RE: Are American Public School Science Programs Anti-Christian

Quoting "wgreen8":
 
I believe that the schools teach philosophical materialism ("The theory
that
physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including
thought,
feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and
physical
phenomena (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994)") and naturalism ("The
system
of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of
natural
causes and laws without attributing moral, spiritual, or supernatural
significance to them (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994.)").
 
It sounds like you are pandering to your Christian audience. Science
classes in public schools are committed to natural causation in the
procession of measurable events, not because public schools
administrators have some underlying "philosophical materialism," but
because that's how science is taught.
 
To presume something else may be in operation opens the door to
"philosophical supernaturalism." You can't do any scientific
experiments and rely on the results if you permit occasional
supernatural intervention. So natural causation is an imperative not
brought on by any philosophy at all. That's how we do science - period!
 
"In science class, students learn that there are physical causes acting
on
physical objects, and these form a closed system of cause and effect
(see
Rock and Window? and Evidence?). This "naturally" implies atheism or, at

best, deism."
 
Again, this is loaded rhetoric directed toward your audience. The
entire universe may be a closed system (unless we are part of a
multiverse, and then that would be a closed system). It may be
difficult in some cases to know all the causes that may bear upon a
particular effect.
 
Nevertheless, where we have good reason to believe we know all the
causes it is essential to ascribe an effect to the result of a natural
procession of causes. Otherwise we could never be sure that the results
are untainted by a supernatural agent who occasionally jumps in to force
the result in one direction or another.
 
When we get all the way back to the "first cause" before the universe
came into being, and we can foresee no prior natural causes, then I
think we can safely invoke the Creator and be on fairly solid ground.
Beyond that the ground gets slipperier and slipperier.
 
If plant stem elongation is caused by gibberellic acid, if tides are
caused by the moon, if chemical reactions are caused by electromagnetic
forces, then what place for God?
 
The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. I remember a little league
pitcher for a Catholic team who crossed himself before every pitch.
Where did he think the ball would go if he didn't do that? Or what if
he crossed himself and got a strike, and then didn't and got a ball.
What could he conclude from that? God has His place whether we see Him
in chemical reactions, or electromagnetic forces, or in balls and
strikes, or not. But where do we have license to stick Him in the
middle?
 
"Regardless of the intent of the NSTA, it is a fact that the vast
majority of
texts and teachers come from a naturalistic perspective, as mentioned
previously. They practice methodological naturalism."
 
As well they should. If the bird flu develops into a pandemic and
millions die should we ascribe the progression of the disease to natural
causes or infer God's righteous judgment? Why develop a vaccine? Just
leave it up to God.
 
Is it possible to do science without naturalistic presuppositions?
 
If you mean, is it possible to do science without assuming natural
causation, the answer is "no."
 
The world functions in an orderly way because God is an orderly God, and
that
is how he acts. When we observe the orderliness of natural phenomena, we
are
observing the orderliness of God's actions. I can go about my scientific

experiments in exactly the same way without any naturalistic assumtions.
 
Circular reasoning. You assume that God is orderly because nature is
orderly and God created nature. Thus orderly nature proves an orderly
God. You're assuming a priori what you are trying to prove. How do you
know independently that God is orderly or not? Where does Scripture
say, "I am an orderly God"?
 
If I study the motions of the planets in order to describe and predict
them,
am I doing science? What if, as I do this, I see the planets as moving
according to the will of God, and I view gravity (or the curvature of
spoace (sic),
if you will) as an expression of His will?
 
Teach it in religion class.
 
The science teacher who does not assume naturalism will not speak of
cause
and effect without qualification. Apparent cause and effect must be
spoken of
as nothing more than correlation between events.
 
Which explains why you don't teach science at the collegiate level.
 
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
Received on Tue Jan 3 16:38:17 2006