In my original post, I characterized 'folk science' as a set of beliefs
about the natural world whose primary function is to provide their holder
with *reassurance* that another set of beliefs about reality (basic beliefs
already in place) can be retained at the desired level of certainty.
I also said that the source of folk science beliefs could be highly varied.
For instance, elements of folk science could come from statements in some
canonical text, from the published results of professional science, from
amateur observation and analysis, or even from self-published books best
suited for the psychoceramic file, etc.
Your concluding statement was that "all Christians, including me, engage in
some form of 'folk science'. How much is too much? And if one engages in
any of it, do they have a right criticize others who engage in a larger
portion of 'folk science'?
I would say that it's not only Christians who engage in folk science, but
practically all people. Yes, Glenn, even you and me.
The question then becomes, how well-informed is our folk science? Do we
allow it to be informed by the most appropriate sources, or, on the other
hand, do we depend upon sources not well suited to the task? Here is where
your repeated call for Christians to become well-informed by empirical data
is extremely important. On this you and I are in hearty agreement.
Where you and differ is on the matter of Scripture's relevance to beliefs
regarding the particulars of the Creation's formational history. We also
differ on the hermeneutical principles that we employ in judging what a
faithful reading of the biblical text requires of us today. These differing
hermeneutical principles follow from several other factors, including
differing concepts of literature, differing concepts of 'truth', differing
concepts of the nature of divine inspiration, and differing concepts of the
consequent character of the biblical canon.
Back to an area of agreement: Yes, we all employ some form of folk science.
In itself, that's not bad. What we need to do, then, is to construct our
folk science self-consciously and to draw from resources that are both
appropriate and adequate to the task. At the same time, of course, we
should be open to the ongoing reevaluation of the other parts of our belief
system as well.
Howard Van Till