> LH:==
> >Yes, if I am pretty sure that "no known natural mechanisms could account
> >for [an] event," I see this as evidence for a SUPERnatural event (or I
> >MIGHT prefer "unknown natural mechanism," depending heavily on the type of
> >"event" and several theological factors --- I could give you an historical
> >example of this if you are interested).
> I would certainly be interested in this historical example. Examples
> are often the keys to reaching some understanding or agreement.
The historical example I had in mind was the unknown source of stellar
energy in the early 1900's. Scientists (Christian and non-Christian) had
been certain for decades that the earth's age was at least several 100
million years, but the only known source of stellar energy (gravitational
collapse) couldn't even last 1 million years. The choices facing a
Christian then were
1) Earth created recently with the appearance of great age
2) Earth created long ago and supernatural source of energy for sun
3) Earth and sun created long ago and unknown natural mechanism for
stellar energy source.
Given the theological problems with 1 & 2, had I been alive then, I would
have favored option 3 fairly strongly.
Note, I do not think the case is so clear-cut with abiogenesis today. I
find the theological arguments for and against "supernatural event" almost
balanced. (The difference in this case is that formation of first life,
if supernatural, would have been a one-time supernatural assembly event in
history, while the stellar energy source, if supernatural, would be a
continual supernatural process. There are greater theological problems
with the latter than the former.)
----------------------------
Brian continues:
> My objection to the above is that just determining whether *known*
> mechanisms can account for something is a really tall order. WRT
> the origin of life, science is a long long way off from determining
> this. The extrapolation from no *known* naturalistic mechanisms
> can account for this to *no* naturalistic mechanisms can account
> for this is even more problematic.
Agreed, and agreed.
Science can say, "No *known* naturalistic mechanism." Science canNOT say,
"*No* naturalistic mechanism." That is beyond science, and people will
use philosophical and religious arguments to decide/debate that point.
Even if science says, "no known naturalistic mechanism," that does not,
and should not in and of itself, stop the search. Even people who are
convinced, for philosophical or religious reasons, that there are *no*
naturalistic mechanisms will not necessarily stop the search for new ones,
though they might be more leisurely about it. ;-)
Science needs to continually look for new natural mechanisms for
puzzling events, even when there are no serious contenders. However,
science can and does put such problems on the "back burner" for a while.
--------------
So let me assure you that I agree with your main point about "false
alternatives." Natural and supernatural are not conflicting alternatives.
--From a theological perspective, a "natural" event can have a
supernatural component.
--From a scientific perspective (as I tried to make clear in my
"science and supernatural explanations" post), "supernatural" is not
the alternative to "natural;" rather, "supernatural" is the
alternative to "superhuman," "chance," and "unknown mechanism" for
events in which known initial conditions and known natural mechanisms
could not lead to the final conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it was so, it might be; |
and if it were so, it would be; | Loren Haarsma
but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
-- Tweedledee (Lewis Carroll) |