Re: Signs of Scientism

From: "Keith Miller"
> NOTHING can fully be understood in purely physical terms. That is why
> there is more to reality than science can address or investigate. Science
> is a limited way of knowing. Much confusion has been created by people
> talking as though science is the arbiter of all truth, and that all
> reality must be subject to scientific test and confirmation. It seems to
> me that this is not only what people like Dawkins and Provine would have
> us believe, but also many ID supporters. They both give much too much
> power to science.
>
> Science can potentially address our questions regarding the history and
> natural mechanisms of the physical universe (including the sequence of
> events leading to the origin of the first self-replicating biological
> organisms), but that is all.
>

That statement does seem to absolve Keith of scientism which the American
Heritage Dictionary defines as:

sci·en·tism
n.
  1.. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of
scientists.
  2.. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are
applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

Presumably we're talking about definition #2 instead of #1.

I wonder however if we aren't too often misrepresenting the ID position.
Several people on this list have indicated that ID means that God is present
in that which is unknown and not in that which is explained through science.
Perhaps that is true of some, but not the ID folks that I know and talk
with. Their focus seems to be that God sustains all natural processes but we
can clearly detect that sustenance in certain patterns of information
growth. Abiogenesis is a rather major step in specified complexity so it is
a prime candidate for detection. But Demsbki and other ID leaders would
probably not feel that ID was invalidated if science could and did explain
abiogenesis.

 The issue isn't the absence of God in the physical processes that we
understand but it seems that the real issue is providence and the immanence
of God. If science can "fully" (at the biochemical level that is) explain
the origin of life, it wouldn't eliminate God's involvement but many people
would feel that God is somehow one step further removed.

The Bible is replete with accounts of God's direct involvement with his
people, often through his power over nature and his use of nature to make
his point. As his people, we trust that God continues to guide and direct
us and "care for us." If all aspects of nature are describable through
cause and effect relationships that are repeatable and demonstrable, God
seems a little less personal and less directly involved. I emphasize
"seems" since I don't think that is the case but I believe that is our
emotional response.

Randy
Received on Mon Jan 16 20:23:02 2006