I don't quite agree that "everything could be explained." That is one
reason, that I like Vollenhoven's version better. He was more open to
things that could not be explained. Of course, he started off as a
theologian, not as a lawyer like Dooyeweerd. .) However, he does stress,
that science is not done without the background of a basic world- and
life-view. Since scientists often are not required to take philosophy
courses, they are often not aware of philosophies which influenced their
thinking. For that reason I am grateful that I was forced to take an
introductory philosophy course at the Free University in Amsterdam.
For example, in the ongoing debates here I often see the influence of a
dualistic world view: some things are under God's rule, some things are
not, though the bible clearly teaches that nothing happens outside God's
will. Much more should be said here, but then we may be getting involved
again in the debate of Arminians contra Calvinists.
Jan de Koning
Willowdale, Ont.