On Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:56:08 -0500 you wrote:
>SJ>However, I believe it becomes idolatry when scientists mistake
>the rules for ultimate reality, and fail even to consider fairly
>whether a Creator might have originated life.>>
[...]
SJ>We are not just talking not about "practicing science". We are
>talking about the special case of *origins*. Do you really think an
>Isaiah or a Paul (or indeed Jesus), would think it is OK to ignore
>the possibility that God may have originated life?
BH>Let me try a slightly different tack in answer to this. Suppose I,
>as a scientist, do concede that God originated life. Actually that's
>not hard for me because I do believe that God originated life. But
>the more difficult problem is what to do next. I've conceded God
>originated life and now I have a choice: to investigate _how_ he may
>have done this, or to go on to other pursuits. If I choose to
>investigate how God may have originated life I have to study what's
>available to me in the material world: living things and the
>chemical and physical processes associated with life. I don't see
>this as ignoring that God may have originated life. I see it as
>determining not to take any shortcuts to knowledge about the material
>world.
There is absolutely no reason why a believing scientist should not
"investigate how God may have originated life". If he is believing,
then other things being equal, he/she should do better science. A
classic example is Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen's., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin", Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992. Because the authors do
not rule out Divine intervention in the origin of life, they were able
to see clearly (and demonstrate) the flaws in current naturalistic
origin of life scenarios.
PJ writes of Thaxton, et al's, chapter in Moreland's The Creation
Hypothesis:
"The domination of naturalistic philosophy in our intellectual
institutions has had disastrous consequences for Christian faith. It
has also led science itself astray. Some of the best examples of how
naturalism makes bad scienceare in the essay "Information and the
Origin of Life" by Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton. Scientific
naturalists have had to pretend that the "mystery of life's origins"
is well on the way to a solution, and to further that illusion they
have deceived themselves and filled their textbooks with misleading
information. In the stereotyped view of the evolution-creation
controversy it is the believers in creation who are supposed to pit
"faith" against "reason." Yet anyone who reads Bradley and Thaxton
with an open mind can see that it is the chemical evolutionists who
are blinded by their faith in naturalistic solutions and who cannot
see the meaning of the fact that is staring them in the face."
(Johnson P.E., in Moreland J.P. (ed.), "The Creation Hypothesis:
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer", InterVarsity Press:
Illinois, 1994, pp7-8)
>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.>>
BH>I don't see it as ruling it out. I see it as simply acknowledging
>that if I am going to understand how entities in God's creation
>interact with one another I must do some work studying those
>entities. Prayer and trusting in the Lord to provide insights and
>direction ought, in my view to be a part of the process. But my
>conclusions need to be justified by observations, experiments and
>analyses which can be checked by others.
I agree with the above, but that is *not* what Burgy is saying. He
is saying (as I understand it) that science is science and theology is
theology and never the twain shall meet.
My argument is that *at the point of origins*, science and theology
intersect. If God really did create the universe, life and life's new
designs, then a science that rules out even the possibility of those
intersections will forever be doomed to ignorance and irrelevance *at
those points*.
Sure there are dangers. No one wants a bunch of mullahs dictating to
scientists. I do want Denis to be a scientifically trained dentist
if he is going to work on my teeth. If he prays about it - so much the
better! :-) But these are all side-issues that can be sorted out, once
the possibility of Divine intervention is accepted as a scientific
hypothesis.
Of course this won't prove it was the Christian God that did it. No
doubt the Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Mormons and JW's will all claim it
was their God that originated life. And the Bahai's will have an each
way bet by agreeing with all of them! :-) But at least science would
then have resumed back on the right track (after 150 years of
wandering in the wilderness), of thinking God's thoughts after Him.
Happy New Year!
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------