>It seems to me that neither Steve Clark, Walter, Loren, nor any one
>else will get anywhere by arguing whether or not evolution *is* science
>based on whether it *is* falsifiable. Likewise with whether the biotic
>message, or intelligent design, or any other idea based on the
>intervention of a creator/designer *is* science because it *is* falsifiable.
>
>As I have tried to point out before, what is important to science
>is mechanism. Evolution is based on the belief that there
>are mechanisms that produce the species observed on earth, i.e. some
>set of processes based on fundamental rules. The popularization
>of a potential process (natural selection) by Darwin is what gave
>evolution such a strong foothold in science.
Theories of evolution had a strong foothold prior to Darwin's model. What
Darwin offered that was unique was a mechanism, natural selection, that was
easier to swallow than previous mechanisms that were offered.
It is pretty clear that
>the validity of evolution to any scientist who believes in it is
>unshaken by the possibility that natural selection is wrong. They
>believe that there will be found *some* sufficient mechanism someday.
This has been seen before in the history of science. So far history shows
that science is self-correcting.
>Evolution would only retreat if some *other* mechanism were found which
>produced life. However a creator or designer is not a mechanism. He
>is not a process operating by rules and processes which can be known
>[Isa 55]. If the rules and processes cannot be scrutinized by science,
>then they are irrelevant to science.
You represent the viewpoint of the secular scientist here. Since they do not
believe in God, why expect differently from them?
But science can be viewed much differently from a Christian perspective, I
believe. I believe that Christians are right to fight extreme reductivism,
or the tendency to believe that all things can be explained by physics or
mechanistically. On the other hand, I have a great problem with Christians
who insist that the creation of life is not to be understood at all by
science because it is miraculous. If God is the creator of nature, and the
originator of miracles, what difference does it make to Christians whether
or not a phenomenon can be explained in naturalistic terms?
>If it could be demonstrated that the universe was not mechanistic, then
>what would be falsified is not specifically evolution, but science itself.
>
>Theistic (or agnostic) science is really a non-science. It is simply
>a technique for retaining God in the picture, but relegating Him to
>some point in the history of the world where He cannot interfere with
>the processes under investigation. For some physicists, His participation
>is now in the picoseconds.
This is a position of Deism and not the position of other types of theistic
science. I am a theistic scientist (not an evolutionist as Walter claims)
and in my mind, God is not behind the scenes. Augustine viewed God's hand
in nature in two ways, "...some works belonged to the invisible days in
which He created all things simultaneously, and others belonged to the days
in which He DAILY FASHIONS whatever evolves in the course of time..." By
this, Augustine sees God's initial creative acts as happening in what he
calls the "invisible days', while God's continuing involvement in the
creation belongs to his daily works. Thus, it is not impossible to view God
as creating via a naturalistic process, yet still being responsible for the
sustenance of the creation.
>When I finally recognized the importance of mechanism in the mind of
>scientists, I finally understood most of their complaints about
>creationists. The mistake we made was in thinking science is about
>truth. To call it a game is somewhat perjorative. Science is a
>method for investigating the mechanisms of the universe. Investigations
>into the non-mechanistic aspects of the universe are philosophy and
>theology.
There is significant truth in what Dave writes here. Science deals with
'how' questions while theology deals with purpose, or 'why' questions.
But it is CRITICAL to understand that these are not mutually exclusive
truths. We cannot fully understand how without knowing why, and we cannot
grasp why without appreciating how. WHY ARE THESE WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING IN
CONSTANT BATTLE, EVEN HERE AMONG CHRISTIANS WHO ARE SCIENTISTS???
>I believe the truth about the world is that it is non-mechanistic. Most
>believers in God must believe the universe is non-mechanistic, at least
>in part. If we are right, then Science will never arrive at the truths
>that are essential to me until it falsifies itself.
Since God is the creator and since some of His character is revealed through
the creation, we cannot fully understand Him by science alone or by theology
alone. Truth is seen, in part, through mechanisms (which God created), and
through miracles (which God created).
Mechanism is NOT anti-theistic, Dave. Secular people may believe that
mechanism is all that there is, but be VERY careful not to discard what God
created because some want to misinterpret it. Frankly, the mechanistic
world provides a common ground on which to talk to those outside the faith.
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
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
Madison, WI 53792
"What, then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody
asks me" Augustine'Confessions'
__________________________________________________________________________