Re: Signs of Scientism

Pim -- as to the adequacy of the tests folks like Demski and Behe have
proposed for design, that's neither here nor there to me right now.
Let's assume you're right and that they are inadequate. I've read
Behe and Demski and see the strengths and weaknesses of their
arguments, but I don't want to argue about that, as I'm not an "ID
fundamentalist" and I'm sure all of you have been over those arguments
until they've made you ill. I'm hoping to understand some broader
questions and distinctions.

Re: the resurrection -- Merv -- thank you, that was where I was going
next. The "meaning of Christ's resurrection," it seems to me, is not
"more important" than the fact of the resurrection from any semblance
of an orthodox Christian standpoint, whatever the denominational
tradition. The fact of the resurrection is the central historical
event of our faith; without it, there is no Christian faith. If we
have to talk of any kind of meaningful demarcation between "Christian"
and "not Christian," it seems to me that the historicity of Christ's
resurrection is part of the central core of that border. And there
is, indeed, substantial empirical evidence for the resurrection (I'm
reading through N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God"
just now, which is fascinating on the context of and evidence for the
resurrection), even if the event cannot in some sense of the word be
"proven."

Keith: "Divine action cannot be detected by scientific test." I'm
having trouble following you here. As I understood your position,
nothing happens without Divine action. Evolution reflects God's
direct, providential activity in creation, through the physical laws
He has established for the universe. This concept of evolution being
God's direct, providential activity avoids the "blind watchmaker"
criticism of theistic evolution.

However, if you want to avoid the "blind watchmaker," it seems to me
that you also have to hold that "divine action" can be detected by
scientific test, since any "natural" process we observe is the result
of direct "divine action." It also seems to me that, if we are going
to affirm the historicity of the miracles recorded in scripture,
including the central miracle of Christ's resurrection, we have to
affirm that "supernatural" "divine action" can be detected by
empirical observation.

I would agree that "divine intention" isn't subject to empirical
observation. We only know the "why" and the "where to" of the
Resurrection because of scripture, and we only begin to understand it
because of grace and the Holy Spirit. I'd also agree that the
mechanisms of "supernatural" "divine action" -- the "how" questions --
aren't subject to empirical observation (as Merv put it, we can't
explain scientifically how God accomplished the resurrection). But
teleology (why / where to) and mechanism (how), though they may be
appropriate questions we ask of nature, aren't essential to calling a
test scientific, as the science of evolution demonstrates.

Perhaps the problem is in my shift from "scientific tests" to
"empirical observation." Even if we conclude that "empirical
observation" isn't the same thing as "scientific tests," the waters
still seem muddy to me. The kinds of "tests" we're discussing can't
be only repeatable experiments, since that would elide large swathes
of what we now call science. If we're talking about something like
"falsifiability," many purported miracles meet that test, including
probably Christ's bodily resurrection. (e.g., if Archeologists found
a crypt with the bones of a crucified man dating to the first century,
inscriptions identifying the man as Jesus, and a large cache of
clearly authentic primary source documents penned by the disciples
indicating that the disciples stole the body and fabricated the gospel
accounts, we probably could justifiably call the gospel accounts of
Christ's bodily resurrection falsified.)

So, aren't we back then to the somewhat arbitrary question of
demarcation between kinds of empirical observations that are
"scientific" or "non-scientific"? (I hope this all doesn't sound
argumentative. I do obviously come to the table with some existing
views on all this, but they are provisional and I'm trying to learn.
And you've all I'm sure been over this a thousand times before as
well, but I appreciate your patience in discussing it with me.)

On 1/17/06, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> My comments were based on unadulterated science. If additional hypotheses
> are included, then all sorts of conclusions can be derived from the data.
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
> From: Keith Miller
> Sent: Mon 1/16/2006 11:10 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism
>
>
> > I beg you to tell me how physicists characterize the elementary
> > particles they constantly talk about. Are they fools when they claim
> > that their (physical) detectors have detected a photon, an electron,
> > etc.
>
> I'm not sure what you are getting at. Of course our claims about the
> nature of physical objects and forces are legitimately based on our
> observations (direct or through instruments) of physical objects and
> events. But, I would also contend that those physical descriptions are
> not complete in the ultimate sense. Science does not, and cannot,
> capture the divine upholding of these events. I would argue from a
> biblical perspective that there are NO purely physical phenomena.
>
> 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 Tue Jan 17 10:25:57 2006