Re: Signs of Scientism

*Are eclipses miraculous? What about Huricane Katrina or 911? Where these
interventions?*

What do you mean by "interventions?" Was God sovereign over these events?
Yes. Does that raise questions about theodicy and free will? Sure, but we
(at least I think most folks in the ASA) don't abandon belief in God's
sovereignty because of those problems. I think most of us would also agree
that God sometimes accomplishes His will in time and space in ways that
transcend the physical laws He has established for time and space, which we
call "miraculous." I also think most of us would agree that because
something is "miraculous" doesn't mean we aren't humanly capable of
perceiving that it has occurred. Whether God acted miraculously in the
development of life on Earth, and whether we can distinguish such miraculous
activity in natural history from the working of God's will through natural
processes and physical laws, is the open question I'm trying to better
understand.

What do you make of the resurrection of Christ, Pim? Did Christ really rise
from the dead? Was it a "natural" event or was it "miraculous?" If it was
miraculous, is there any rational basis for believing it happened?

On 1/16/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ID is fairly identified as a Gap argument because it is based on the
assumption Not(chance and/or regularity). In other words, Intelligent Design
is the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity.
> That ID is a gap argument is easily observed by applying a design
inference to such events like a solar eclipse or fairy circles. Once all
thought to be evidence of a deity. Now we know better.
> Information growth is extremely misleading concept as used in ID. In ID
speak information or complexity means nothing more than the log of the
probability that we can explain something by chance. In other words, once we
can explain a particular event the information,/complexity as abused by ID,
becomes zero.
> I cannot stress enough how misleading the conflation of these terms can
be.
> This is especially serious since we know of chance/regularity proceses
which can 'inject' information.
>
> If David can explain to us how we can detect supernatural/miraculous
interventions in a reliable manner? Are eclipses miraculous? What about
Huricane Katrina or 911? Where these interventions?
>
> Pim
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> To: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:38:29 PM
> Subject: 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 Jan 16 23:11:25 2006