Re: Kansas Closing arguments

At 12:28 AM 5/18/2005, D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

>What is supposed to be the difference between the philosophy of physical
>science and that of biological science? So far as I can tell, both hold
>to notion that natural causes are the only ones that science can deal
>with. Anyone who wants to import other causes (gods, aliens, whatever) is
>outside the range of scientific studies. As George has tried to point
>out, much of this nonscientific stuff comes from poor theology.
>
>If you are talking about genuine philosophical views, I have to note that
>all science is compatible with materialism, Berkeleyan idealism, Hegelian
>idealism, Marxist dialectic, Platonism, Aristotelianism, even postmodern
>subjectivism. There may be problems with the folk-philosophy of animism,
>for example, but even those who theoretically expect arbitrary changes
>behave as if they will deal with regularities. Some contemporary
>"Christian" views are not all that different.
>
>Why is there controversy in biology and not in physics? In part, at
>least, it has to be because few know about multiverses vs. a universe,
>changes in constants, all the rest of esoterica. But even ignoramuses are
>certain that God did not use secondary causes in the development of life.
>They are likely to be sure that believing in creation (dogmatic 144 hour
>or noncommittal ID) is essential to their eternal bliss. This is usually
>coupled with irremediable ignorance.
>Dave

Dave,
Our "Philosophy" is the way we look at life, our environment, etc.
etc. For that reason it would be great if every Christian scientist would
know a Christian philosophy, before even starting to learn science. It may
de divided in our outlook on mathematics, our outlook on physics, on
biology etc.etc. but it is all bound together by the way we believe in
God's ruling of this world. As Christians we believe that is in the Bible,
God's Word, but we must also immediately realize that the Bible was given
to, and written by people living in particular circumstances, and knowing
only certain facts. God was not talking about galaxies to people who could
not read yet, or even to people who spent most of their time working the
land or herding their flocks. Still, I do believe that God gave life, and
that we, as believers, will live in eternal bliss.
Here, I dare to add that we do not know the relationship between "time" and
"eternity". I do not think that "eternity" is unending "time" "Time" is a
creation of God as well, just as language is. But, God talks to us always
in a language we are able to understand. Even to those people living
millions of years ago, or only 7000 years ago.

Still, I do believe that God created, and that there is "eternal bliss"
even though I do not know what "eternity" is.
Jan de Koning
Received on Wed May 18 12:27:24 2005