Stephen, thank you for your response to the message I posted on Sun, 13 Aug
1995. I 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.
Stephen Jones responded:
>One often sees this sort of thing, but is there any real evidence of
>it?
There exists a plethora of evidence to support my contention that for some
critics, supernaturalism means looking no farther than God. Galileo battled
those who were satisfied that the truth about the solar system could only be
found in biblical verses that stated the earth does not move. Then there
was the debate over whether a vacuum was possible. Leibniz opposed the
concept despite the fact that considerable evidence had been gathered by the
early 18th century for the existence of vacuums. He insisted that God's
perfection required a plenum, because, "the more matter there is, the more
God has occasion to exercise his wisdom and power." Then in the 19th
century, a hue and cry rang forth against attempts to explain the geological
processes responsible for earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
Historically, Christians have too often been threatened by viewing the world
in mechanical terms, and the problem continues today. I have been told that
glaciers never existed because the earth is not sufficiently old to account
for them. Then there are charismatics and fundamentalists who put their
trust in prayer and quackery for healing (e.g., Cancel--a "new anti-cancer
drug" that has found its way into conservative Christian communities) rather
than in modern medicine, even if it is practiced by Christian MD's from
their own church (personal anecdotes). In the evolution debate, many who I
have debated prefer to throw out the whole scientific pursuit in response to
the metaphysical presumptions of some philosophical naturalists.
I have posted previously, that, too often, both sides in this debate do not
sufficiently distinguish between the pursuit of the science of evolution and
the interpretation of its results. As a result, philosophical naturalists
jump to overreaching metaphysical conclusions based on scanty data.
Meanwhile their Christian antagonists, in the guise of wishing to open
minds, say on the one hand, "let us be open to other interpretations", and
on the other hand, "we must do away with the evil of evolution". The latter
part of this epistemological construct is not as open minded as they want to
portray in the former part of the construct.
There
>have been many eminent theists whose science was not affected by
>believing
>that ultimately "God did it".
True, but that doesn't mitigate my argument. There also have been too many
theists who fear that a mechanistic world takes away too much of God's glory
(see examples above). This, I believe, is a central problem in the response
of Christians to science. Does one's theology allow for a belief in a
supernatural creator as well as in a mechanistic world? For reasons I do
not fully understand, this has been a source of contention with Christians
at least since the beginning of the Enlightenment. At this juncture, I do
not think that it is sufficient to simply point out that anti-mechanistic
responses from Christians are justified because of the materialistic bent of
those who champion a mechanistic theology. This is simply Christians
calling something black because those with whom they disagree call it white.
I propose that it is not necessary, indeed it is unwise, to respond to the
dogmatism of philosophical naturalists with equally dogmatic counterarguments.
>
>The point is that if indeed God did "do it" then ignoring that
>possibility
>will forever render science incomplete:
I agree, but this point is made often enough on this reflector. My point is
somewhat different. Too great an emphasis on a "God did it" explanation too
often leads to reticence to investigate how he did it. In the evolution
debate, this is seen in the rhetoric of those who would entirely eliminate
all vestiges of evolution science along with naturalistic theology from our
consciousness. This, 'throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater' argument,
also renders science incomplete and, therefore, God's that is revealed, in
part, through the creation is not fully appreciated by those who claim to
recognize his glory.
>
>"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).
The best thing Phil has done with this book and his lectures is to give the
debate more intellectual credibility. For this, I am very grateful. But, I
believe that he is a primary culprit who has lead to a confusion over the
difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism. This in
turn, contributes to the confusion between evolution as science and how
people use it to support metaphysical worldviews.
A few days ago I posted this quote by the geneticist, Steve Jones, regarding
evolutionary biology, 'Its literature is filled with the great vagueness of
evolution--with words that, when you deconstruct them, are like shovelling
fog; they don't mean much. 'Coadaptation', 'adaptive landscape', 'punctuated
equilibrium'--what I sometimes think of as theological population genetics.
They're words that don't help at all when you're trying to decide what
experiment to do next.' For that matter, how does supernaturalism help you
decide what experiment to do next?
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "To disdain philosophy is really to
Madison, WI 53792 be a philosopher." Blaise Pascal
____________________________________________________________________________