>SJ>No. I don't ask for an "explanation which gets at fundamental
>>causes". I said, "I would like to see all that plausibly explained
>>using purely natural causes".
I responded
>
>BH>The sort of explanation you are sking for is not the sort that
>would
>>logically be the result of a scientific investigation. Scientists try to
>>_limit_ the scope of their investigations to maximize the likelihood that
>>they will be able to conclude something they can back up with evidence.
>>What you are asking for is far too broad. That is what led me to conclude
>>you were asking for fundamental causes. And I still say you are. Narrow
>>your scope.
>
>BH>There is an aspect of science that is and I suspect will always be
>very
>>unsatisfying to a young-earth creationist, and possibly also to an
>>old-earth creationist. That aspect is that real science tends to look at
>>very small problems, tends to specialize and does not and cannot draw
>>sweeping conclusions. What Eisely said was not science. It was merely his
>>opinion.
>
>This is interesting. Scientists can make all sorts of claims about man
>originating by purely natural evolutionary causes.
But, when they make grandiose claims, they are stepping outside science,
into metaphysics. Christians need to point this out. The fact that
Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan has stated a metaphysical opinion does not
make that opinion science. We need to point out that it isn't science
instead of trying to counter with contradictory, questionable science.
Yet when a sceptic
>asks what they were,
asks what what were?
this is excluded as being too broad and not
>science.
No, I was saying that I believe a complete naturalistic explanation of the
emergence of man is beyond the scope of science. Eisely as much as
admitted it in his discussion, and so far as I know, he isn't trying to
find a naturalistic explanation for the scenario he discussed. Scientists
looking at evidence in nature are in somewhat the same position you and I
would be in if we were asked to study a factory floor and learn as much as
we could about the product being manufactured, but were not allowed to
leave the factory floor or contact anyone not on the factory floor. We
could answer some questions about how the product was made and how it works
because we could observe the manufacturing process.
For example, suppose the product was a tape recorder. The question of why
the tape advances when you hit the play button could be answered in the
form, "because the play button activates this relay which starts the drive
motor, triggers a solonoid which engages the playback head against the tape
and turns the playback amplifier on." But if the question dealt with why a
particular design decision was made -- why one component was selected
instead of an alternative, it would be better to talk to the designer.
Only you can't, because he is off the premises. We Christians _can_ talk
to the Designer -- and I highly recommend it -- but what He communicates to
us is not likely to be recognized as valid communication by those outside
the household of faith. So how do we enter such commuincation into the
docket of science, when science is an enterprise populated by people of
every religion and people of no religion. If only the Christians had made
contributions which had advanced science, I suppose we could justify it,
but that is not the case.
>
>Such reasoning will always make it impossible to substantiate the
>supernatural in history.
I don't believe the problem is any kind of reasoning. Human beings
exclude, in their own minds, the supernatural in history. When I read
Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples" a number of years
ago, the evidence of God's providence acting in English history seemed
overwhelming to me. In fact I count that book as one of the milestones in
my pilgrimage that led to my trusting in Christ as my Savior. But other
people read it and either reject Churchill's views or don't even see them.
The difference is one of will, not reasoning. If you can find a means of
establishing God's actions in history that is totally objective, so the
most convinced atheist cannot deny it, please tell me about it. I'd
welcome it. But my experience has been that what impresses you and me as
being overwhelming evidence of God's purposeful dealings with nature and
men doesn't phase an atheist.
>I haven't read Reason in the Balance, but it
>sounds like "defining to exclude".
>
"Defining to exclude" is not a universal evil. For example, if my boss
told me my mission was to reinvent the automobile, I would not consider
that a suitable charter under which I could work for the next year, or even
for the remainder of my career. It's too broad. Smart engineers and
scientists try to limit what they commit to. The limits are determined by
what they realistically believe they can accomplish. Defining to exclude
is, I agree, something that should be avoided in many kinds of debates.
But in a projcet that is to lead to a result it's not only advisable, but
necessary. You want to _debate_ science, scientists want to _do_ science.
The define limits on what they will consider as a matter of survival. They
have to be able to show progress if they want to continue their research.
Debate doesn't have to show progress, so it can consider more nebulous
propositions.
I totally agree with you that Eisely's scenario looks very improbable. But
I see no way of making that a scientific conclusion. The implication of
that is not that science excludes the supernatural, but that science is not
a powerful enough tool to investigate the supernatural. That's only a
problem if you hold science in too high a regard.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)