Plantinga's article says a lot of helpful things, but I regret his notion
of 'Christian' science. I'm kind of glad that Mary Baker Glover Patterson
Eddy co-opted the term 'Christian science'. It has kept us away from a lot
of misunderstandings.
In light of our recent discussion about palynology, I can say that I would
rather get my science from an unbeliever who doesn't care about the
outcome, than from a Christian who desires a particular outcome.
I am not saying this as an old positivist. On the contrary, I believe that
Christ is the ultimate enabler of science; science could not exist on
non-Christian presuppositions, if they were followed consistently. But
practically anyone can do good science now, because the metaphysical
presuppositions have been, as it were, 'built-in' to the methodology (by
the founders of modern science). They are like the lower layers in a
communications network; they are real and specific, but you can ignore them
and get on with your higher-level work if you prefer (as most scientists
do).
Paul Arveson, Code 724, Signatures Directorate, NSWC
arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil bridges@his.com
(301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)