John W. Burgeson wrote on 1st November:
> It is a valid issue, I think, as to whether it [excluding divine
> causation] is a "good" rule to follow in science; I think it is ...
> DT >It is important to realise that the naturalistic world view is
> >a matter of principle - not a principle of science.
>
> Here we must disagree 100%. I think 99% of all pracicing scientists
> would agree with me. Phil Johnson wants to change this; he is
> making a valiant effort.
I think this 100% disagreement must stand. It may help if I comment
on the distinction that can be made between empirical science and
historical science. My empirical science is rooted in a belief in
God's providence, and so I would never expect a special appeal to
divine causation to have any place in empirical science. The
situation is different with historical science - which is concerned
with unrepeatable, unique events. There are a number of occasions
where it is perfectly legitimate for scientists to postulate an
intelligent cause of certain data (for example, the origin of life,
the origin of the genetic code, the origin of mankind). It is also
legitimate for naturalistic causes to be proposed. In both cases, it
should be possible to assess the relative merits of these different
explanations.
I am arguing that this is all legitimate for science. Naturalistic
science is ruling out of consideration a certain category of
explanation of origins - but on what grounds? "This is the only way
to do science!" This is a philosophical position which I find
indefensible. If we are interested in truth, we MUST allow
intelligent causation to be a possible explanation. If it is
deficient, or if other explanations prove superior, let the arguments
be brought forth.
The claim that 99% of scientists (is this figure really correct?)
have adopted the naturalistic world view is, for me, very depressing.
It means, in my view, that the philosophical naturalists have total
command of the field - and that the pioneering work of many
scientists with Christian convictions is being sacrificed. For
myself, I am encouraged by the message that Phil Johnson is bringing -
and wish him every success in helping to turn the tide.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***