> >On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings Randy:
> >>
>
> We've been talking about several points simultaneously; I thought you were
> referring to the origin of the universe, since that is what those models
> describe. You are right that science cannot yet answer the question of the
> origin of the values of the physical constants, but the unification models
> do provide a tentative explanation, which is superior to ID's claim that
> this question is unanswerable except by invoking a miracle.
I think the question of which explanation is superior will depend on the
outcome of future research. If science finds an explanation all well and
good. But if science runs into thirty consecutive dead ends perhaps some
consideration will be given to alternate(even non-scientific)
explanations. As you say below, we may have to wait fifty years for a
resolution to this question.
> >
> >So if the view that science is capable of investigating all phenomena
> >that occur in the physical world is correct then everything should work
> >out just fine. If this position is incorrect (and I guess we'll discuss it
> >further below) then other truth-seeking disciplines (like history,
> >philosophy, and theology) could be unfairly excluded from debates for
> >which they have legitimate answers.
> >
>
> Science is by definition the methodology used to investigate all physical
> phenomena; how could that be incorrect?
Except events non-natural like regeneration that occur in the physical
world. Do you consider the objects of historical investigation to be
"physical phenomena?" Is the resurrection a "physical phenomena?"
> >
> >> Such people simply lacked the imagination to see beyond what we currently
> >> know to what we could conceivable come to know.
> >
> >Nah, my imagination is as good as the next guys. The problem here is
> >that if these scientific claims go far enough they'll begin to conflict
> >with my theology.
>
> Exactly, as I explained in the above paragraph.
It doesn't seem to me that this is "exactly as you explained in the
above paragraph." You claimed that I lacked imagination. I'm claiming that
I have a broad theology which makes claims about certain physical
phenomena. These don't seem the same to me.
> Let me suggest this (and
> again I'm being blunt but not intentionally insulting): If your faith in
> the salvation promised by Christ were strong, it would make no difference to
> you how the universe or life or man originated.
I disagree. The YEC'ers debate these issues because their theology makes
certain claims about the time frame of the creation of the world. I am
debating this issue because my theology makes certain claims about the
detectability of God's involvement in creation. The strength(or weakness)
of our faith is non-determinative.
> I have often found that the
> people who struggle the hardest to scientifically validate their beliefs are
> those with the weakest faiths.
The "often" may be correct but I've personally met J.P.Moreland and Hugh
Ross and their faith is anything but weak.
>
> >I believe that the heavens declare the glory of God, not
> >the glory of quantum tunnelling.
>
> And what if God created quantum tunneling as a tool to make the universe?
Then the heavens would not declare the glory of God. They would in fact
declare nothing. They would just be sitting there as the possible result
of a process which required no involvement by a purposeful, supernatural
Creator.
>
> >I believe that that which is known about
> >God can be understood through what had been made.
>
> Which tells us that God created the universe using natural forces rather
> then supernatural forces;
But based on what you've said so far I don't see how we would learn this
from what has been made. It seems to me that according to your beliefs the
universe could exist even if God didn't exist. Therefore that which had
been made tells us only about the totally natural forces which led to
their existence and nothing about a Creator.
> this does not invalidate the belief that in the
> beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The the passage states that "that which has been made" gives us actual
information about God. It seems to me that your position is that "that
which has been made" tells us nothing about God.
>
> >Now, maybe I'm wrong
> >about these things just like the geocentrists were wrong about their
> >theology
>
> It's not their theology that's wrong; it's their attempt to scientifically
> validate their faith and their incorrect interpretation of the Bible.
Well, it's not an either/or situation. The wrong theology of the
geocentrists was based on their incorrect interpretation of Scripture. And
there's nothing wrong with attempting to scientifically validate your
faith if your faith makes claims that can be scientifically tested.
>
> >but until I understand the scientific evidence for this version
> >of the universe's origin that you have proposed (and that is next on my
> >personal reading agenda) I'll continue to hold my present position. For me
> >this is a case of science intruding into an area with which theology
> >deals.
> >
>
> Science cannot intrude into theology, since theology deals with supernatural
> events and science cannot study supernatural events. But the origin of the
> universe does not seem to be a supernatural event,
But, based on my interpretation of Scripture, I believe the origin of
the universe was a supernatural event. Once I understand quantum mechanics
better a may revise my theology but at least for now that is my position.
> and doesn't need to be to
> preserve belief in God and salvation.
Yes. The doctrine of HOW God created the universe is not foundational.
> >
> >> No, I cannot prove to you that one day we will have the answers you
> >> demand,
> >> but as you point out later in your post, even if we do someday succeed at
> >> it, you will simply declare us wrong and forget about it.
> >
> >What I said I would reject is science's claim that any physical factor
> >is the ultimate reality (not the ultimate PHYSICAL reality, but the
> >ultimate reality).
> >
>
> And as I have pointed out continuously, science can only say what physical
> reality is, not what reality as a whole is,
Sagan didn't and Provine doesn't seem to agree with this position. I
would see Simpson's claim that evolution was an undirected process as
tending toward this same type of overstepping. Has the official scientific
community ever expresses a position on this issue?
> so the confirmation that the
> origin of the universe was a natural phenomenon would not disprove the
> existence of God or that He created the universe.
> >
> >I was thinking more of the evidence in the area of how the physical
> >constants were established. Probably would have helped if I'd said that.
> >
>
> I'm not sure there can be such evidence in that case, because everything we
> know so far confirms the evolutionary model for the origin of the universe.
> Perhaps if you elaborate, or provide a possible example of such evidence?
If science concluded that this universe is the only one that ever
existed or ever will exist, and also concluded that there are
10(exp)1,000,000,000 possible combinations of the physical constants in
the universe, and also concluded that only one combination out of this set
would allow any kind of life to exist what conclusion would science reach
about the reason the constants are the values that will support life.
> >>
> >> "Do you mean cannot be verified scientifically or cannot be verified at
> >> all?"
> >>
> >> Since the ID model purports to be a valid scientific model based on the
> >> existence of a supernatural designer, I mean scientifically
> >> verified. No other evidence is appropriate.
> >
> > Well, if those are the rules then those are the rules. But it seems to
> >me that if theologians are to be encouraged to consider extra-theological
> >evidence when interpreting Genesis 1-3 then researchers in other
> >disciplines could be encouraged to find a way to integrate other
> >truth-findings into their research programs.
> >
>
> You're mixing apples and oranges. Genesis 1-3 purports to describe
> historical events; if the actual history of the universe is different from
> that description, then Genesis 1-3 cannot be history and therefore must be
> allegory or myth. Science, however, purports to explain only the physical
> universe, nothing else. Science can often be wrong in its
explanations, but
> it always corrects itself; science would have to be fundamentally wrong to
> abandon it for some other methodology.
I'm not suggesting that scientific methodology is fundamentally wrong,
just incomplete. I'm not asking scientists to abandon thier methodology,
just to integrate the findings of other truth seeking disciplines with
their scientific research.
> But that would also mean that the
> concept of a physical universe would have to be fundamentally wrong as well.
> Are you suggesting there is no physical universe?
No.
> >>
> >> "The traditional theistic proofs."
> >>
> >> That's not valid scientific evidence. What valid scientific evidence do
> >> you have that the origin of the universe was "personal"?
> >
> >Well, since I consider the concept of personhood to include both body
> >and spirit (or in God's case, spirit only) I guess there could, by
> >definition, be NO scientific evidence for this fact. It seems then that
> >this would be a truth claim which science would be unable to investigate.
> >
>
> Exactly right. Science cannot determine what the motive was for creating
> the universe; it can only determine how the universe was made, not why.
> Therefore any scientific "theory" that assumes a "personal" motive is _a
> prior_ unscientific.
Hmm. Elsewhere you state that science can investigate any natural
physical phenomena that occurs in the physical universe. So would
something like the explanation of the Piltdown hoax not be a scientific
theory? If it's not then it's probably an example of the type of research
integration that I referred to above.
> >>
> >> "_IF_ the theists are right and the universe does exist as the result of
> >> a personal decision by God then is the question of the origin of
> >> the universe even a scientific question at all?"
> >>
> >> Yes. I am a theist and I believe that the universe exists as a result of
> >> a personal decision by God. But I also believe that God created
> >> the universe mechanistically, not supernaturally.
> >
> >If by this you mean that God created the quantum nothingness so that it
> >had the characteristic of giving rise to universes spontaneously (hopefully
> >I'm stating this correctly) then I guess we just have different
> >theological views. What led you to this conclusion?
> >
>
> Scientific knowledge that the origin of the universe was a natural
> phenomenon coupled with my belief that God created the universe.
>
So it appears that both scientific and theological considerations have
led you to a particular theological conclusion.
> >
> >> Science can be led to consider any explanation, but if it cannot test
> >> those explanations against physical reality then science cannot use
> >> them to understand. Science can only understand what it can study, and
> it
> >> can only study what it can test. Explanations that cannot be
> >> tested are a waste of time and so ignored as worthless.
> >
> >Okay. It just seems to me that there are other tests use in other
> >disciplines which could be considered here.
> >
>
i> But science can only use tests against physical reality; all other
kinds of
> tests are worthless from a scientific point of view as tools to understand
> and explain the universe.
Okay. But every truth-seeking discipline has ways of testing for the
truth established by their particular discipline. Why can't scientists use
these other facts that have passed these other tests-for-truth in their
scientific research?
> >>
> >> "I don't disagree that the ID`ers are doing what you're saying they're
> >> doing. I'm just not sure that it's necessarily a bad thing."
> >>
> >> Then you are also saying that science is not the proper way to pursue
> >> these questions, because the ID'ers are not doing science.
> >
> >Since I believe God created the universe supernaturally, not
> >mechanistically, I would agree with this statement. I agree that what the
> >ID'ers are doing is not science as science is officially described. But I
> >think it's a valid method of seeking the truth, even if it's not valid
> >science.
> >
>
> I would agree to that, provided that ID'ers stopped trying to pass off what
> they do as legitimate science and call it what it really is, theological or
> metaphysical investigation.
>
Okay, but I don't think that moves the debate forward. Science then
simply becomes a label for a truth-seeking discipline which is
narrow and refuses to consider explanations for physical phenomena
provided by other disciplines. The scientific approach to research on
phenomena like the mind becomes "wait for us to come up with an
explanation based solely on the functioning of natural forces" instead of
considering the results of other truth-seeking disciplines.
> >
> >What I'm specifically objecting to is the claim that science will one
> >day be able to extrapolate to a future state of the mind (i.e. a future
> >decision) based on the present physical state of the brain. Since I
> >believe the mind has a non-physical component I don't believe science can
> >fully explore it's workings.
> >
>
> Then that's another difference between us; let's approach this topic again
> in another fifty years to see who is closer to the truth.
So do I understand you to be saying that you don't believe the mind has
a non-physical component? And that future decisions are determined by the
physical states of the brain? You made reference to the "molecular basis"
of free will; What do you understand free will to be? And would this be an
example of science intruding into an area of theological research?
Theology would claim that the mind has a non-physical component. Is
science claiming that the mind does not have a non-physical component?
> >>
> >> I have also been conditioned by a lifetime of experience, 40 years as a
> >> Christian and 15 years as a biochemist, to believe that everything
> >> we can experience in this physical universe can be explained by natural
> >> mechanistic forces.
> >
> >But regeneration is something I've experienced in this physical universe
> >and I don't believe this experience is explainable by natural mechanistic
> >forces. I guess I should state that I have no scientific evidence that I
> >have in fact been regenerated, my evidence would come from other
> >truth-seeking disciplines, but it does meet the criteria of being
> >something I have experienced in this physical universe.
>
> You are referring to spiritual regeneration no doubt. That's actually
> something I've never experienced, because I was raised a Christian rather
> than converted, so I never had a "conversion experience".
From my theological perspective one can't be "raised" a Christian. One
becomes somebody's son through an event; either birth or adoption. In the
same way, from my theological perspective, one becomes a Christian through
an event, in this case regeneration and conversion. I guess we mean
different things by the term "Christian."
> However,
> spiritual regeneration is not a natural phenomenon, which is what I meant
> when I said "everything we can experience in this physical universe"; it's
> my fault for not making myself plainer, but I didn't think I had to. Since
> it is not a natural phenomenon, then obviously it cannot be explained by
> natural mechanistic forces.
So are you saying that there are events that occur in this world that
are not explainable by natural mechanistic forces?
>
> >I also believe
> >that the resurrection is an event that has occurred in this physical
> >universe that cannot be explained scientifically.
> >
>
> Ditto what I said above for resurrection; by the way, did you know that at
> least a dozen religious figures have bodily resurrected in the course of
> human history?
RESPONSE A:Oh, sure. There was Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, etc.
RESPONSE B :To be theologically precise, those other figures were
resuscitated, not resurrected.
RESPONSE REAL:You brought this up, I imagine, because you don't believe
any of them(Jesus included?) TRULY resurrected? Or because you consider
the Christian claim of Christ's resurrection to be just one-in-the-crowd?
> >>
> >> "But it does open up the possibility that some phenomena which may SEEM
> >> to be natural may in fact be supernatural and therefore not have a
> >> scientific explanation."
> >>
> >> Why? What, other than your religious belief and your desire to prove
> >> that belief, leads you to draw this conclusion?
> >
> >I have no scientific evidence, if that's what you're asking. Although,
> >by definition, I couldn't have any scientific evidence for ANYTHING
> >supernatural.
> >
>
> And since all known scientific evidence for all known scientific phenomena
> demonstrates that all known scientific phenomena are in fact really natural,
> this point is moot.
And also tautological. Natural phenomena are by definition scientific.
Based on your comments above it seems that you would reclassify any event
like regeneration as non-natural. So if mankind is to investigate events
like regeneration and the resurrection methods other than science will
have to be used. And of course the evidence that these events are
non-natural would be theological evidence, not scientific evidence.
> >>
> >> "I don't seem to detect an openness to this possibility from you. Am I
> >> mistaken?"
> >>
> >> I need more than just your personal opinion; my personal opinion says
> >> otherwise, but that hardly counts as proof that I am right. What
> >> (scientific) evidence do you have that might support this claim?
> >
> >Again, if I understand the rules correctly I could, BY DEFINITION, have
> >no scientific evidence that a supernatural event had occurred.
> >
>
> I see, you misunderstood what I said. (What I meant was that science can
> never study or explain supernatural phenomena; it was not my intention to
> claim that science could never describe or identify such phenomena.)
> Actually you can conceivably have scientific evidence that an event is not
> reproducible, was not predictable and was not natural;
I think this is my main question. How does science determine that an
event is non-natural?
in that case science
> could only describe the event, not explain it. But so far no such event has
> ever been discovered.
But this sounds like you're saying that science would in fact "throw up
its' hands and give up". Based on our interaction so far I wonder if the
resurrection occurred today if science would say "Give us enough time and
we'll explain this event! But don't you religious types try to pass this
off as a miracle!"
> >>
> >> "If science claimed that space-time was the fundamental reality of
> >> existence then I would simply disagree; God is the fundamental reality."
> >>
> >> Exactly. If science were to ever prove ID wrong,
> >
> >This isn't what I said. I said if science ever makes claims about the
> >fundamental reality of existence (not just PHYSICAL existence, but ALL of
> >existence) then I would reject the claim as already disproven by theology
> >and outside the proper realm of scientific inquiry (at least from my
> >perspective).
> >
>
> But science would never, in fact could never, make such a claim, though some
> atheist scientists might.
So what determines the point at which this claim goes from being the
opinion of certain atheist scientists and becomes the official position of
science? At least some scientists have already made the claim that
evolution is an undirected process and I haven't heard of any backlash
from the official scientific community.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
>