Re: [asa] lock-picking tools

If I inadvertently left the impression that scientific explanation
precludes God (or that I think so), then please be relieved of the
misunderstanding. I've thoroughly come to terms with God's activity and
"nature's activity" as a "both/and" scenario. I see myself as closer to
the EC position in my little scenario, but I try to imagine responses
from those who aren't like-minded. I am (and have long been) in total
agreement with the assertions in your response below.

--Merv

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> I'm getting an underlying assumption here, one that reflects the ID
> attitude, namely that God cannot be involved if the explanation is
> scientific. However, the true theistic view is that God is as much
> involved in natural law as in miracles. It is clear that we do not yet
> have a scientific explanation for the origin of life, but my faith will
> not be changed whether a scientific explanation is forthcoming or is
> never discovered. I'm a theist, not a deist.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:48:24 -0500 mrb22667@kansas.net writes:
>
>> This comes out of a local discussion last night (led by Keith
>> Miller), but I
>> thought I would submit this resulting percolation of my thoughts
>> here for
>> reactions or corrections.
>>
>> The question was raised about whether or not we 'cede too much to
>> science' when
>> we accept or invite all of its explanatory power as it may bear on
>> origins of
>> life or on the nature of human thought or human will. And this, of
>> course, led
>> to discussion about the limitations of science. ...& hence my
>> condensed
>> night-time ruminations below...
>>
>> Imagine we are all in a room & are exploring that environ. The room
>> has some
>> doors, but different groups think differently about whether the
>> doors ought to
>> be opened. Historically, some groups have tried to block access
>> from the
>> inside, and this provokes protest from those who would like to
>> explore. Others
>> (including ECs and IDs) advocate free exploration without
>> artificially imposed
>> limitations. Any stubborn doors we encounter are locked *from the
>> outside*, and
>> science can legitimately try to pick the lock (and in some arenas
>> has
>> historically succeeded). But here we encounter a difference
>> between ID and
>> EC. IDs say: “That door may lead to evidence of a mind or
>> ‘design’” In fact
>> some IDs would say the door was already opened and the new rooms
>> give us exactly
>> that evidence. ECs, however, maintain that the IDs have probably
>> never left the
>> ordinary room we are in and that the evidence IDs present may still
>> have
>> naturalistic explanations, even if we can’t explain it *yet*. IDs,
>> in their
>> turn, think that ECs are blocking a door through which science
>> should be able to
>> pronounce (or at least recognize) evidence of design. ECs counter
>> that rather
>> than leading to new avenues of exploration the design conclusion
>> leads to an
>> impenetrable rock wall (science stopper). And IDs don’t seem to
>> object to this
>> concept per se, but seem to want an acknowledgment that such a rock
>> wall at
>> least exists on which naturalistic tools are no longer sufficient.
>>
>> So here is the interesting question for me: Can science find or
>> map its own
>> "rock wall" boundary or even conclude that such a boundary exists?
>> IDs say, in
>> principle, YES. ECs say, in principle: NO. And militant
>> atheists say: “no
>> such boundaries for science exist at all.” IDs and ECs (as
>> Christians) should
>> at least be able to unite in their opposition to the last category
>> and only
>> differ in how such a boundary can be explicated.
>>
>> --Merv
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 15 20:18:35 2008