In a message dated 6/17/00 9:30:26 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
stark2301@voyager.net writes:
>Allan Harvey wrote:
> > I saw a great example of this a few months ago when John Wiester spoke at
> our
> > local ASA meeting. He made a big point of saying that the 3 major issues
> > with regard to "evolution" for Christians were (parodying the old real
> estate
> > line) "mechanism, mechanism, and mechanism." For Wiester, a mechanism
> that
> > referred only to natural processes without any gaps for God to act in was
> > unacceptable.
>
> You raise a valid point about interpreting what we all read, including
> students. Would you say that naturalism and secular humanism are both
> mechanisms with no theological implications?
I'd say that naturalism and secular humanism are not mechanisms at all, but
worldviews (with few scientific implications). My point is that things like
gravity and genetics and natural selection are mechanisms which need not have
theological implications. But I'm not sure what you were trying to get at
here.
> Our assumptions can be either mechanistic or theological. If we omit any
> reference to God in our assumptions, is this not still an inferred
> assumption of non-existence? Is this the desired gap for God to act?
If I talk about the Periodic Table and make reference to atomic theory but no
reference to God, is that an assumption of God's non-existence?
If I talk about the formation of stars in terms of gravity and nuclear
physics and make no reference to God, does that imply that God must not be
the Creator of the stars?
If I talk about the formation of mountains in terms of plate tectonics and
make no reference to God, does that imply that God must not be the Creator of
mountains?
I hope most people here would agree that, from a Christian standpoint, it is
wrong to tie God-excluding meaning to the science in the above 3 cases. If
we can agree on that, why can't we move on to also agree on:
If I talk about the formation of living species in terms of genetic variation
and natural selection and make no reference to God, does that imply that God
must not be the Creator of life?
I agree with you about how wrong it is when science writers attach
God-excluding meaning to their science (as opposed to simply making no
reference to God, which is proper when presenting scientific results). But
if it is wrong when Richard Dawkins says scientific explanations that don't
require God as a part mean that God is absent, it is also wrong when Phil
Johnson or John Wiester adopts the same viewpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 18 2000 - 17:45:32 EDT