From: Brian Harper (harper.10@osu.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 13:03:45 EDT
At 02:19 PM 8/26/2003 -0400, Freeman, Louise Margaret wrote:
>
> > > >>please name some theistic science popularizers who
> > > actually include
> > > their theism in their works? >>
> > >
> > > Eddington and Sir James Jeans -- of course they were
> > > a generation ago.
> > > Robert Jastrow. Polkinghorne. Ian Barbour. George
> > > Murphy. Steven
> > > Goldberg. David Griffin. Howard Van Til. Peacock.
> > > Davis Young. The list
> > > is very long.
> >
> > But the authors you mention have written books
> > primarily or exclusively in the science and religion
> > area -- not as simply science popularizers, which with
> > the exception of Polkinghore's Particle Play I don't
> > think any you listed have. I specifically *excepted*
> > books on science and religion from the comparison. My
> > point was that in popularization of science qua
> > science -- NOT discussion of science and religion
> > issues -- that the "apparent" bias is overwhelmingly
> > in one direction because of the agendas of the science
> > qua popularizers (e.g., Dawkins, Sagan, et al.).
>
>One possibility is that, for those theistic scientists who accept the
>methodological/ metaphysical naturalism distinction, their "theism" is
>outside the realm of their methodological naturalism, and therefore an
>inappropriate topic in lectures/books/classes etc that are supposed to be
>strictly about science. It is an appropriate topic for a book or lecture
>on religion and science.
>
>I am reminded of what Miller said was the reason for his writing "Finding
>Darwin's God": to answer the questions students in his biology class had
>about his own religious beliefs and how they could be compatible with the
>scientific study of evolution. As much as I like that book, I would not
>want to see it as required reading in an introductory biology class
>simply because much if it is outside the realm of methodological
>naturalism.
>
>This set-up does admittedly put theistic scientists at a disadvantage...
>they can react to examples of metaphysical naturalism in Dawkins'
>writings, for instance, and invite students to question
>the "scientificness" of them, but cannot present their own theism as
>science. So, they are automatically on the defensive, with the Dawkins of
>the world on one offensive front (attacking theism) and the Johnsons of
>the other on the other (attacking methodological naturalism.)
This issue does seem to be problematic. Is methodological naturalism
really the way of doing science or is it just a way to circumvent ID?
If it is (and I agree that it is), then why is it one sided? Why doesn't
MN also constrain the atheist scientist?
This lack of symmetry will continue to provide fuel to the
flames of rhetoric until its corrected.
After having said that let me point to an exception to the general
rule. The only thing I remember about freshman biology was the
day the professor explained how evolution could be viewed as
God's way of creating. This was Texas A&M (whoop) about 1974
or thereabouts.
Also, I have been known to insert some theistic comments into
my lectures (ohio state). don't tell :)
>So, I see a stacked decked and I welcome suggestions on how to popularize
>the notion that there are theistic scientists out there. So far, the
>only solutions I have come up in my own classes (I teach psychology, and
>consider evolution as important in that field as in biology, BTW)are
>1) define methodological naturalism and distinguish it from metaphysical
>naturalism whenever I lecture about evolution, and make it clear that I
>am speaking as a methodological naturalist in class. I also let my
>students know that I am interested in the topic of science and religion
>and am available to discuss that, formally or informally, outside of
>class. (So far, no one from the Christian student group who invited
>Answers in Genesis to campus last year has taken me up on it, though.)
>2) try to react as strongly to inappropriate metaphysical statments from
>scientists (Dawkins, Gould) etc as I do to outrageous scientific claims
>from YEC's and ID. This is harder for me, though, because Dawkins and
>Gould come packaged with a lot of good scientific writings that I admire
>and enjoy using in my classes, while the YEC's and IDers do not.
#2 is the key IMHO.
Brian Harper
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 13:06:06 EDT