Faith in science (was Re: Nature article on ID)

Thanks to Jim Hofmann for giving us the links to the Nature article on ID.
I want to engage a matter that appears in the article. Salvador Cordova's
faith was eroded after studying science and engineering in college; he found
himself unable to take anything on faith, including his Christian faith,
anymore because of "the critical thinking and precision of science." "So
Cordova turned to his scientific training in the hope of finding answers.
'If I could prove even one small part of my faith through purely scientific
methods that would be highly satisfying intellectually'."

In other words, Cordova required of science that it prove his faith. And I
think that this has become a major theme in our time. The power of
scientific thinking has become so dominant during the past two-hundred years
that in our own day that it has created a crisis of faith. I heard this
same anxious tone in the discussion that followed my lecture at the Faculty
of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo last December. One young man asked a
question that showed that he was fearful that evolution might prove that God
doesn't exist. There is a fear of the power of science that leads many
people to need and want scientific evidence to establish the existence of
God, and relieve their anxiety. I don't think it does much good to try to
assure such an audience that science doesn't _prove_ anything, and that
neither science nor any scientific paradigm or theory can prove or disprove
that God exists. This conviction about the explanatory power of science to
answer life's big questions seems to be so strong that it is not always
amenable to reason.

YECs have faith in science (of a sort) in that they construct scientific
arguments, bad as they are, to prove their interpretation of Genesis has
scientific warrant. And the ID advocates, while they are coy about it,
really want to give scientific warrant as well for their faith in creation,
in the God they dare not name, and in a certain model of divine action
(without calling it "divine"--just "intelligent"). We have the curious
feature of anti-evolutionists treating mainstream science with disdain and
offering all sorts of ad hominem attacks on scientists and the scientific
community, while needing to assert that there is scientific evidence to
prove their YEC or their ID. I think that this fact is a major reason why
their theologies are so faulty. Now it makes sense theologically to examine
the current scientific world-view and, if convinced that it is sound science
and a sound model of how nature works, construct a theology of creation and
divine action that is consonant with the science. But one begins with faith
in creation and then goes on to construct. What I see YEC and ID doing is
beginning with a particular model of divine action and then looking for
scientific evidence to back it up, and in doing so rejecting in whole or in
great part the reigning scientific paradigm.

I must confess that after all my reading about it, I remain puzzled as to
why the ID advocates insist that we must be able to establish scientifically
that the world and life is intelligently designed in such a way that
intervention by a Designer (the God they dare not name) is essential in
designing and making a bacterial flagellum or a blood-clot cascade.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hofmann, Jim" <jhofmann@exchange.fullerton.edu>
To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>; "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 12:20 PM
Subject: RE: Nature article on ID

>
> Nature has put this article online, along with a box containing a
> shorter piece.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/box/4341062a_bx1.html
>
> Jim Hofmann
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Iain Strachan
> Sent: Sat 4/30/2005 1:42 AM
> To: Michael Roberts
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: Re: Nature article on ID
>
> I'd be glad to comment ... is there a link to the site.
>
> But these days I consider myself an ID Evolutionist rather than an ID
> Creationist...
>
> Iain.
>
> On 4/29/05, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> Any comments from Denyse and Iain in particular as it is rather hostile
>> to
>> ID. Is it fair or not?
>>
>> Michael
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
>> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:21 PM
>> Subject: Nature article on ID
>>
>> > The latest Nature has a commentary article on ID. It includes quotes
>> > from
>> > some ASA list members and a photo of one member!
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> There are 3 types of people in the world.
> Those who can count and those who can't.
> -----------
>
>
Received on Sun May 1 23:41:58 2005