RE: Scientific theory

This 2 extracted partial-paragraphs is the portion with which I agree
100% down to the bone of D.F. Simmons remarks:

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.

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."

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 3:10 PM
To: dfwinterstein@msn.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; RFaussette@aol.com; alexanian@uncw.edu
Subject: 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 16:36:31 2004