On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:28:09 -0400 you wrote:
BH>I just finished reading Brian Harper's latest contribution to the
"Is it
>soup yet..." thread and noted that he and Steve have again touched on some
>issues I frequently ponder:
>
>1. Why is it that the people who want science to include the
>supernatural in its investigations are mostly nonscientists?
The answer seems simple enough. Scientists (whether theists or
non-theists) are *trained* to exclude the supernatural. This works
fine in the normal *operation* of the cosmos, and it is part of the
success of science in finding natural causes behind phenomena.
However scientists often extrapolate that naturalistic way of thinking
that works in the *operation* of the universe to *origin* events,
where it could reasonably be expected that God might have intervened
supernaturally (either de novo or making use of natural causes), eg.
the origin of the cosmos, the origin of first life, and the origin of
life's major groups, etc).
BH> The point is not that nonscientists have no right to criticize
>science. It is that natural phenomena exhibit regularities which
>can be studied. Supernatural phenomena involve intelligent entities
>who may or may not be amenable to discovery by science.
This is a bit of a fallacy. Science already deals with things that
"may not be amenable to discovery by science". For example, science
deals with some things by the effects they cause, eg. some sub-atomic
particles may never be able to be discovered by our senses and may
permanently only be able to be understood as mathematical abtractions.
Also science tries to study unique events in the distant past (eg.
the origin event of the universe).
The fact that supernatural things such as angels and demons, or even
human psychic phenomena may be difficult to study, does not mean that
they cannot in principle be studied. If an angel fronted up to a
scientific laboratory and after establishing his credentials by
passing through walls at will, etc., and then submitted himself to a
battery of scientific tests, then that would be a case of the
supernatural being studied scientifically. The fact that we may not
know that angels exist or whether they would ever allow the
experiment, is besides the point. SETI is searching for aliens that
may not exist and which even if they do exist, may not be found, and
that is scientific. What's the difference?
BH> In order to avoid endless controversy over whose model of the
supernatural to apply, and how to define experiments, science
generally tries to avoid dealing with the supernatural. (There were
some papers in IEEE publications a number of years ago on the
subject of extrasensory perception, but these sorts of things are
exceptions).
See McCrone J., "Psychic Power What Are The Odds?", New Scientist, 26
November 1994, p34, which dealt with engineering professor Robert
Jahn's rigorous scientific tests of the power of the mind over
machines. To show that there is more than just an objective
assessment of the possibility of scientifically studying the
supernatural, but many (if not most) scientists have a deep seated
aversion to the supernatural, is clear from the reaction to Jahn's
decision to study parapsychology:
"Jahn's work is currently the most respected of PK studies because of
its scale and technical sophistication-although as was made plain when
Jahn featured in a recent BBC2 TV series, Heretic, his move into
parapsychology has horrified Princeton's authorities. When Jahn, a
rocket propulsion specialist, went public with his research in 1986,
he was demoted from dean of the engineering faculty to an associate
professorship and left in no doubt that he would have been booted
right off campus if it were possible." (McCrone J., "Psychic Power
What Are The Odds?", New Scientist, 26 November 1994, pp34,36).
BH>2. If science is ever going to investigate the supernatural, it
must have a blueprint or map which defines _how_ to do it.
This assumes that investigating "the supernatural" is somehow
different from investigating the natural universe. In both cases we
just use our senses and our intellect and every means at our disposal.
There is adequate scientific evidence *now* in favour of the
supernatural origin of the cosmos and life that would be accepted
by any reasonable person who is not prejudiced by naturalistic
philosophy.
BH>If the Phil Johnsons of the world are going to continue arguing for
>theistic realism and never show how to conduct scientific
>investigations under the assumptions of theistic realism, and the
>rest of us are going to continue to assert that science can't
>investigate the supernatural, this impasse will remain. It does no
>good for Phil to say, "I don't _have_ to offer an alternative."
This completely misunderstands what Phi is saying. He is not calling
for a special way to "conduct scientific investigations under the
assumptions of theistic realism". He is arguing for a different way of
thinking that does not automatically exclude the supernatural, a
priori:
"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is
that the conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking. The
problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science,
but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists
employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed
natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step
process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil
record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of
God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists
have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to
assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material
processes can do all the work of biological creation because,
according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have
defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least
implausible-description of how biological creation could occur in the
absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not
be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly
atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to
accept the thinking that generated those answers." (Phillip E.
Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity
Today, October 24, 1994, p26)
BH>3. (Shifting gears) Norm Smith's proposed addition to Loren
>Haarsma's supernatural/natural classification criteria appeals to
>me. I'm convinced that some of the intelligent design advocates
>have not carefully thought through the fact that a supernatural
>designer may have -- most likely does have -- very different
>characteristics from a human designer.
I haven't read Norm's post (perhaps it was when I was unsubscribed).
But while God's thoughts and ways are *higher* than our ways (Isa
55:8-9), it is unwarranted to claim that God's ways are so "very
different" that they are not analogous to man's "intelligent design".
The Bible claims man is made in the image of God (Gn 1:26-27; 5:1;
9:6), and that even fallen man is clearly aware of God's design in
nature to the extent that they are all "without excuse" (Rom 1:20).
BH> Mike Behe and I had quite a go-round on this about a year ago, but
>one difference between the designer of nature and man the designer
>that is very obvious to me is the use of fractals. Human designers
>strive for straight lines, smooth curves and simple geometric shapes.
Well "straight lines, smooth curves and simple geometric shapes" are a
feature of nature. Light travels in "straight lines" (at our scales),
bubbles form and planets orbit in "smooth curves", and nature abounds
in "simple geometric shapes" (eg. crystals). It is difficult to
think of anything man has thought of, that he has not first discovered
in nature.
BH>The designer of nature uses fractals for filling space, giving
>strength to structures, giving access to light and moisture, etc.
>Prior to the discovery of fractals, we would have simply said that
>the variations they describe are complex and probably random. They
>aren't random, and from my (subjective) point of view they are the
>work of a designer.
The point here surely is that once man sees how nature (God) uses
"fractals" man uses them in the same way that nature (God) does. This
would only be possible if human designers are not radically different
from the Divine Designer.
This is not to say that God does not do some things that we don't
understand and think would be evidence of bad design in a human
engineer, eg. the panda's thumb, extinction of trilobites and other
taxa after having brought them up to a high level of development, etc.
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------