Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: Behnke, James <james.behnke@asbury.edu>
Cc: 'evolution' <evolution@calvin.edu>; 'ASA reflector' <asa@calvin.edu>;
Wilbur, Frank <frank.wilbur@asbury.edu>; Olsen, Larry <lolsen@asbury.edu>;
Baldridge, Bobby <bobby.baldridge@asbury.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Materialistic Science
>Behnke, James wrote:
>>
>> One of our English faculty is using Johnson's paperback on Defeating
>> Darwinism in Freshman Composition, so some of us scientists are
discussing
>> it.
>>
>> We (the academic community) seem to have decided that good theology is
not
>> required to do good science. An unbeliever can do it just as well as a
>> believer. See Ted Davis' book on Robert Boyle.
>>
>> Is good theology necessary to do good science? Can an unbeliever do
science
>> just as well as a believer? (If so, some form of naturalism is part of
>> science.)
>>
>> Johnson and Moreland have pushing the view that says "No" to the above
>> questions. My view is that J and M are wrong. What do others feel? Is
the
>> study of evolution more naturalistic or materialistic than the study of
>> atoms, molecules and forces?
>
> I think that posing the question as "Is good theology necessary to do good
>science?" skews the issue. It would be better to ask whether any theology
at all is
>necessary to do good science. Is any reference to God necessary or can
science be done
>_etsi deus non daretur_? I would answer that indeed no reference to God is
needed, and
>that the world can be described though (or, as Torrance would prefer, "as
if") God were
>not given.
> A basis for that claim within Christian theology itself was suggested in a
>fragmentary way by Bonhoeffer in his _Letters and Papers from Prison_ and
developed in a
>quite profound way - though without dealing with science - by Juengel in
his _God as the
>Mystery of the World_. I have tried to work out some implications of this
for
>science-theology dialogue in several articles. The basis for all this is a
proper
>theology of the crucified - i.e., good theology.
> However, _bad_ theology can definitely be a hindrance to science. E.g., A
>notion that God continually intervenes in the natural order in arbitrary
ways would make
>the development of science difficult but not impossible. Johnson's
theology isn't that
>bad but his assumption that God must "leave his fingerprints all over the
evidence"
>instead of being the God who hides (Isaiah 45:15) & "empties" (Phil.2:5-11)
himself is
>bad theology which is likely to distort any science which it influences.
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>