> As a layman, I simply cannot understand the debate over whether a
> commitment to methodological naturalism is/is not a prerequisite for doing
> science. Is it overly simplistic to define science as "the study of
> phenomena and their causes?" If so, it would seem that science should
> search for truth, and should go wherever the search leads. Particularly as
> regards the design/descent argument, isn't the pertinent question, "what
> happened?" rather than "what is the proper methodology?" If the true answer
> is, "God did it, all at once," do we not want to know it? IMO, the debate
> over whether to include/exclude God from science turns on whether we truly
> want to deal with the answer. The response, "well, God *may* have done it,
> but that's not for science to decide," is question-begging at its worst.
The point is, Chuck, that science isn't just coming up with stories about
what happened - stories that you can sit in your Lazy Boy recliner and just
think up. Science is coming up with testable hypotheses and many Christians
in science (something you HAVE to remember is that there ARE believing,
practicing, evangelical Christians in science who disagree with you) fail
to see how one can develop the kind of "theistic science" many non-Christian
scientists would like to see.
What you're proposing is something many scientists see as a dead end. I
can say "Well, God caused that" for ANYTHING and it's valid if we believe
in God's omnipotence. The problem is where and when to say that. If we
say it too soon then we may never discover many things about the natural
world.
Here's our difference... You look at some area of science, like evolution,
and see problems and say "See, it's not true and God created everything ex
nihilo just like it says in the Bible." I, on the other hand, would say
"Well there are some problems in this area so that means we should do more
research to see if we can resolve them."
On Fri, 19 Apr, 1996, Randy Landrum wrote:
> Reminds me of something Ken Ham said in one of his books, "Occasionally
> people are upset when dogmatic statements are made. They say, "You cannot
> be dogmatic like that." This itself is a dogmatic statement. Many think
> that some people are dogmatic and others are not. It is not a matter of
> whether you are dogmatic or not, but of which dogma is the best dogma
> with which to be dogmatized!"
Comparing Ken Ham to most scientists with regard to dogma is ludicrous.
I saw Ken Ham talk recently at a local church plugging an Answers in Genesis
seminar. Read my account of his talk (http://ux1.cso.uiuc.edu/~s-schim/
creationists/ham1a.html) and tell me how his dogmatism in any way compares
to that of scientists (if the Bible says all animals were on the ark, then
kangaroos were on the ark, and therefore kangaroos once lived in the Middle
East is an example of Ham's level of thinking). Creationist organizations
have Statements of Belief. Can I become a full-fledged member of the ICR,
even though I have an advanced degree in science, without signing a statement
saying I believe in an old earth and a global flood? No! But any YEC can
join the Geological Society of America (to give an example of a professional
organization in science) without stating that they believe in an old earth.
One can join any of the numerous professional organizations in biology
without signing a pro-evolution statement. It's only creationists who
DEMAND an adherence to dogmatic statements.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium