Re: Are American Public School Science Programs Anti-Christian

>
> >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.<

You practiced methodological naturalism just now-you used a natural method
of communication (email) instead of a supernatural one (telepathy, expecting
the Spirit to reveal your thoughts to us, etc.). Not only everyday
experience but Christian considerations make methodological naturalism a
very good general working assumption. We know that God does occasionally do
things contrary to the laws of nature, but this is for a specific
theological purpose (e.g., Biblical miracles, which point specifically to
God), and most of the time He does things using the laws of nature. There
aren't a bunch of gods and uncontrolled powers that might do something
strange at any time, contrary to polytheistic views.

It is certainly true that many people in education and elsewhere operate
with philosophically naturalistic biases. However, Christians have
extensively fallen for their arguments by failing to recognize God's
presence in scientifically explained phenomena. The demand for miraculous
fingerprints is contrary to the Biblical pattern for signs.

> Even if the teacher were careful to emphasize that he/she was engaging in
> methodological naturalism, the implication to the student is that there is
> no
> need for anything else.

There is no need for anything else _for the purpose of scientific
description of something_. It is theologically rather vacuous, neither
proving nor disproving God's role.
Received on Wed Jan 4 17:30:13 2006