Re: Signs of Scientism

*Their focus seems to be that God sustains all natural processes but we
can clearly detect that sustenance in certain patterns of information
growth.*

From what I've read in the ID literature, I'd agree with this. ID is not
fairly characterized, IMHO, as a "God of the gaps" way of thinking. And
this brings back the question of "miracles." It seems that all of us agree
that miracles can happen. I think we all also generally agree that while
the means of miracles might be beyond our rational and perceptive
capacities, the occurrence, nature and meaning of a miracle can be within
our capacities. We believe in Christ's resurrection not only on "blind"
faith, but on faith grounded in historical evidence. Why, in principle,
should there be any objection to a claim that we are equally capable of
discerning miraculous interventions into natural history?

On 1/16/06, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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, 16 Jan 2006 21:38:29 -0500