Re: responses to "scientifically humble" YEC

Craig Rusbult (rusbult@vms2.macc.wisc.edu)
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:05:08 -0500

James Behnke says,

>None of us in the science departments here at Asbury have
>been able to think of a "God meter" that would serve that purpose.

What about the healing of the lame man in Acts 3? Do you have any
doubt that the intention (by God) in doing this was to make it clear,
on everyone's personal God-meter, that a miracle had occurred?

>The only type of analysis that would lead to the conclusion of God's
>involvement in a particular result is a God-of-the-Gaps argument, i.e.
>we don't know of another explanation, therefore God did it.

In Acts 3, when you say "God of the Gaps" you would be referring to
Peter when he says (in Acts 3:16) that "By faith in the name of Jesus,
this man...was made strong." So Peter is using "gaps" logic because
he didn't "know of another explanation, therefore God did it." Isn't
this the way we recognize (and define) all miracles? What is wrong
with this definition, and why should it be criticized?

>I'll bet even Mike Behe uses mn when he
>does his experiments. He doesn't add 2 microliters of God to each
>microfuge tube, nor does he detect a God band on his gels or gradients.
>We can do science just fine the way it is.

MN says we should ALWAYS use natural explanations; there is NEVER
any alternative, no matter what a logical analysis of empirical data
might indicate. {science would explain Acts 3 by saying ___} A non-MN
view says that we should use natural explanations when this seems to be
the most appropriate (which is USUALLY or even ALWAYS), but we should be
open to the possibility of a non-natural explanation. Therefore, your
examples are not applicable. In fact, Behe explicitly agrees with you;
at one place in DBB he says that he would not accept an explanation
from a student that "the angel of death" killed a bacteria culture.

>Even if we could detect
>God's influence on the results via a "God meter", the background noise
>would be so tremendous (God is involved in all things) that I'm not sure
>we could detect extra activity by God at certain times.

Can you apply this to Acts 3?

Craig Rusbult