Re: Mooning Johnson

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Tue, 07 Dec 1999 09:39:24 -0500

This discussion reminds me of the tunnel they built connecting England to
France. You dig with the hope of meeting in the middle. Of course, there
one knows of the existence of the other end and are thus coordinating their
efforts for success. That is the way I see the Christian studying Nature and
the Word of God. But when you are in Nature's end of the tunnel, you may be
with people who do not know of the end associated with God's Word. What are
you to do? I think doing good science, specially analyzing all the
presuppositions made, is what keep science within its proper subject matter.
The claim that the scientific method is the only way to know leads to
nihilism, the elimination of other legitimate subject matters, and is really
doing philosophy/theology in the guise of science. I believe that is the
main point of Phil Johnson, as I understand him.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: RDehaan237@aol.com <RDehaan237@aol.com>
Cc: TDavis@messiah.edu <TDavis@messiah.edu>; Asa@calvin.edu <Asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Mooning Johnson

>RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
> ..................................
>
>> Don't we all hold that there are two books that reveal God--the Book of
>> Nature and the Word of God? Is not reading the Book of Nature (i.e.,
doing
>> scientific work) in and of itself, and finding in it a revelation of God,
a
>> legitimate enterprise without necessarily reading the second book. Must
>> every scientific endeavorer glorify the wooden cross? My hunch is that
>> George Murphy's criticism of ID is that is in danger of glorifying the
starry
>> crosses rather than the wooden cross, and thus become idolatrous. While
this
>> is a danger, I do not see it as an actuality, do you? Doing no more than
>> advocating Intelligent Design in nature is enough to be perceived as a
hidden
>> advocacy of the Christian view of nature.
> My own view of the relationship of the "two books" (if we're going to use
that
>metaphor) is expressed pretty well by some comments of Nancey Murphy
(referring to an
>essay of Owen Gingerich):
>
> "Gingerich uses the metaphor of the two books, the Book of Scripture and
the
>Book of Nature, both pointing to God. However, it seems clear to me, based
on the
>considerations I have raised here, that these books ought not to be read
independently
>of one another. In fact, the Book of Nature ought to be read as a sequel
to the Bible.
>As with the sequel to a novel, it is important to read the first volume to
find out
>about the characters. Or to drop the metaphor, we get our hypothesis of
design from
>revelation. Discoveries like the fine tuning come along later, and their
strength as
>evidence lies in confirming an already-existing hypothesis that already has
other
>confirmation from other realms of experience. Without revelation, we would
be at a loss
>to know what we mean by designer in such arguments."
> (In _Science and Theology_, edited by Murray Rae _at al_, Eerdmans, 1994).
>
> I.e., in order for what we learn from nature to tell us anything about
God, we
>have to place it in the context of revelation (or "special revelation" if
you wish).
>There is no legitimate natural theology which is independent of theology
based upon
>revelation.
> This does NOT mean that scientific investigation _of the world_ must begin
with
>Christian presuppositions, intend to glorify the crucified, &c. Atheists
can understand
>the world qua world as well as Christians.
> Shalom,
> George
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>