Re: Whose Burden of Proof?

>Although evidence of design in creation (if detectable) suggests (a) designer(s), this is not theologically very useful. Unless we know whether this/these designer(s) is/are Zeus, Baal, Ungabunga, Raelian aliens, Allah, Jesus, etc., we cannot tell what we should believe about God and what duties He requires of us (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, I.i).
<<<<<<<<<<<<

>If there is nothing that science can say to religion then you would be right. However, if religion is open to at least re-evaluating its theology based on current scientific knowledge then I think it is important to explore the implications of various speculations on intelligent design.<

I suspect that we are looking at different levels. I think that much needs done in the field of applying theology to science and of communicating theology to scientists or science-oriented audiences, and I think that is what you are getting at. On the other hand, science cannot tell us who God is, what must we do to be saved, etc., and thus is not very helpful in formulating theology.

Although I think that science has something to say about religion, it is of rather limited use. Archaeology shows that the Book of Mormon is historically worthless, but even this does not tell us whether the theological principles it espouses are true. The fact that creation behaves in a fairly consistent manner fits well with the Biblical picture of its being created and sustained by a consistent God, in contrast to flood geology, but innumerable other theological models could match the observed behavior of creation.

Science is much more relevant at the practical level of implementing religious principles. If I should love my neighbor, science gives plenty of information as to what is likely to be good or bad for him.

>What is at stake I think is the question of how compelling the current theological message is for people in the 21st century. These folks are constantly inundated with the science/techno worldview that often conflagrates metaphysics with science. Theology that does not speak to them where they are will not do justice to the gospel message.<

Dorothy Sayers argued strongly that the traditional theological message is very compelling. Re-evaluation of theology as to whether it is faithful to orthodoxy, rather than as to its match with science, seems to be the need. Re-evaluation of the presentation of the message is often appropriate. Raising questions about the mixing of metaphysics and science is also very much needed. Again, your concern to do justice to the gospel message would indicate that you are not arguing to change the gospel in light of science, but rather seeking to communicate it to scientists.

    Dr. David Campbell
    Old Seashells
    University of Alabama
    Biodiversity & Systematics
    Dept. Biological Sciences
    Box 870345
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
    bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

                 
Received on Tue Dec 2 15:28:31 2003