On Mon, 08 Apr 1996 17:37:41 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: Science cannot prove that some past event was
>"supernatural;" however, it can in principle establish that no known
>natural mechanisms could account for that event. In that limited
>sense, science can address the supernatural.
>"Science and supernatural explanations" is a recurrent topic in this
>group (and in the entire origins debate). Steve Jones and Brian
>Harper are currently batting it back and forth under the "Is it soup
>yet" topic. Most recently, Brian wrote,
BH>Supernaturalistic explanations are not ruled out a-priori, they're
>ruled out for very good reasons. The methods of science cannot
>address the supernatural. ...This places a limitation on science and
>not on reality.
LH>It may be an exercise in hubris on my part, but I'd like to compose
>something which is reasonably brief, clear, and agreeable to as many
>people as possible. I'd value some feedback.
You "hubris" Loren? Perish the thought! :-)
LH>When science investigates a puzzling event (either an "origins"
>event long ago, or a more recent event such as an unexpected
>healing), science cannot determine whether or not that event was
>supernatural.
Indeed, "science" as it currently exists in its materialist-naturalist
phase, cannot even accept that there is such a thing as the
"supernatural". C.S. Lewis points out that until the philosophical
question is addressed, *no* amount of evidence will suffice to
"determine whether or not" an "event was supernatural":
"...the question whether miracles occur can never be answered simply
by experience. Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in
the last resort, something presented to our senses, something seen,
heard, touched smelled, or tasted. And our senses are not infallible.
If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say
that we have been the victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy
which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say.
What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we
bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience
before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical
question." (Lewis C.S., "Miracles: A Preliminary Study", 1947,
Fontana: London, 1963 reprint, p7)
LH>What _can_ science do? It can try to determine, to
>the best of its abilities,
>
> --what the conditions were before the event,
> --what the conditions were after the event, and
> --what effect known natural mechanisms could have had during the event.
Agreed. But this is just what ordinary people do according to common
sense. In the stilling of the storm on the lake (Mk 4:35-41; Mt
8:23-27; Lk 8:22-25):
1. "what the conditions were before the event" - "A furious squall":
"...in the boat. A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over
the boat, so that it was nearly swamped" (Mk 4:36-37)
2. "what the conditions were after the event" - it was "completely
calm":
"...the wind died down and it was completely calm" (Mk 4:39)
3. "what effect known natural mechanisms could have had during the
event."
Here the naturalist has no difficulty assigning it to "known natural
mechanisms", eg. the squall passed, the disciples were exaggerating,
etc.
What is missing in the above three steps is issues of known processes,
and causal events recounted by competent eye-witnesses, namely:
* These were experienced fishermen who each knew the lake and its
conditions like the back of their hand.
* Jesus spoke to the wind and waves:
"Jesus... got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be
still!" (Mk 4:38-39)
* The storm immediately abated:
"the wind died down and it was completely calm." (Mk 4:39)
To the philosophical theist (as the disciples were), the above
exhausts normal natural mechanisms, and can only be the result of a
miracle, worked by Jesus:
"They were terrified and asked each other, `Who is this? Even the
wind and the waves obey him!' " (Mk 4:41); "The men were amazed and
asked, `What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey
him!' " (Mt 8:27)
* A causal factor is also revealed by special revelation, namely that
faith in God can work miracles over nature:
"He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have
no faith?" (Mk 4:40)
I wonder what Brian would say to this if he was on that boat? Would he
argue that the disciples were arguing from a "false alternative"? :-)
LH>(Note: I use the word "event," but it could also refer to a series
>of events spread over time, such as macroevolution.)
OK. But this begs the question that there is such a thing called
"macroevolution".
LH>As scientists study the initial conditions, final conditions, and
>known natural mechanisms, they could reach three possible
>conclusions:
>
>1) Sound empirical models predict that known natural mechanisms can
> account for the event. (*1*)
Note that just "accounting for the event" by "sound empirical models"
does not prove it happened that way. This is the difference between
historical and empirical science. The latter can repeatedly test its
causal hypotheses in the present, but the former has only unique,
unrepeatable events in the past.
LH>2) We do not have sound empirical models, but we believe that known
> natural mechanisms can account for the event, and future improvements
> in empirical knowledge, elegant models, and computing power will
> eventually allow us to prove this.
How can accounting for the event and elegant computer models, ever
"prove" a unique origins event in the past? The best that
naturalistic science can do is provider an alternative naturalistic
explanation of how that unique and unrepeatable origins event *might*
have happened.
>3) No known natural mechanisms could account for this event. (There
> are empirically sound reasons for ruling out all known natural
> mechanisms.)
By definition, materialistic-naturalistic science can never do this.
If all is matter, and nature is all there is:
"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." (Sagan C.,
"Cosmos", Macdonald: London, 1981, p4)
then there will *always* be "natural mechanisms", proposed, even if
they are not "known". For example, faced with the intractable
probloems of accounting for the origin of life, Crick can seriously
propose that life was sent here by a spaceship:
"...we have two types of theory about the origin of life on earth and
that they are radically different. The first the orthodox
theory-states that life as we know it started here all on its own,
with little or no assistance from anything outside our solar system.
The second Directed Panspermia postulates that the roots of our form
of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly
another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before
anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by
microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced
civilization." (Crick F., "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature",
Simon & Schuster: New York, 1981, p141)
The possibility that life may have been created by a supernatural
Intelligent Designer, is just not even considered.
BTW, I am interested that you seem to embrace the "false alternative"
that Brian accuses me of? If "no known natural mechanisms could
account for this event", ie. "there are empirically sound reasons for
ruling out all known natural mechanisms", you seem to see this as
evidence for a "supernatural" origin?
LH>Of course, there will be some disagreements in the scientific
>community, but it is possible for a great majority of scientists to
>agree.
Unless the "great majority of scientists" are philosophical
supernaturalists, how will they ever "agree" on a supernatural
explanation? Lewis:
"If immediate experience cannot prove or disprove the miraculous,
still less can history do so. Many people think one can decide
whether a miracle occurred in the past by examining the evidence "
according to the ordinary rules of historical inquiry." But the
ordinary rules cannot be worked until we have decided whether miracles
are possible, and if so, how probable they are. For if they are
impossible, then no amount of historical evidence will convince us.
If they are possible but immensely improbable, then only
mathematically demonstrative evidence will convince us: and since
history never provides that degree of evidence for any event, history
can never convince us that a miracle occurred. If, on the other hand,
miracles are not intrinsically improbable, then the existing evidence
will be sufficient to convince us that quite a number of miracles have
occurred. The result of our historical enquiries thus depends on the
philosophical views which we have been holding before we even began to
look at the evidence. The philosophical question must therefore come
first." (Lewis C.S., "Miracles: A Preliminary Study", 1947, Fontana:
London, 1963 reprint, pp7-8)
LH>Most would agree that the formation of the solar system falls
>into the first category.
I would not have any problem with this from a PC perspective,
because there is very little Biblical evidence concerning the
formation of the "solar system". However, even here, Hugh Ross has
pointed out that the earth-moon system is evidence of fine-tuning:
"The moon plays a critical role for life as well. Our moon is unique
among solar system bodies in that it is so large relative to its
planet. As a result, our moon exerts a significant gravitational pull
on Earth. Thanks to this pull, coastal sea waters are cleansed and
their nutrients replenished, also the obliquity (tilt of the rotation
axis relative to the orbital plane) of Earth is stabilized (a critical
factor for avoiding climatic extremes). The moon in its formative
stages probably contributed to the rapid removal of greenhouse gases
from Earth, thereby saving the planet from the fate of Venus...and
permitting large oceans to form." (Ross H., "The Creator and the
Cosmos", NavPress, Colorado Springs CO, 1993, p128)
Somewhere else (I think it was on his Reasons to Believe Home Page)
Ross has pointed out that if the moon is the debris from an asteroid
impact with the Earth, then the physics of such an impact (where on
the Earth, angle of impact, speed, etc) must be incredibly fine-tuned
to position the moon at the right distance from the Earth.
There might indeed be "Sound empirical models" that "predict that
known natural mechanisms can account for the event" but it is all
these events concurring on one planet that could still indicate the
action of a supernatural Designer.
[continued]
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------