[My apologies for the tardiness of my reply.]
"I think the question of which explanation is superior will depend on the
outcome of future research. If science finds an explanation all well and
good. But if science runs into thirty consecutive dead ends perhaps some
consideration will be given to alternate (even non-scientific) explanations.
As you say below, we may have to wait fifty years for a resolution to this
question."
There have been lots of other issues in which science has run into hundreds,
if not thousands, of dead ends while trying to develop an explanation, yet
at no time has science ever thrown up its collective hands and exclaimed:
"A natural explanation is impossible!" Even if every scientist within a
specific generation stopped trying to find an explanation, the next
generation of scientists would try. And the next. And the next. Science
never gives up until a natural explanation is found, because science cannot
use any explanation other than a natural one. So no matter how many dead
ends are encountered, science will never entertain a non-natural
explanation, because to do so is tantamount to abandoning the scientific
method. Considering science's track record, however, I doubt that will ever
occur.
"Except events non-natural like regeneration that occur in the physical
world."
But as I explained before they are not natural phenomena, so they are beyond
the scope of science.
"Do you consider the objects of historical investigation to be 'physical
phenomena?'"
Not by the strict scientific definition, no. History can be investigated
scientifically (this is known as psychohistory), but since history is often
based on human motivations (which lie outside the scope of science), history
also has a strong non-scientific contingent to it. History and science are
not the same, though they often use the same procedures.
"Is the resurrection a 'physical phenomena?'"
No, because it was accomplished by the application of non-reproducible,
non-predictable, non-natural forces; science can only study phenomena/forces
that are natural, reproducible and predictable. Note, however, that I said
"phenomena/forces", not events. Science cannot explain individual events
unless those events are caused by predictable, reproducible, natural
phenomena/forces; otherwise, at best, all science can do is describe what
happened during that event. This does, however, allow for the possibility
of science recognizing an event as supernatural.
"It doesn't seem to me that this is 'exactly as you explained in the above
paragraph.' You claimed that I lacked imagination. I'm claiming that I have
a broad theology which makes claims about certain physical phenomena. These
don't seem the same to me."
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I meant an earlier paragraph, not
the one immediately above your comment.
"I disagree. The YEC'ers debate these issues because their theology makes
certain claims about the time frame of the creation of the world."
Even the YEC'ers wouldn't agree with that. They debate the issue because
evolution conflicts with their theology concerning salvation, especially
their beliefs in Augustinian-style original sin and physical death being the
punishment for that sin. Their "scientific" arguments are meant to confuse
people into thinking that they are discussing science when they are actually
defending their own narrowly interpreted, literalistic theology.
"I am debating this issue because my theology makes certain claims about the
detectability of God's involvement in creation. The strength (or weakness)
of our faith is non-determinative."
No, you are debating this issue because science as it is currently conceived
challenges your theology, especially the part concerning whether God is the
ultimate reality of the universe. As such, the strength of your faith is
very determinative.
"The 'often' may be correct but I've personally met J.P.Moreland and Hugh
Ross and their faith is anything but weak."
People with weak faith can usually put on a good show, but the criterion for
whether a faith is weak is how vigorously one fights one's theological
opponents, not how loudly one professes one's faith. The weaker one's
faith, the greater the compulsion one feels to defend that faith.
I am reminded of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector who go
into the temple to pray. The Pharisee makes a big show by praying loudly so
that others will think highly of him, while the tax collector prays in
secret. I wonder if part of the problem with the Pharisee is that his faith
was weak, such that he needed public approval to believe that he was true to
God, whereas the tax collector's faith was strong enough that he did not
need anyone's approval but God's. People who feel the need to proclaim
their faith loudly and vigorous have a weaker faith than those who keep
their beliefs to themselves.
Randy: "I believe that the heavens declare the glory of God, not the glory
of quantum tunneling."
Exactly; quantum tunneling challenges your theology, so you try to deny that
it had any effect (see below).
KLOB: "And what if God created quantum tunneling as a tool to make the
universe?"
"Then the heavens would not declare the glory of God."
Exactly; quantum tunneling is such a strong challenge to your theology that
your faith is not strong enough to allow you to accept the possibility that
God could have used it instead of supernatural forces to create the
universe. Consider this analogy: since it is the construction worker, not
the hammer that he uses, that builds a house, so too is it God, not His
tool-use of quantum tunneling, that creates the universe. Yet just as the
construction worker needs to use the hammer to build the house, God may need
to use quantum tunneling to create the universe.
"They would in fact declare nothing. They would just be sitting there as the
possible result of a process which required no involvement by a purposeful,
supernatural Creator."
On the contrary, a supernatural Creator could still have purposefully
created the universe using natural processes; just because the Creator is
supernatural does not mean that His every action must, or even needs to,
involve supernatural forces. But since your theology demands that God must
have created the universe supernaturally, your weak faith will not permit
you to accept the possibility that your theology may be wrong, at least in
this instance. Hence your attempts to deny scientific truths in favor of
allusions to the necessity for science to entertain non-scientific
explanations.
Believe me, I know what you're going through. There were times in my life
when the conflict between science and theology nearly caused me to reject
one or the other. It was only because my faith was strong enough to
accommodate a few theological compromises that I was able to reconcile both.
Randy: "I believe that that which is known about God can be understood
through what had been made."
KLOB: "Which tells us that God created the universe using natural forces
rather then supernatural forces...."
"But based on what you've said so far I don't see how we would learn this
from what has been made."
On the contrary, everything I have said has been trying to demonstrate that
we can determine exactly that; maybe I haven't made myself clear. The
purpose of science is to do exactly this and it has been very successful at
it, in my opinion.
"It seems to me that according to your beliefs the universe could exist even
if God didn't exist."
I am not discussing my beliefs; I am discussing science. Science has shown
how the universe was made by natural forces; that is a fact that cannot be
denied. How you amend your theology in the face of that fact -- or even if
you do -- is up to you.
"Therefore that which had been made tells us only about the totally natural
forces which led to their existence and nothing about a Creator."
On the contrary, it tells us that the Creator is willing to create the
universe using purely natural forces rather than restricting himself to
supernatural forces.
KLOB: "...this does not invalidate the belief that in the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth."
"The passage states that 'that which has been made' gives us actual
information about God. It seems to me that your position is that 'that which
has been made' tells us nothing about God."
Well, if your interpretation were correct, then "that which has been made"
would tell us that God cannot be supernatural. Since that is obviously
wrong then it must be your interpretation that is wrong. Instead of telling
us about the **physical** nature of God, "that which has been made" instead
must tell us about the **psychological** nature of God; for example, that
God decided to use natural forces rather than supernatural forces to create
the universe.
"Well, it's not an either/or situation. The wrong theology of the
geocentrists was based on their incorrect interpretation of Scripture."
Their theology is Christian; is Christianity based on an incorrect
interpretation of Scripture? What is based on an incorrect interpretation
is their scientific claims, not their theological claims. You appear to be
confusing the two.
"And there's nothing wrong with attempting to scientifically validate your
faith if your faith makes claims that can be scientifically tested."
Faith cannot makes claims that are scientifically testable; it wouldn't be
faith otherwise. However, the scientific claims you are making, the ones
that stem from your faith, are themselves based on incorrect interpretations
of Scripture, so if your science was right, your faith would be wrong.
"But, based on my interpretation of Scripture, I believe the origin of the
universe was a supernatural event. Once I understand quantum mechanics
better a may revise my theology but at least for now that is my position."
Why do you believe that? It seems to mean that you believe it because God
is Himself supernatural, but that is a non sequitor. That would be like
saying that because man is flesh and blood, he can only create flesh and
blood objects. Besides, science establishes that the origin of the universe
was not a supernatural event, so it would appear that your interpretation is
wrong.
"Yes. The doctrine of HOW God created the universe is not foundational."
Good to see that we at least agree on the most important issue.
KLOB: "And as I have pointed out continuously, science can only say what
physical reality is, not what reality as a whole is...."
"Sagan didn't and Provine doesn't seem to agree with this position."
Atheists can misrepresent science just as easily as creationists can.
Besides, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy. The fact that
Sagan and Provine believe this does not mean that it is an aspect of the
philosophy of science.
"I would see Simpson's claim that evolution was an undirected process as
tending toward this same type of overstepping. Has the official scientific
community ever expresses a position on this issue?"
But Simpson isn't really saying anything about the nature of reality as a
whole, now is he? He is simply saying that, like any other natural
phenomena such as chemistry or gravity, evolution can occur on its own,
without the need for any supernatural intervention. Notice I said "without
the **NEED** for any supernatural intervention"; that does not mean that
there has **NEVER** been **ANY** supernatural intervention. Or are you one
of those people who believes that God must continually actively operate and
control all natural phenomena to keep the universe from falling apart?
Randy: "I was thinking more of the evidence in the area of how the physical
constants were established. Probably would have helped if I'd said that."
KLOB: "I'm not sure there can be such evidence in that case, because
everything we know so far confirms the evolutionary model for the origin of
the universe. Perhaps if you elaborate, or provide a possible example of
such evidence?
"If science concluded that this universe is the only one that ever existed
or ever will exist, and also concluded that there are 10(exp)1,000,000,000
possible combinations of the physical constants in the universe, and also
concluded that only one combination out of this set would allow any kind of
life to exist what conclusion would science reach about the reason the
constants are the values that will support life."
But that's not evidence; those are the conclusions you would like to draw
from your observation of the universe, but you need evidence to make and
support such conclusions; can you suggest the kind of possible evidence you
would like to see that would allow you to come to these conclusions
(physical evidence, now, not Scriptural)?
KLOB: "You're mixing apples and oranges. Genesis 1-3 purports to describe
historical events; if the actual history of the universe is different from
that description, then Genesis 1-3 cannot be history and therefore must be
allegory or myth. Science, however, purports to explain only the physical
universe, nothing else. Science can often be wrong in its explanations, but
it always corrects itself; science would have to be fundamentally wrong to
abandon it for some other methodology."
"I'm not suggesting that scientific methodology is fundamentally wrong, just
incomplete."
Incomplete in what sense? Incomplete in its ability to explain the physical
universe? Then it would be fundamentally wrong. Incomplete in its ability
to explain reality as a whole? That's not the purpose of science, so that
does not constitute any form of incompleteness.
"I'm not asking scientists to abandon their methodology, just to integrate
the findings of other truth seeking disciplines with their scientific
research."
Since the purpose of science is to explain the physical universe, and since
scientific methodology is the best way to do that, why should scientists
weaken their superior methodology by integrating into it inferior
methodologies?
KLOB: "Exactly right. Science cannot determine what the motive was for
creating the universe; it can only determine how the universe was made, not
why. Therefore any scientific "theory" that assumes a "personal" motive is
_a prior_ unscientific."
"Hmm. Elsewhere you state that science can investigate any natural physical
phenomena that occurs in the physical universe. So would something like the
explanation of the Piltdown hoax not be a scientific theory? If it's not
then it's probably an example of the type of research integration that I
referred to above."
Piltdown Man was not a general phenomenon, it was a specific event, and I
have already explained that science cannot explain individual events, only
describe them. Besides, uncovering the Piltdown Man hoax has nothing to do
with explaining the physical universe, which is what we are discussing.
Additionally, science can be used as a tool in forensic investigation, but
forensic investigation is itself not science. They have completely
different purposes. To accomplish its purpose, forensic investigation must
include psychological methodology as well as scientific methodology, but
science does not, because if natural phenomena are not directed, then there
is no intelligence to investigate, but if they are then the intelligence
directing them is itself beyond human comprehension, so therefore it is also
beyond scientific explanation.
Randy: "If by this you mean that God created the quantum nothingness so
that it had the characteristic of giving rise to universes spontaneously
(hopefully I'm stating this correctly) then I guess we just have different
theological views. What led you to this conclusion?"
KLOB: "Scientific knowledge that the origin of the universe was a natural
phenomenon coupled with my belief that God created the universe."
"So it appears that both scientific and theological considerations have led
you to a particular theological conclusion.
If you want to believe so; I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
KLOB: "Science can be led to consider any explanation, but if it cannot
test those explanations against physical reality then science cannot use
them to understand the universe. Science can only understand what it can
study, and it can only study what it can test. Explanations that cannot be
tested are a waste of time and so ignored as worthless."
Randy: "Okay. It just seems to me that there are other tests use in other
disciplines which could be considered here."
KLOB: "But science can only use tests against physical reality; all other
kinds of tests are worthless from a scientific point of view as tools to
understand and explain the universe."
"Okay. But every truth-seeking discipline has ways of testing for the truth
established by their particular discipline. Why can't scientists use these
other facts that have passed these other tests-for-truth in their scientific
research?"
Because scientists could not trust the accuracy of these "facts" until
they had been tested against physical reality, and the overwhelming majority
of such "facts" could never be tested against physical reality. Science can
only study the physical universe, and it can do so only by testing facts
against physical reality. A "fact" that cannot be tested against physical
reality is worthless in science.
Randy: "I don't disagree that the ID`ers are doing what you're saying
they're doing. I'm just not sure that it's necessarily a bad thing."
KLOB: "Then you are also saying that science is not the proper way to
pursue these questions, because the ID'ers are not doing science."
Randy: "Since I believe God created the universe supernaturally, not
mechanistically, I would agree with this statement. I agree that what the
ID'ers are doing is not science as science is officially described. But I
think it's a valid method of seeking the truth, even if it's not valid
science."
KLOB: "I would agree to that, provided that ID'ers stopped trying to pass
off what they do as legitimate science and call it what it really is,
theological or metaphysical investigation."
"Okay, but I don't think that moves the debate forward. Science then simply
becomes a label for a truth-seeking discipline which is narrow and refuses
to consider explanations for physical phenomena provided by other
disciplines."
Mostly because all those "explanations...provided by other disciplines" were
proven wrong when science found ways to test them against physical reality.
I find that very significant.
"The scientific approach to research on phenomena like the mind becomes
'wait for us to come up with an explanation based solely on the functioning
of natural forces' instead of considering the results of other truth-seeking
disciplines."
Not really, though it can seem like that to a lay person looking for
specific answers that do not yet exist. However, considering that all
explanations for physical phenomena proposed by "other truth-seeking
disciplines" in the past have been proven wrong, why should science
entertain explanations it has no confidence will be correct?
Randy: "What I'm specifically objecting to is the claim that science will
one day be able to extrapolate to a future state of the mind (i.e. a future
decision) based on the present physical state of the brain. Since I believe
the mind has a non-physical component I don't believe science can fully
explore it's workings."
KLOB: "Then that's another difference between us; let's approach this topic
again in another fifty years to see who is closer to the truth."
"So do I understand you to be saying that you don't believe the mind has a
non-physical component?"
Not necessarily; what I meant was that another difference between us is that
you appear to be offended whenever science investigates a phenomenon that
influences your personal beliefs, whereas I am not.
"And that future decisions are determined by the physical states of the
brain?"
People with psychoses have organic problems in their brains that cause the
conditions that affect their minds. So this is at least one case where
"future decisions are determined by the physical states of the brain".
"You made reference to the 'molecular basis' of free will; what do you
understand free will to be?"
What I said was that one day we may be able to understand the molecular
basis of free will just as we now understand the understand the molecular
basis of psychoses, addiction and psychopharmacology. I did not say that
free will had to have a molecular basis; neither can I say what I believe
free will to be.
"And would this be an example of science intruding into an area of
theological research?"
No, because for now there is no scientific reason for believing that the
mind is either not a physical phenomenon or a physical phenomenon that is
neither predictable nor reproducible.
"Theology would claim that the mind has a non-physical component."
Your theology might, but Christian theology is mute on this subject.
"Is science claiming that the mind does not have a non-physical component?"
There is not enough information for science to say one way or another, just
as science cannot comment on the reality of the soul. However, considering
all the natural phenomena that people once claimed must have had
non-physical components which we now know do not, I personally see no reason
to abandon all that history and start claiming that the mind must be
non-physical simply to avoid offending you.
KLOB: "I have also been conditioned by a lifetime of experience, 40 years
as a Christian and 15 years as a biochemist, to believe that everything we
can experience in this physical universe can be explained by natural
mechanistic forces."
Randy: "But regeneration is something I've experienced in this physical
universe and I don't believe this experience is explainable by natural
mechanistic forces."
What I meant was any **physical experience** can be explained by natural
mechanistic forces; spiritual regeneration is not a physical experience.
Randy: "I guess I should state that I have no scientific evidence that I
have in fact been regenerated, my evidence would come from other
truth-seeking disciplines, but it does meet the criteria of being something
I have experienced in this physical universe."
KLOB: "You are referring to spiritual regeneration no doubt. That's
actually something I've never experienced, because I was raised a Christian
rather than converted, so I never had a 'conversion experience'."
"From my theological perspective one can't be 'raised' a Christian."
Then your theological perspective is wrong. Christianity is based on the
concept that it is something that must be taught to people. Becoming "born
again" occurs as a result of this teaching, not independently of it, and it
doesn't have to come like a bolt from the blue; it can instead occur as a
slow realization after many years of study, prayer, meditation and
reflection.
"One becomes somebody's son through an event; either birth or adoption."
And compared to birth, adoption is a long, slow, laborious process. Being
converted to Christianity when an adult is a rapid event, like birth;
raising a child to be Christian is the equivalent of adoption in this case.
"In the same way, from my theological perspective, one becomes a Christian
through an event, in this case regeneration and conversion."
Let me guess; you were not raised Christian (or were simply born into a
Christian home but not actively taught what it means to be Christian by
parents and church), but were converted to it later in life, as a teenager
or a young adult at college most likely. Your perspective is typical of
such experiences, and certainly reflects the early history of Christianity,
when apostles went into Jewish or pagan communities to preach the Word. But
eventually these converted people began having children, and they felt
compelled to teach Christianity to them as they grew up. As such, the
emphasis of Christianity changed from a proselytizing religion (where all
must converted) to a nurturing religion (where all are raised within the
religion). Certainly proselytizing continues, but to believe that the
billion or more people born into Christian homes that are raised to be
Christian are in fact NOT Christian simply because they had never been
converted is in my opinion prejudicial and blasphemous.
"I guess we mean different things by the term 'Christian'."
To me a Christian is what Paul meant it, a follower of Christ: a person who
believes that Christ died to pay for the sins of all mankind, so that all
people my have life, as well as someone who lives as Christ taught us to
live. You and I are discussing how one becomes Christian, not what makes
one Christian. However, since Paul indicates that salvation, like original
sin, was imposed upon all mankind without choice, it really doesn't matter
whether we acknowledge that or not: our salvation from original sin is
guaranteed. What matters now is how we live that life.
KLOB: "However, spiritual regeneration is not a natural phenomenon, which
is what I meant when I said 'everything we can experience in this physical
universe'; it's my fault for not making myself plainer, but I didn't think I
had to. Since it is not a natural phenomenon, then obviously it cannot be
explained by natural mechanistic forces."
"So are you saying that there are events that occur in this world that are
not explainable by natural mechanistic forces?"
Yes, I have already said that. Spiritual events, non-natural physical
events and natural events that are not reproducible or predictable cannot be
explained by science; they might be explainable by natural mechanistic
forces, but science cannot provide such an explanation. Science could only
describe these events and suggest certain explanations, but with no way to
test those explanations scientific methodology is useless for finding an
explanation. We would then need to turn to other methodologies to find
those explanations.
Randy: "I also believe that the resurrection is an event that has occurred
in this physical universe that cannot be explained scientifically."
KLOB: "Ditto what I said above for regeneration; by the way, did you know
that at least a dozen religious figures have bodily resurrected in the
course of human history?"
"RESPONSE A: Oh, sure. There was Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, etc."
I meant people from other religions; Christianity holds no patent on claims
of bodily resurrection, you know.
"RESPONSE B: To be theologically precise, those other figures were
resuscitated, not resurrected."
Again, maybe your theology claims that, but not Christian theology.
Resurrection is the return of life to the dead, whereas resuscitation is
merely the support of what life is left until it grows stronger. There is
no Scriptural doubt that Lazarus was dead.
"RESPONSE REAL: You brought this up, I imagine, because you don't believe
any of them (Jesus included?) TRULY resurrected? Or because you consider
the Christian claim of Christ's resurrection to be just one-in-the-crowd?"
No, it was to suggest that resurrection may be at least reproducible and
possibly even predictable; if so, then it might be a legitimate field of
scientific inquiry.
Randy: "But it does open up the possibility that some phenomena which may
SEEM to be natural may in fact be supernatural and therefore not have a
scientific explanation."
KLOB: "Why? What, other than your religious belief and your desire to
prove that belief, leads you to draw this conclusion?"
Randy: "I have no scientific evidence, if that's what you're asking.
Although, by definition, I couldn't have any scientific evidence for
ANYTHING supernatural."
KLOB: "And since all known scientific evidence for all known scientific
phenomena demonstrates that all known scientific phenomena are in fact
really natural, this point is moot."
"And also tautological."
So? A tautology is the simplest true thing you can say about a subject (I
am not defining tautology here, merely describing its results). All dogs
are dogs (or better still all beagles are dogs) may be simplistic and overly
obvious, but it's still true.
"Natural phenomena are by definition scientific."
Technically, only natural phenomena that are reproducible and predictable
are by definition scientific phenomena, but I won't belabor the point.
"Based on your comments above it seems that you would reclassify any event
like regeneration as non-natural."
No, actually, I would not, because only you have tried to classify it as a
natural phenomenon simply because it is an event that occurs within the
physical universe. Since I recognize that it is in fact a spiritual event I
would classify it as a non-natural event occurring within the physical
universe as the result of spiritual forces.
"So if mankind is to investigate events like regeneration and the
resurrection methods other than science will have to be used. And of course
the evidence that these events are non-natural would be theological
evidence, not scientific evidence."
True, but what's your point? I never claimed that science was the only way
to investigate reality as a whole or any event; I have been very careful to
state that science can only investigate reproducible, predictable, natural
phenomena that occur within the physical universe. Everything else must be
investigated by other, non-scientific means.
Randy: "I don't seem to detect an openness to this possibility from you. Am
I mistaken?"
KLOB: "I need more than just your personal opinion; my personal opinion
says otherwise, but that hardly counts as proof that I am right. What
(scientific) evidence do you have that might support this claim?"
Randy: "Again, if I understand the rules correctly I could, BY DEFINITION,
have no scientific evidence that a supernatural event had occurred."
KLOB: "I see, you misunderstood what I said. (What I meant was that
science can never study or explain supernatural phenomena; it was not my
intention to claim that science could never describe or identify such
phenomena.) Actually you can conceivably have scientific evidence that an
event is not reproducible, was not predictable and was not natural...."
"I think this is my main question. How does science determine that an event
is non-natural?"
Since it has so far never occurred, I can only give tentative suggestions.
If some biochemical phenomenon were found to have no molecular explanation,
that would qualify as a non-natural event. For example, a clergyman prays
that a parishioner's cancer is cured; the tumor subsequently disappears and
never comes back. Scientists study the event, but cannot find a molecular
cause for the remission. They would call it a spontaneous remission, but
that label would explain nothing. Future generations would no doubt
continue to study the event, but if there is no molecular cause for the
remission they will never be able to explain it.
That is a negative example; here's a more positive one. The conservation of
momentum states that in a perfectly elastic collision it is impossible for
the sum of the momentums of the colliding macromolecular objects to be
different after the collision from before. Imagine someone excavating
Jericho found two golden spheres that, when they collided, always had a
momentum sum greater after the collision than they had before. Though no
doubt all sorts of weird natural explanations would be concocted to explain
the phenomenon, by definition it is a distinctly non-natural phenomenon.
What examples would you suggest (besides spiritual regeneration and bodily
resurrection)?
KLOB: "...in that case science could only describe the event, not explain
it. But so far no such event has ever been discovered."
"But this sounds like you're saying that science would in fact 'throw up
its' hands and give up'. Based on our interaction so far I wonder if the
resurrection occurred today if science would say 'Give us enough time and
we'll explain this event! But don't you religious types try to pass this off
as a miracle!'"
Science cannot abandon as unexplainable reproducible, predictable, natural
phenomena, but it can and has acknowledged that specific non-reproducible,
unpredictable events are unexplainable. As long as the resurrection was not
reproducible or predictable (even if it was natural), science would
recognize it as an unexplainable event. Individual **scientists** may not
admit this, but neither would they ever be able to explain it despite their
blind faith.
Randy: "If science claimed that space-time was the fundamental reality of
existence then I would simply disagree; God is the fundamental reality."
KLOB: "Exactly. If science were to ever prove ID wrong...."
Randy: "This isn't what I said. I said if science ever makes claims about
the fundamental reality of existence (not just PHYSICAL existence, but ALL
of existence) then I would reject the claim as already disproven by theology
and outside the proper realm of scientific inquiry (at least from my
perspective)."
KLOB: "But science would never, in fact could never, make such a claim,
though some atheist scientists might."
"So what determines the point at which this claim goes from being the
opinion of certain atheist scientists and becomes the official position of
science?"
Nothing. There is no "official position of science" on these kinds of
matters; there is only what the philosophy of science says are legitimate
areas of scientific investigation. And this does not change for the desires
of atheists anymore than it does for the desires of creationists.
"At least some scientists have already made the claim that evolution is an
undirected process and I haven't heard of any backlash from the official
scientific community."
For one thing, there is no "official scientific community". What do you
think we are, some sort of secret society? For another, saying that
evolution is undirected is not the same thing as saying that "space-time
[is] the fundamental reality of existence." For still another, saying that
evolution is undirected is no more atheistic than saying that chemistry is
undirected. For still another, most scientists don't care if some of their
colleagues say stupid things; after all, it's a free universe. Just as long
as they don't falsify their data.
Kevin L. O'Brien