Re: theistic-friendly science
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 09 Jan 1998 09:25:49 -0500 (EST)At 01:53 PM 1/6/98 -0600, R. Joel Duff wrote:
>>George Murphy wrote:
>>
>>"The _theological_ problem with the claims of Behe _et al_ & the
>>whole ID movement is that they insist that certain natural phenomena
>>_compel_ us - if we're intellectually honest - to acknowledge God at
>>work, & that independently of faith in Christ."
>>
>>George, in my exchanges with the ID folks (how I wish you had been at the
>>NTSE!), I have not observed the above as their assertion.
>
>The ID crowd may not be consciously making these assertions but it is quite
>obvious that they are not communicating what they do believe very well. I
>continue to have discussions with the lay Christian who have read Behe and
>Johnson who either laud them as having shown that science PROVES the
>existence of God in creation or are revolted by what appears to them to be
>a God of the Gaps argument. These responses are coming from those who are
>not privy to the many philosophical and scientific arguments that form the
>backdrop of the current debate but have developed these opinions based in
>large part on the ID literature itself though I can't deny that there is no
>doubt some influence by Christian news sources that have reviewed the
>books. I've read a good bit of the ID literature (and the NTSE papers) and
>its only been with much poking and prodding from a few of you on this list
>that has gotten me to even think that it is possible that that they don't
>believe what it is they appear to be saying :-) Most of the material I've
>read certainly conveys (TO ME) the appearence of an underlying belief that
>would be similar to George Murphy's quote above.
>
>This is all old stuff that we have heard over and over again but I think
>that should just further illustrate that the ID folks if they truly don't
>believe this have not made this apparent in their writing. I am not
>talking about just saying that this is not their assertion but making this
>obvious from reading any portion of their literature not just a tacked on
>appendix.
>
>Joel
The fact that mathematics, a human creation, is useful to describe nature is
the greatest mystery in science. I believe that that mystery attests to the
creation of man and nature by an Intelligent Designer (ID). The atheist who
is a scientist has no answer for that mystery. Therefore, it seems to me
that the notion of an ID has no other usefulness in carrying on science as
we do today. It may have been the determining factor that stimulated the
creation of modern science as we know it today, but once the process began,
then there is no further need to invoke it. Of course, Christians may be
inspired in their work and in the creation of ideas by our faith in Christ.
Certainly, in the area of how life originated, the question of origins,
etc., I believe the difference between the believer and the nonbeliever may
become more evident. Also, the nonbeliever must possess a worldview like the
believer, then nonscientific issues will definitely be handled differently.
The latter, I believe, are the real important issues in life. The
scientific issues are a far second to the real issues that humans encounter
as they live their daily lives.
Moorad