Re: Signs of Scientism

Gregory Arago wrote:

> Keith Miller says: "It is entirely reasonable given our current state of
> knowledge (both positive and negative) that a very plausible solution will be
> found to the origin of life."
>
> Please also excuse if I mention that this is one of the most obvious cases
> of 'scientism' I've seen. Is it not to most people at ASA? A solution to the
> origin of life? What science is so bold as to suggest such a thing? Does this
> not represent an opposite pole from the IDM's designer-did-it approach? At
> least the IDM is apparently wise enough to insist upon the mystery of life's
> origins, aside from making some scientific claim to proof.
>

I don't expect it will be as easy as Keith's words at least suggest.
However, let's just say, for the sake of consideration, that
this were true and you just read it in the newspaper? Would you burn
your bible and join the atheists? I would wager that we rely too much
on science to answer a question that is largely one of faith. God does not
have to conform to our rules, we have to transform to his.
 
>
> Such thinking, in combination with the El Tejon, shows why scientists don't
> belong in philosophy classes as much as it shows that philosophers shouldn't
> tell scientists what to think. Thankfully, there are many interdisciplinary
> thinkers and cross-over scholars who can help bridge gaps instead of making
> them into abysses that Science trys to tackle.
>
>

Keith is only making an estimate: accurate or not as it may
be and the results will depend entirely on experimental data. Science
may have the capacity to answer _how_ it happened, but that is quite
different from _why_ it happened or why we are here. The latter is
crossing into scientism.

What you need to recognize is that whether science can explain the origin of
life or not, it does not prove there is no God, it does not prove the Jesus
did not die for our sins, it does not prove that our salvation does not
depend
on faith and faith alone, and it proves nothing about the God's grace. The
only thing it proves is that creationist notions are wrong.

But I would also raise the point that creationists are also trapped in a
rather
convoluted form of scientism because they have tried to ramrod and twist
the scientific data to fit their notions of what the bible says. That is an
attempt to prove God by human means. Proofs do not require faith. Should
we expect that something so simple as science could explain the mystery of
our existence or why we should be moral and obey God?

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Mon Jan 16 06:30:40 2006