At 09:28 PM 7/5/00 -0700, Joel Bandstra wrote:
>In the message below Bob brings up an excellent point concerning the
>purposelessness of Darwinian Evolution versus our belief that God has been
>quite intentional in his creation of the universe and, more specifically,
>his creation of each of us. I propose, however, that this is where the
>distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism
>becomes of central importance. In methodological naturalism we
>intentionally posit no purpose or ultimate goal in our theory of how nature
>operates. We do this, knowing all the while that nature is purposeful
>because at the root of it all is God. In Philosophical Naturalism, to the
>contrary, one presupposes that nature itself has no purpose.
>
>Perhaps the problem here is the blurring of the line between the theory and
>the phenomena. As Christians we never think of phenomena as being an
>accident but as scientists we almost always ascribe our explanations of and
>predictions concerning physical phenomena to purposeless theories. For
>example, one could ask, "is there a purposefulness in classical mechanics?"
> The answer would be no. Classical mechanics presupposes no god, no goal,
>it does not even attempt to explain why it works or outline it's
>limitations. This purposelessness of classical mechanics does not,
>however, mean that the phenomena of planets orbiting the sun is without
>divine intent. Perhaps it would be good to wonder for a while if it would
>even be possible to do science under the auspices that every theory ought
>to start explicitly with the existence of the triune God and the truth of
>the Bible and then follow logically from there.
I said in my earlier post that natural science has been (and will continue
to be) so powerful in helping us to understand the natural order precisely
because it never rests in assuming and searching for natural causes. There
is no logical point on this side of eternity beyond which natural science
should give up in this quest. To do so is, BY DEFINITION, to engage in
something other than NATURAL science.
My understanding is that Phil Johnson and the anti-naturalism movement does
not appreciate any distinction between methodological naturalism and
philosophical/metaphysical naturalism. Implicit, and perhaps also
explicit, in their objectives is to replace a godless natural science with
an intentially theistic natural science. This would be a grave
mistake. It would effectively kill fruitful inquiry in natural science and
also make Christian theology (also a science, but based on interpretation
of revelatory data, i.e., scripture, person of Christ, etc.) subservient to
Creation (when, in fact, our theological understanding of the MEANING and
purpose of Creation should be subservient to God's Revelation).
This is NOT to say that natural science is prohibited from legitimately
investigating the physical/historical basis of biblical miracles, or even
the evolutionary basis of human altruism and morality. What it means is
that, as Christians, we do not make the knowledge derived from natural
science the primary basis for understanding God and his Revelation. We
work the other way around: using our understanding of God's Revelation to
help us interpret the metaphysical significance (meaning) of natural
science. Perhaps an evolutionary analysis of morality would suggest that
we are inclined/adapted to do something or other that is less than what we
know God has called us to do and be. No problem. This would simply
confirm to us that God did indeed call us by his Revelation to be more than
what we are in our physical nature. Yet, we don't deny the reality of the
physical component.
I find the idea of a "theistic natural science" to be an oxymoron, like
"spiritual car mechanic". When I go to have my car fixed, I want a
mechanic who is methodologically a naturalist; he rightfully assumes to the
bitter end that there is a physical basis for the problem. If he never
finds one, and God somehow the problem goes away, I thank God. For me,
having faith that God will provide, it was a miracle, a special provision
in a time of need. If the mechanic finds a problem and fixes it, I also
thank God, and trust Him to provide for me to pay for the work. By either
outcome, I want the mechanic to be a relentless methodological naturalist
(and, significantly, I give thanks to God for his purpose in my life). If
my mechanic is a Christian, that's all the better; but only in the sense
that he will (hopefully) have a higher level of integrity and tenacity in
solving my car problem, i.e., his Christianity makes him a better
methodological naturalist. As a Christian, he will also be able to share
in my experience of provision.
This is why I believe it is entirely inappropriate for creationism to be
taught alongside evolution in biology classes. One is a natural science
while the other is not. Alternatively, discussion of evolution in biology
classes should not include discussion of the merits of the Christian
doctrine of Creation.
Of course, we can't expect highschoolers to understand and appreciate such
philosophical complexities, can we? Secondary education is all about
memorizing the the bare facts. No critical thinking, please. ;)
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 06 2000 - 13:52:25 EDT