Re: Signs of Scientism

*Proofs do not require faith.*

But they do, don't they? "Proofs" as we conceive them require faith in our
noetic capabilities and in our rational capabilities. "Scientific" proofs
require the further unprovable (although reasonable) assumption that
physical laws remain uniform over time. This is one of the things that's
disturbing me about the notion of carving "science" out as a separate sphere
of knowledge with its own epistemelogical rules. It seems to me
that distinctions between "science / faith" or "proof / faith" are
exaggerated. It seems to me that the central question should be "how well
do my conclusions conform to Reality." Any answer we give to that question
entails foundational assumptions that are beyond "proof." Carving "science"
or "proof" out from the broader context of what consititues human knowledge
seems to lead sometimes to strange conclusions about what can be considered
"true."

*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?*

The problem here may be the phrase "the origin of life." When I hear the
word "origin," it sounds to me like "ultimate cause." If God is not the
ultimate cause of life, then we should burn our Bibles (or at least read
them merely as interesting literature rather than as authoritative in any
sense), because the narrative of our faith would then be false. As Richard
Bube said in a PSCF article, "We Believe in Creation." (
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1971/JASA12-71Bube.html) If science could
offer complete naturalistic explanations for all causes preceding the Big
Bang and back through eternity, it seems to me that the doctrine of Creation
would evaporate. (I have trouble even conceptualizing this; it always leads
me back to something like Acquinas' "unmoved mover.")

I'm pretty sure, though, that the phrase "origin of life" has a different
meaning as Ken is using it. Say, for example, that we could somehow confirm
that organic molecules developed throughout the universe through "natural"
processes and arrived on the proto-Earth through comet impacts. My guess is
that would be the kind of solution to the origin of life question Keith
mentions (assuming that neo-Darwinism really accounts for the development of
life from those organic molecules). But that wouldn't cause me to throw
away my Bible (though it would cause me to once again reexamine the first
couple chapters of Genesis) because it wouldn't address the question of
ultimate causation.

On 1/16/06, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
> 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 11:15:41 2006