You wrote:
> Because of the qualification "every time", you insure that no one can answer
> your question with certainty. Still this does not detract from Lloyd's
> point that the operation of much of the cosmos is currently well understood
> mechanistically.
I think this is a tremendous fallacy. The operation of much of the
cosmos is *not* well understood mechanistically. We understand some
very important principles that seem to apply in a number of useful
circumstances, but scientists pretend a far better understanding of the
universe than we actually have, and then we indoctrinate school
children about our current opinions and speculations as if they were
fact.
Was there a big bang? If the COBE data a few years ago hadn't shown
some ripples in the cosmic background radiation, the big bang idea
would likely be headed for the dustbin.
Personally I don't see any theological conflicts between Christianity and
the big bang, or evolution (though I have some with `natural selection').
So please don't think I am anti-science for theological reasons.
My objection is to the attempt of science to replace faith in God based
on the presentation of science as the arbiter of truth. Medicine
used to do something similar by cultivating a God-like view of physicians,
but that is falling away. Perhaps science's image will be cut to a more
reasonable size someday also.
I wrote:
>>An infinitessimal number of falling rocks have their trajectories
>>evaluated scientifically. At best science can measure what God *tends*
>>to do *while* we are watching.
You responded:
> This, then, would be described as a law of nature.
Yes exactly. What we perceive as laws of nature are simply what God
tends to do. The only fundamental law of nature that I know of is that
creation is subject to the sovereign will of its creator. Raining manna
from the sky like clockwork, parting the Sea of Reeds, walking on water,
stopping the sun in the sky for a day -- all these events are not
`violations' of natural law, just instances where God did something
different than usual. There is no supernatural, just the unusual.
> At one time, it was generally believed that seemingly capricious phenomena
> such as earthquakes and tornadoes occurred at the whim of God and their
> causes were beyond human contemplation.
The Scripture teaches so. That doesn't mean that we cannot understand
aspects of the phenomena. Will science advance to the point where it
can predict the demise of Babylon based on the great earthquake
of Rev 16:18? Will the withholding of rain in Zech 14:17
be subject to human weather prediction? I suspect not.
You wrote:
> Science, then, can be another way to understand the character of God.
Exactly. And this is the point I really want to get at. Science believes
that the universe is ruled by some set of discernible principles. These
are the 'god' of science, as attested by the frequent use of `god' as
the metaphor for these principles.
I believe that the universe is not ruled by discernible principles, but
by God. The discernible principles are manifestations of His character,
as you say also.
These views are frequently compatible, and we can move between the realms
easily enough (as I wrote last month). However there are some places
where problems arise.
What about earthquakes, natural disasters, the spread of disease?
In the Scripture these events often represent signs of various kinds.
If ones faith is that the supreme authority in the universe is mechanism,
then we had better focus on controlling the mechanisms. If the faith is
that God is sovereign, then we must appeal to God.
What about everyday issues of human relationships? Is psychology the
answer? What about politics and the interaction of nations? Is this
also subject to natural laws? Or to God?
I think the difference in the mechanistic and theistic approaches to
the universe is summed up in Romans 1:20-23. Will we worship the
Creator or the creation? Do we look to Him for life and sustenance, or
to the power of our own hands and understanding? (Deut 8:17).
If we worship the Creator, that does not mean that we cannot do interesting
science. It just means that our understanding of the cosmos should lead
us to increasing humility rather than increasing arrogance. At least that
seems to be the lesson of Job 38.
Regards.
--Dave