On Tue, 01 Oct 1996 14:32:20 -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
SC>Regardingthe discussion about appealing to the future for evidence
>to corroborate theories: it seems to me that this is precisely how
>science is done.
SC>I presume that this aspect of science is what kept the likes of
>Howard Temin, Barbara McLintock, etc. going in the face of great
>disbelief.
This could give a false impression. The "disbelief" in question was
from fellow scientific materialists.
SC>If they didn't think that they could find naturalistic
>explanations for the phenomena they spent many years studying, then
>they would not have put up with the resistance they encountered. Of
>course, McLintock's observation of "jumping genes" could have been
>explained by divine intervention, and her insistence that there was
>a logical scientific explanation for this phenomenon could be called
>"naturalism of the gaps."
This point would only be valid if *theists* were proposing "divine
intervention" to explain reverse transcriptase and "jumping genes".
This just perpetuates a caricature of theistic realism. No theist of
any note (at least since Newton) AFAIK *ever* claims that "divine
intervention" is necessary to explain some problem in the
normal ongoing operation of the cosmos. Theists would *expect* some
naturalistic explanation to matters covered by God's providential
preservation and governance.
The only point that theists consider "divine intervention" a
possibility is in the case of *origins*. Moreland answers this
"God-of-the-gaps" criticism of his theistic science model:
"...the model does not appeal to or attempt to explain in light of
God and his activities to cover our ignorance, but only when good
theological or philosophical reasons are present, such as when
certain theological or philosophical reasons would cause us to expect
a discontinuity in nature where God acted via primary causation
(e.g., the origin of the universe, first life, basic "kinds" of
life)...it is to be expected that gaps will be few. Gaps due to
primary divine agency are miracles, and they are in the minority for
two reasons: (1) God's usual way of operating (though I acknowledge
the need for further clarity regarding this notion) is through
secondary causes. Primary causal gaps are God's extraordinary,
unusual way of operating; by definition, these will be few and far
between. (2) The evidential or sign value of a miraculous gap arises
most naturally against a backdrop where the gaps are rare, unexpected
and have a religious context (there are positive theological reasons
to expect their presence)." (Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1994, pp59-60)
SC>I have asked before, with no answer, when should science stop
>looking for naturalistic explanations for a given phenomenon?
No theist AFAIK is saying that "science" should "stop looking for
naturalistic explanations for a given phenomenon" - certainly not in
the case of the *ongoing operations* of the cosmos. But what
theistic realists are saying is that in the case of *origins*
science should broaden its horizons beyond the arbitrary restriction
of methodological naturalism to consider the possibility of an
exogenous Intelligent Designer.
After all, as Ratzsch points out, if there really is an Intelligent
Designer and He has supernaturally intervened in the cosmos, to have
a rule of science that deliberately ignores that possibility,
permanently consigns science to potential incompletness and error:
"If there are no gaps in the fabric of natural causation, thenp
obviously appeal to divine activity will get us off track. On the
other hand, if there are such gaps, refusing on principle to
recognize them within science will equally get us off track. We
should perhaps be wary of both ways of going wrong. If in our
intellectual endeavors we are attempting to get at truth as best we
can, then if we have rational reason-from whatever source-to believe
that God has taken a hand in the origin or ongoing operation of the
cosmos, arbitrarily excluding that belief needs some justification."
(Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is
Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove, Ill., 1996, pp193-194)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------