RE: Signs of Scientism

It is truly difficult to characterize life in purely physical terms. It may be that only life can beget life.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Miller
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:03 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism

> 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.

The thing that drives science is attempting to resolve currently
unsolved problems concerning the history and mechanisms of the natural
world. It is the open questions about our natural world that drives
the work of the scientific community and inspires the work of
individual scientists. The goal of science is not to merely describe
the known, but to press the boundaries of the unknown. The origins of
life (chemical evolution) research has been very fruitful in greatly
enlarging our understanding of some fundamental aspects of biological
systems in extreme environments, abiogenic organic synthesis, early
Earth environments, etc. I see no reason why that research will not
continue to be fruitful and continue to resolve outstanding problems.

Your view above would seem to argue that there will never be, in fact
can never be, a solution to physical, chemical, and biological
questions involved in the origin and early evolution of life. The
logical consequence of such a perspective is that all such research
should be immediately stopped, since it constitutes a waste of
resources and an excercise in futility. Unfortunately, this is the
position taken by at least some ID supporters and it would certainly
seem to be the logical extension of their claims.

The other underlying assumption in the above reaction to my comment
seems to be that scientific descriptions of a given process or event
somehow diminish or eliminate the creative activity of God. I see
God's creative activity in the very processes that we DO understand
from a scientific perspective. As I mentioned in a previous post, the
origin of every new life is a creative act of God (Psalm 104:27-30). I
believe that I was knit together in my mother's womb and given life as
a creative act of God. But we can still describe the development of a
newborn as a continuous biological/ developmental process. Why should
a scientific description ever be a threat to faith?

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Mon Jan 16 15:29:58 2006