On Sun, 13 Aug 1995 16:52:56 -0500 you wrote:
SC>I find it somewhat ironic that, despite the claims of Phil Johnson
and
>echoed by Jim Bell, it is hard for me to see how this sort of
>"supernaturalism" actually expands our understanding. Supernaturalism may
>allow different conclusions from naturalistic data, but I don't see that it
>is able to lead to new questions from which to continue learning about the
>naturalistic world. The conclusion that "God Did It" seems to carry the
>codicil that it is, therefore, not necessary to look further. I see in
>history and on this reflector, that this sort of "theistic realism" tends to
>stifle rather than stimulate exploration of the world.
One often sees this sort of thing, but is there any real evidence of
it? There
have been many eminent theists whose science was not affected by
believing
that ultimately "God did it".
The point is that if indeed God did "do it" then ignoring that
possibility
will forever render science incomplete:
"That is a caricature of theistic rationality, of course. Theists do
not throw up their hands and refer everything to God's great plan, but
they do recognize that attempts to explain all of reality in totally
naturalistic terms may leave out something of importance. Thus they
reject the routine non sequiturs of scientism which pervade the
Darwinist literature: because science cannot study a cosmic purpose,
the cosmos must have no purpose; because science cannot make value
judgments, values must be purely subjective; because science cannot
study God, only purposeless material forces can have been involved in
biological creation; and so on."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993,
Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p210).
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------