> Thank you for your clarifications; you have made your position much
> clearer to me, so hopefully I won't accidentally misrepresent it.
For greater detail, I again recommend
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199702/0110.html
> > "There is one event. The Big Bang."
>
> Well, I would disagree that the BIG Bang would demand the "no natural
> mechanism" conclusion.
Ah, but I didn't say that the big bang must be "NO natural mechanism."
I said, "No KNOWN natural mechanism. There are sound empirical reasons
for ruling out known natural mechanism." An important distinction. "No
known natural mechanism" is a provisional statement that leaves open the
possibility that an as-yet unknown natural mechanism could have produced
the Big Bang, and that we will one day discover that mechanism.
> > "On the other hand, I believe that 'no known natural mechanisms' is
> > precisely the right conclusion for a variety of singular historical
> > events (e.g. some miracles recorded in scripture)."
>
> That's a good point, but these events are also the kind of things that
> science cannot study, NOT because they are possibly of supernatural
> origin, but because they are not reproducible or repeatable, and
> science can only study what is reproducible and predictable.
Science can study some unrepeatable events. Science can try to
determine, to the best of its ability, what the conditions were before
the event, what the conditions were after the event, and what natural
mechanisms might have been operating during the event.
In the case of historical miracles of healing, for example, there is
almost no relevant "scientific" data regarding conditions before and
after the recorded miracle. (Instead, we have written historical
accounts.) By contrast, in the case of first life on earth --- another
"unrepeatable" event (unrepeatable given our present level of knowledge)
--- there is quite a bit of relevant scientific data about conditions
before and after. Given enough of this kind of information, scientists
could potentially conclude that some unrepeatable event happened via
"no known natural mechanism."
Again, this is discussed in greater depth in the earlier http reference.
> But at what point in the research process do you say, "I can't find a
> natural mechanism, so I will conclude that this phenomenon cannot be
> explained by natural mechanisms", especially if all you have is
> negative evidence? Put another way, what kind of positive evidence
> could there be that would convince you that you must conclude that no
> natural mechanism is possible?
If someone can offer sound empirical models ruling out all known natural
mechanisms, I would call that positive evidence for the "no known
natural mechanisms" hypothesis. This alone would NOT be enough to
convince me that there was NO natural mechanism AT ALL.
For example, 100 years ago there was very good geological evidence for
the age of the earth to be hundreds of millions of years old or older.
However, all known natural mechanisms at that time predicted that the
sun could only be a few million years old. (Gravitational collapse was
known, but nuclear fusion was unknown.) In this situation, I would have
chosen the hypothesis that some unknown natural mechanism supplied
energy to the sun --- rather than the hypothesis that some supernatural
miracle supplied extra energy for the sun. I would have made that
decision based on a combination of scientific, philosophical, and
theological reasons.
Now, suppose I do conclude "no known natural mechanism" for some
phenomenon or historical event. Moreover, suppose I conclude that the
scientific data, theological data, and other relevant data strongly
favors the "supernatural miracle" hypothesis. At that point, I would
suspend searching for naturalistic explanations. I would devote my
scientific energy elsewhere, to other problems on which I think I could
more usefully spend my time. That does not mean that I would give up all
together on the idea of a new natural mechanism. After all, I could
be wrong. I would not begrudge some other researcher continuing to look
for a new natural mechanism, and I would keep listening to hear if they
made some interesting discoveries along the way.
On the other hand, suppose I conclude, for some phenomenon or historical
event, "known natural mechanisms are adequate" or even "unknown natural
mechanism." Someone else might evaluate the scientific data and
theological arguments differently than me, and prefer the "supernatural
miracle" hypothesis. Again, I don't begrudge them that conclusion, nor
do I begrudge them endeavoring to marshal (sound) arguments to bolster
their case that "empirical arguments rule out known natural mechanisms."
They might do some interesting work along the way.
In both cases, if the arguments are sound and the debate is civil, so
much the better for our search for truth. If the arguments are unsound
and the debate uncivil, well, I'll probably start begrudging....
Loren Haarsma