I will need to back out of the discussion for a while; although it is
interesting, it distracts my attention and time from responsibilities at
work during the day and family in the evenings.
Here is a couple of last comments to clarify what I said about
methodological naturalism.
It used to bother me that Phil Johnson says that "theistic evolution" is an
oxymoron; and yet, I found myself saying the saying thing in my last
post. The problem with these terms is that they are ambiguous about the
methodological versus metaphysical distinction. Given the Johnson does not
see a distinction (i.e., he does not acknowledge the methodological as
legitimate), I can see why he asserts that TE is an oxymoron. In fact,
this is part of the reason why I have always avoided calling myself a
theistic evolutionist. I do not I think that God, as a usual manner of
action, is somehow pushing evolution along in a manner that is inconsistent
with the natural propensities he gifted his Creation with from the
start. The "theistic evolution" label is ambiguous on this point. I state
that I am a Christian (a theist) and an evolutionary biologist. As an
evolutionary biologist, I study the properties, mechanisms and formational
history of biological diversity. As a Christian, I contemplate the
ultimate or divine purpose for all things (including the natural world) in
light of God's Revelation. The latter is a much higher endeavor, since it
includes contemplation of results from natural science but goes far beyond it.
In studying NATURAL phenomena, my only means of inquiry is methodological
naturalism, BY DEFINITION. I do not draw a line anywhere: every phenomenon
which potentially has a natural component (e.g., any event which had an
effect on physical structure) is fair game. I might even investigate
aspects of the resurrection, or perhaps assess the biological paternity of
Jesus from blood samples from Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. I am not afraid to
go there methodologically. Obviously, in many such cases, I will not find
anything because there will be no natural component to the phenomenon
(i.e., with regard to some crucial component of the Miracle). In such a
case, my scientific method has reaches its limit of detection, but that
does not mean further natural scientific inquiry is necessarily
ontologically dead (i.e., that I must draw a line there and never visit the
subject again); rather, I must wait or even search for additional data. As
a natural scientist, one never knows where the line is -- whether the limit
is an ontological one or merely an epistemological one.
Of course, we all choose what we deem is worth our time and energy to
investigate, but that is a different type of line drawing.
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 11:18:41 EDT