> How can naturalistic science ever know about the actual "origin" of
> anything in the distant past? If God created progressively by
> supernaturally "genetically engineering" Hox genes, how would
> naturalistic science ever know that? Even if it happened *today* in a
> scientists laboratory, science would not know *how* it happened - it
> would know only that it happened. How much less can science know about
> unique events that ocurred hundreds and even thousands of millions of
> years ago? All naturalistic science can do is come up with the least
> implausible *naturalistic* explanation of how it *might* have
> happened.
I essentially agree with this (as you could probably guess from my earlier
post today). I would also say that, ideally, ALL sciences ("naturalistic
science," "theistic science," "pantheistic science," or any other
philosophically framed science which is still "science") should be able to
agree upon the _empirical_ plausability (or implausibility) of various
naturalistic scenarios.
If science _qua_ science tells us that all known naturalistic scenarios
for an event are empirically implausible, then "naturalistic science" will
have to resort to Extraterrestrials, Unknown Mechanisms, or Improbable
Event for further hypotheses, while "theistic science" will also be able
to hypothesize supernatural activity. Our philosophical frameworks guide
the directions we take in looking for testable predictions. Thus, if the
naturalistically implausible event REALLY WAS supernatural, then "theistic
science" would be more likely to propose fruitful new research questions.
----------------------------------------
Later, you wrote:
> Well, I am not "open to a non-interventionist account" for the origin
> of life. If scientists prove that life can originate spontaneously,
> without even human intervention, from non-living chemicals, then I
> think I would give up Christianity and probably theism (although I
> might become a pantheist). And I think that there would be hundreds
> of millions of Christians who would agree with me. The effect would
> be *devastating* and would far surpass anything Copernicus or Darwin
> did. It would be the crowning achievement of materialistic-
> naturalism. You wouldn't have a job Terry, because there would be no
> Calvin College.
Steve, you've written (and quoted) some great things about God's
sustaining of, oversight of, and interaction with (^1) creation in EVERY
event, both "natural" and "supernatural." So I do not understand the
hermeneutical or theological logic of placing "the formation of
self-replicating biochemical entities" in the SAME category as revelation,
the incarnation, the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit INSTEAD of placing
it in the same category as "the formation of the solar system." (I'll
continue discussion on this point in our "Creation >> assembly" thread.)
Even if every naturalist in the world were to leap to philosophical
_non_sequiturs_ from abiogenesis, we theists would not have to follow
their illogic.
[^1 If you still haven't read John Polkinghorne's
_Science_and_Providence_, please do so soon.]
Loren Haarsma