Modern science has its roots in the
> devotio moderna and the high-middle age mystical assertion/realization that
> God (order) is immanent in all of creation and that God can come to be known
> through the
> unprejudiced observation of his creation. The entire middle ages devoted
> itself to the problem of how the infinite can
> be accessed through the finite -- what issues from their effort is the
> notion of functions (ultimately enabling Calculus), the
> high regard given to observation and expriment _rather_ than the blind
> trust in authority. For a beautiful, lucid, and terse discussion, see Ernst
> Cassirer The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy or
> Alexander Koyre "From Closed Cosmos to Infinite Universe."
>
> Nothing is more dispiriting than the really crude theist/atheist
> discussions on this list.
>
> Joanna
-------------------
Well the historical/theological origins of science[s] are a separate issue from whether God actually does *any* explanatory work in modern science as it has been practiced. So, Yoshie is correct. Historicizing scientific explanation does nothing to ameliorate the claim. Do you think Yoshie's claim, re contemporary scientific practice/theory is false?
Ian -- "Life sure is weird but what else am I to know?" [Jason Pierce]