On Mon, 08 Apr 1996 21:01:45 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
SJ>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.
LH>I essentially agree with this (as you could probably guess from my
>earlier post today).
Thank you Loren. I value your scientists affirmation of my home-spun
thoughts! :-)
LH>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.
Agreed. But there as Johnson points out there is immense cultural
power and prestige at stake. According to Johnson, "we don't know" is
not a valid scientific option. In such cases, the next best
*naturalistic* theory rules.
LH>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.
Enthusiastically agree! :-)
LH>Later, you wrote:
SJ>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.
LH>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.
Thanks for this attempt at re-assurance, which I value. I am not
ready to throw the towel in just yet! :-) I don't believe
that science will ever demonstrate a spontaneous naturalistic origin
of life, because IMHO there wasn't one. Indeed, I regard naturalism's
abject failure after 83 (or 43) years of chemical evolution research
as highly significant. If it was possible, it would have already have
been demonstrated.
However, I was speaking of *the real world*. While intellectuals like
you and I might be able to rationalise a 100% naturalistic spontaneous
origin of life from non-living chemicals, my main point was that
"hundreds of millions of (ordinary) Christians" wouldn't. I stand by
what I said: "The effect would be *devastating*" on Christianity "and
would far surpass anything Copernicus or Darwin did." It would be
regarded by naturalists as "the crowning achievement of materialistic-
naturalism", and I predict that great State pressure would be brought
to bear against those remaining die-hard theists who maintained that
an invisible God really was behind the whole thing. Its bad enough
now when naturalists (despite decades of failure) can force eminent
scientists like Prof. Dean Kenyon out of a teaching job for holding
Intelligent Design as an option. Imagine what it would be like if
naturalists were successful!
There is ultimately no middle ground, at least in the real world
where the Church lives or dies. Johnson points out:
"The problem, very briefly stated, is this: if employing MN is the
only way to reach true conclusions about the history of the universe,
and if the attempt to provide a naturalistic history of the universe
has continually gone from success to success, and if even theists
concede that trying to do science on theistic premises always leads
nowhere or into error (the embarrassing "God of the gaps"), then the
likely explanation for this state of affairs is that naturalism is
true and theism is false." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p211)
LH>[^1 If you still haven't read John Polkinghorne's
> _Science_and_Providence_, please do so soon.]
I will try to get it. But I doubt it would materially change what I
said above. While I value the insights of scientists who are theists,
I feel that many of them concede too much to naturalism and concede
too little to supernaturalism. Of Polkinghorne, Johnson says:
"John Polkinghorne, a physicist, Anglican priest and president of
Queens College of Cambridge University, provides valuable reflections
on science and theology in his 1993 Gifford Lectures, published as The
Faith of a Physicist (Princeton University Press, 1994). Polkinghorne
characterizes Hawking's "no beginning point hypothesis as
"scientifically interesting but theologically insignificant." because
"the idea of creation has no special stake in a datable start to the
universe...God is not a God of the edges, with a vested interest in
boundaries. Creation is not something he did fifteen billion years
ago, but it is something he is doing now" (p73)." (Johnson P.E.,
"Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill.,
1995, p225)
I disagree with Polkinghorne on this. The Bible clearly depicts
creation as a finished work:
"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on
the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the
seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the
work of creating that he had done." (Gn 2:2-3)
Johnson continues with the *real* point that Polkinghorne should have
made against Hawking's "no beginning point hypothesis" in defence of
theism:
"This fails to take account of the role the mathematical elimination
of a beginning point plays in shoring up the confidence of the
scientific naturalists, a confidence that was clearly disturbed by the
prospect of having to acknowledge a scientifically ascertainable
moment of creation. The "no beginning point" concept is not
scientifically interesting: it is a mathematical construct that has
no empirical basis, makes no predictions and generates no research
agenda. Its sole purpose is to support the metaphysical principle
that nature is self-contained and effectively eternal." (Johnson,
pp225-226)
The bottom line is that if theism is true, it deserved to *rule* not
just get along with naturalism, and vice-versa.
God bless.
Steve
PS: Sorry if this is a double-up
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------