Re: Scientific theory

Contrary to widely accepted claims, neither theism not atheism, plus
variants and agnosticism, are scientific. They belong to theology and
philosophy, as do the assumptions underlying science. As a theist, I hold
that all matters are under God's control even though we do not see God's
hand in any empirically verifiable way. In some cases I may distinguish
deterministic chaos from indeterministic results, but essentially I
cannot claim to demonstrate true randomness from divinely controlled
effect, for they look the same to observers. Were I a deist, I would
trust in the order God created in the universe, but not in further
direction. As a theist, I trust in temporal order, but I also trust God
for health, daily bread, guidance, and everything else I have need of. I
also go to physicians for check ups and take the pills they prescribe.
But I go to them for physical (and psychological) matters, not for
theological and philosophical matters. Also, I do not discount farmers,
millers, bakers, planning, etc.

As I read various studies, I encounter some that describe causal
connections, others where there are gaps. I have a choice between
claiming that this is where I see God's hand, the ID response; or that
this is a manifestation of current ignorance. Since I hold that God is
involved in everything, I have to go along with the latter Will we ever
fill these gaps? I don't know. I hope understanding increases. But it
really doesn't matter. I'll never have to say, "Oops, it was just human
ignorance not divine action." Thinking back to the theories of the nature
of protoplasm that I learned in college, boy were we confused. Are we
still? I don't know, for I'm not that many decades in the future. We did
get some things right, at least I've seen no change of mind about them.
Dave

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:24:00 -0800 "Don Winterstein"
<dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:
The proposed mechanisms of evolution are far more open to challenge on
religious grounds than the facts of evolution. First of all, since we're
talking science, any proposed mechanism must exclude God as a direct
cause, because science as we practice it deals only with physical causes.
 For a religious person, this stipulation may be too restrictive. ID
scientists, for example, imply we should not honor it. The reality,
however, is that we know of physical mechanisms related to DNA, mutation,
natural selection, etc., that can produce observed life-form changes in
principle. No one can prove that any observed change in life form in
nature owes exclusively to such material mechanisms. At the same time
there is no widely accepted scientific alternative.

Hence evolution is a very respectable scientific theory: It accounts
elegantly by means of known physical mechanisms for a huge body of facts,
and it suggests many avenues for further investigation. As with all
scientific theories, it may not constitute the final word on the subject,
nor can it be said to have been "proven."

For religious persons such as I who believe that the created world was
not competent enough to go from beginning to end without outside help,
the theory of evolution does not preclude my postulating divine
interventions from time to time, provided I don't claim that such
postulations are scientific.

Don
Received on Wed Dec 8 16:13:41 2004