John W. Burgeson wrote 11 December 1995:
>SJ> And with Phil Johnson I cannot understand how Christians who
> believe that God is real and that He did in fact originate life,
> believe it is *in principle* leads to better science to rule this
> out.>>
>
> JB> I can accept that you "cannot understand." Herein lies the crux
> of our mini debate. Let me give two or three reasons why this is so.
>
> 1. It never allows a scientific copout -- "god of the gaps."
> 2. It keeps the occult out of science.
> 3. It allows people with wildly varying metaphysical assumptions
> coming from many cultures to agree on a common set of ground rules.
> 4. It works well.
> 5. It is so commonly accepted that those who flaunt it are
> liable to be ignored or ridiculed. This is just a fact.
>
> That's five reasons. Maybe others can add more.
After a month away - this is close to the burden of my last post!
I'm not at all happy with these five "reasons".
1. It never allows a scientific copout -- "god of the gaps."
But the cost of this principle is to generate new "gaps" - problems
which are not being solved despite immense research effort. Is
"science" forever condemmed to go down these various cul-de-sacs?
Surely there's a better way!
2. It keeps the occult out of science.
This also applies to science based on God's providence. This reason
cannot only be claimed by a science which only allows naturalistic
mechanisms.
3. It allows people with wildly varying metaphysical assumptions
coming from many cultures to agree on a common set of ground
rules.
Of course! If we all accept naturalism as the basis for science,
then we have a common set of rules. But if everyone accepted the
providence of God as the basis for the consistency, predictablity and
reasonableness of the created order, that would also provide a common
set of ground rules. These ground rules will have a "religious"
character. I know Christians differ on this - but I will argue that
Christians who adopt naturalism as their "ground rules" are shooting
themselves in the foot.
4. It works well.
I could argue that the only scientific philosophy with a good track
record is based on Christian presuppositions. This would see the
development of the scientific revolution in Europe as a fruit of a
biblical worldview. When in history does the track record of
naturalism start? I'm not sure I can answer that - as numerous
scientists in this century have been willing to associate themselves
with the Christian worldview.
5. It is so commonly accepted that those who flaunt it are
liable to be ignored or ridiculed. This is just a fact.
There is no doubt that naturalistic scientists form "the
establishment" in contemporary science - and are vociferous in
defending their position. I see no reason why this should affect our
thinking. This is not a reason for accepting the status quo and
working within it - our task is to promote what we consider to be
right.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***