On Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:46:35 GMT you wrote:
[...]
>John W. Burgeson wrote on 1st November:
JB>It is a valid issue, I think, as to whether it [excluding divine
>causation] is a "good" rule to follow in science; I think it is ...
There is a little (unconscious) verbal trick here. Usually when one
says "science" he/she is referring to normal, regular, empirical,
observable, repeatable, predictable, science! Excluding divine
causation works in this normal science, and no-one (even the most
enthusiastic Fiat Creationist) is arguing that "excluding divine
causation" is not a good rule to follow in this type of
normal science.
But the real trick begins when one carries this normal science rule of
excluding divine causation into that realm of science that seeks to
understand the unique, historical, unobservable, unrepeatable, and
unpredictable. That area is *origins*. A distinction must be made
between *operation* science and *origin* science:
"...it is far from clear that God is being used as a supernatural
concept in any way inappropriate to science. In this regard, Norman
L. Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson have distinguished between operation
science and origin science. They argue that appealing to God as a
personal first cause is legitimate in the latter but not the former.
Operation science is an empirical approach to the world that focuses
on repeatable, regularly recurring events or patterns in nature (e.g.,
chemical reactions or the relationship between current, voltage, and
resistance in a circuit). Operation science tests theories against
these recurring patterns of events and, theologically speaking,
secondary causes are the only focus. Secondary causation refers to
God's acting mediately (i.e., through the instrumentality of natural
laws); primary causation refers to God's acting immediately (i.e.,
directly, such that discontinuities obtain in the world). In contrast
to operation science, origin science focuses on past singularities
that are not repeatable (e.g., the origins of the universe, life,
various life forms, and mankind). Such singularities can have a
personal first cause, and it is within the domain of origin science to
look for such causes. God, as a term in origin science, means,
roughly, a first cause of some discontinuity or singularity who acts
with intentionality in light of knowledge and purpose." (Moreland
J.P., "Christianity and the Nature of Science", Baker: Grand Rapids,
1989, p225)
and
"In the familiar Popper sense of what science is, a theory is deemed
scientific it can be checked or tested by experiment against
observable, repeatable phenomena. On this basis, relativity theory,
atomic theory, quantum theory, germ theory-all have been judged
scientific. Since all these theories of science deal with various
facets of the operation of the universe, let us call them operation
theories of science. Our point of clarification notes the difference
between operation theories and origin theories, such as theories about
the origin of life. Although the various speculative origin scenarios
may be tested against data collected in laboratory experiments, these
models cannot be tested against the actual event in question, i.e.,
the origin. Such scenarios, then, must ever remain speculation, not
knowledge. There is simply no way to know whether the results from
these experiments tell anything about the way life itself originated."
(Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX,
1992, p8).
>DT >It is important to realise that the naturalistic world view is
>a matter of principle - not a principle of science.
JB>Here we must disagree 100%. I think 99% of all pracicing scientists
>would agree with me. Phil Johnson wants to change this; he is
>making a valiant effort.
DT>I think this 100% disagreement must stand. It may help if I
>comment on the distinction that can be made between empirical science
>and historical science. My empirical science is rooted in a belief
>in God's providence, and so I would never expect a special appeal to
>divine causation to have any place in empirical science. The
>situation is different with historical science - which is concerned
>with unrepeatable, unique events. There are a number of occasions
>where it is perfectly legitimate for scientists to postulate an
>intelligent cause of certain data (for example, the origin of life,
>the origin of the genetic code, the origin of mankind). It is also
>legitimate for naturalistic causes to be proposed. In both cases, it
>should be possible to assess the relative merits of these different
>explanations.
Agreed. However, I think that "origin science" is a special case of
"historical science". Some, eg. Toynbee, thought that there is a
pattern to history, so that it could be predicted, eg. in the rise and
fall of civilisations. History may repeat itself. But origins don't
repeat themself:
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability
of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical
processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals
involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter."
(Dobzhansky T., 'On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology,
Part 1, biology'. American Scientist, vol. 45(5), December 1957,
p388).
DT>I am arguing that this is all legitimate for science. Naturalistic
>science is ruling out of consideration a certain category of
>explanation of origins - but on what grounds? "This is the only way
>to do science!" This is a philosophical position which I find
>indefensible. If we are interested in truth, we MUST allow
>intelligent causation to be a possible explanation. If it is
>deficient, or if other explanations prove superior, let the arguments
>be brought forth.
Agreed. One wonders why divine "intelligent causation" is "ruled out",
considering it is the majority view of everyone else but scientists!
DT>The claim that 99% of scientists (is this figure really correct?)
>have adopted the naturalistic world view is, for me, very depressing.
>It means, in my view, that the philosophical naturalists have total
>command of the field - and that the pioneering work of many
>scientists with Christian convictions is being sacrificed.
One often sees this "99% of scientists believe..." argument.
Science should not be about popularity, but the truth. The fact is
that history has shown that 99% of scientists have often been wrong!
But apart from that, the vast majority of these "99% of all practicing
scientists" are not involved in *origins* and hence their opinion is
just that - opinion. Johnson points out:
"Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a
scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Illinois,
Second Edition, 1993, p13)
DT>For myself, I am encouraged by the message that Phil Johnson is
>bringing - and wish him every success in helping to turn the tide.
Amen! The point is that for *Christians* we are called upon to bear
witness to the truth, as we see it. It may be more popular to
accommodate to our prevailing materialist-naturalist scientific
culture, by "excluding divine causation" as "a `good' rule to follow
in science" (even origin science). But it might not be a good witness
to the truth.
Good bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------