> From: SteamDoc@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:44:29 EDT
> To: stark2301@voyager.net, asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Atheistic portrayal of science in popular culture.
>
> In a message dated 6/17/00 9:30:26 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> stark2301@voyager.net writes:
>
>> Allan Harvey wrote:
>>> I saw a great example of this a few months ago when John Wiester spoke at
our local ASA meeting. He made a big point of saying that the 3 major
issues with regard to "evolution" for Christians were (parodying the old
real estate line) "mechanism, mechanism, and mechanism." For Wiester, a
mechanism that
>>> referred only to natural processes without any gaps for God to act in was
>>> unacceptable.
>>
>> You raise a valid point about interpreting what we all read, including
students. Would you say that naturalism and secular humanism are both
mechanisms with no theological implications?
>
> I'd say that naturalism and secular humanism are not mechanisms at all, but
> worldviews (with few scientific implications). My point is that things like
> gravity and genetics and natural selection are mechanisms which need not have
> theological implications. But I'm not sure what you were trying to get at
> here.
I was looking for a meaningful way to discuss the association of naturalism
and secular humanism to science without offending the valid roles of many
scientists in this world. The public association of naturalism and secular
humanism to science places the blame for these worldviews on science. It
implies an unhealthy role for science as the driving engine for social
change. The writings of specific scientists are undermining the authority of
science to help constructive change. Scientists do have moral obligations.
Scientific research is not independent of moral content.
>
>> Our assumptions can be either mechanistic or theological. If we omit any
>> reference to God in our assumptions, is this not still an inferred
>> assumption of non-existence? Is this the desired gap for God to act?
>
> If I talk about the Periodic Table and make reference to atomic theory but no
> reference to God, is that an assumption of God's non-existence?
>
> If I talk about the formation of stars in terms of gravity and nuclear
> physics and make no reference to God, does that imply that God must not be
> the Creator of the stars?
>
> If I talk about the formation of mountains in terms of plate tectonics and
> make no reference to God, does that imply that God must not be the Creator of
> mountains?
For actual research you are quite correct. However, the social impact is
perceived through worldviews and implications for human decisions. The
public perception becomes that of supporting naturalism. The intentions of
scientists are not sufficiently visible. There is a moral link between the
designer of research and the model that is used. Scientists can not ignore
agency.
>
> I hope most people here would agree that, from a Christian standpoint, it is
> wrong to tie God-excluding meaning to the science in the above 3 cases.
In the actual research work, yes. In the social exposure of that work, no.
Scientists should not ignore the moral link to society. The social impact
needs to be addressed.
>If we can agree on that, why can't we move on to also agree on:
> If I talk about the formation of living species in terms of genetic variation
> and natural selection and make no reference to God, does that imply that God
> must not be the Creator of life?
The line between research model and worldview gets awful thin here. The
social impact and the moral link becomes quite strong. Darwinism is not
scientific fact. It has many useful authoritative facts that adhere together
and create an impressive story. Scientists should stop promoting it as
scientific fact. It will continue to be a very useful story, but that is
not how it is treated by many scientists. There is a moral obligation here
to seek the truth and not push a useful story that will probably change in
the future.
>
> I agree with you about how wrong it is when science writers attach
> God-excluding meaning to their science (as opposed to simply making no
> reference to God, which is proper when presenting scientific results). But
> if it is wrong when Richard Dawkins says scientific explanations that don't
> require God as a part mean that God is absent, it is also wrong when Phil
> Johnson or John Wiester adopts the same viewpoint.
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
Scientists will continue to be free to project their personal worldviews to
the public. Should this shaping of a worldview for the image of science be
left to "random" actions of self-interest or does it need guidance that is
visible to the public? If there is such a thing as moral evolution, it will
need guidance to build a healthy world. It will not just emerge as so many
scientists claim in their writings. Scientists are moral decision agents in
the larger picture.
Jim Stark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 08:51:38 EDT