Re: Fossil Man again

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Thu, 21 Sep 1995 14:30:36 -0500

This is a resend of my most recent message. In the original, I did not
adequately state who I was responding to.

Stephen Jones wrote:

>Steve
>
>On Fri, 15 Sep 1995 18:30:23 -0500 you wrote:
>
>SC>The lack of an acceptable naturalistic mechanism for the appearance
>>of humans, does not automatically require one to invoke a
>>supernatural explanation.

SJ
>Agreed, but if we have good Biblical grounds to expect a discontinuity
>(eg. the origin of life, the origin of humans, etc), then it is
>surely reasonable to see the lack of naturalistic explanations as
>pointing to a supernatural explanation?

One must be very careful here. The attempt to provide a naturalistic
explanation for the origin of life, etc is fraught with all the potential
weaknesses that accompany human efforts. But then, biblical interpretation
is also a human endeavor and also is fraught with human limitations. In
both cases, the way human limitations affect knowledge need to be
considered. I keep pointing to the Galileo affair as an example that having
"good Biblical grounds" for a certain version of nature, is not a guarantee
that one has truthful knowledge. When biblical interpretation of nature
conflicts with an accepted naturalistic explanation, it does not mean that
the naturalistic interpretation is incorrect, NOR does it mean that the
Biblical interpretation is correct. I submit that the conclusion you come
to in your statement above, reflects a bias of supernaturalism. I also
remind you that your conclusion here is exactly the opposite of what
Augustine, Basil and Acquinas concluded.

SJ
>SC>This is a bias as large as what you accuse Glenn of having.
>
>No. The naturalist (I am not saying that Glenn is one), rules out the
>supernatural apriori. The supernaturalist is open to the possibility
>of there being other than naturalistic causes at strategic points.

I don't disagree with your view of naturalism. But, simply because one
considers supernaturalistic explanations, does not eliminate bias in their
view of nature. From the discussion on this reflector, those who call
themselves supernaturalists present a clear bias when considering
evolutionary science and other issues. Your own bias is evident in the
message to which I respond here. Thus, I find it extremely misleading, and
frankly intellectually chauvinistic, to claim that supernaturalism
eliminates bias.

Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________