Bryan R. Cross wrote:
>
> Wendee Holtcamp wrote:
>
> > (2) I do not believe God wants to be discovered via scientific means.
> > I may be wrong, but it seems that if it were so, there would be no
> > room for faith, which is what the entirety of Scripture's teachings
> > are based upon. This is why I believe - from what I understand of it
> > thus far - ID theory will prove wrong. But then again, you never know.
> > I do know that unless science takes a major leap in anoither
> > direction, the mass of evidence points to evolution via natural
> > selection. Maybe there is some middle ground between ID and evolution.
> > ??
>
> First, the conflict is not between ID and evolution (a common caricature),
> but between (1) ID and naturalism. Among those opposed to naturalism there
> is a subordinate dispute: (2) between those who believe that intelligent
> design is detectable, and those who do not. The fact that some ID
> proponents believe in the formation of all life-forms from a given initial
> life form via evolution by natural causes demonstrates that ID per se is
> not opposed to evolution per se. Second, faith is not incompatible with
> evidence. Belief in the absence of any evidence is not faith, it is an
> irrational fideism. Even Kierkegaard did not advocate pure fideism (cf. C.
> Stephen Evans's latest book). If faith were incompatible with evidence,
> then Christ did not leave any room for faith in Him, for He provided
> evidence that He was the Christ by (among other things) His signs and
> wonders. Furthermore, there is no fine line between 'scientific evidence'
> and evidence per se. Moreover, one cannot say that evidence X is not
> scientific *just because the majority of scientists reject it*. (The
> majority of people rejected Christ's evidence as well.) If evidence of any
> kind has theological implications, it can always be rejected (as shown by
> the Quine-Duhem thesis), not matter how clear it is. My point is that if
> you claim that the reason that God does not want to be discovered by
> scientific evidence is that He wants to leave room for faith, then to be
> consistent you must say that He does not want to be discovered by *any
> evidence*, for the same reason. But apparently you think God doesn't mind
> being discovered by myriad forms of evidence. You write:
The issue is not one of "evidence versus faith". It is, rather, a question of
what sort of evidence motivates & is supportive of faith. Distinctively Christian faith
depends upon revelation (or "special revelation", though the phrase can be misleading
& the concept of "general revelation" is questionable). This is God's activity in the
history of Israel which culminates in Christ. Such revelation differs via the "scandal
of particularity" from the type of evidence admissible in the natural science, for that
evidence is available, in principle, to everyone at all times. Revelation isn't, though
we have witnesses to it.
Scientific evidence can be relevant to Christian faith and theology when it is
viewed in the light of revelation but it is much more problematic (though very popular)
to suggest that it can provide any basis for faith apart from revelation. IMO Barth was
right in rejecting any such claim for _independent_ natural theology, though he went too
far in saying that science was of no relevance for the doctrine of creation.
IMO the ID movement would be much less objectionable _theologically_ if its
practitioners would say that belief in ID is based on revelation, and that they are
seeking scientific evidence supportive of that belief. Whether or not their claims are
scientifically viable is another matter.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:48:14 EDT