Bill says:
> The obvious flaw in this definition is the use
> of "unsupervised". It is not within the competence of science alone to
> determine whether a natural process is supernaturally supervised. Since
> these people are teaching our children, we need to set them straight.
>
> The use of "impersonal" doesn't particularly bother me, because _processes_
> happen to be impersonal. People are personal. God is personal. Processes
> aren't.
Surely when we see a supervised process, it becomes personal? Making
a cup of tea for a guest is a personal process. Dressing a baby is a
personal process. I see the use of the word "impersonal" in the
STATEMENT as a polemic against theistic science, in which processes
are expressions of God's providential government of the cosmos.
Perhaps we need to be more forcible on his point. Do we live in a
mechanistic universe? Some Christians have answered "yes" - but in
my opinion the answer is "no". There are no impersonal processes!
It is God who makes the rain fall, the grass grow, who feeds the
animals, etc. In him we live and move and have our being.
> It seems to me that if we insist that scientists constrain their
> pronouncements (the ones labelled as science anyway) to valid scientific
> conclusions, that the most they can say about the issue of supervision is
> that they _cannot establish_ by scientific means whether the process of
> evolution is supervised or not. That is not the same as saying evolution
> is unsupervised. There's a world of difference.
I am tempted to point out that the same applies to "personal
processes". The methods of science will not enable anyone to say
whether processes are personal or impersonal.
I feel somewhat guilty writing this, as I shall be away after today
until 12 August. Apologies to Bill particularly for not being able
to respond further until then. However, I hope this post helps the
discussion.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***