Re: Signs of Scientism

Wayne:
> Proofs do not require faith.
>

David:

> But they do, don't they? "Proofs" as we conceive them require faith in our
> noetic capabilities and in our rational capabilities. "Scientific" proofs
> require the further unprovable (although reasonable) assumption that physical
> laws remain uniform over time. This is one of the things that's disturbing
> me about the notion of carving "science" out as a separate sphere of knowledge
> with its own epistemelogical rules. It seems to me that distinctions
> between "science / faith" or "proof / faith" are exaggerated. It seems to me that
> the central question should be "how well do my conclusions conform to
> Reality." Any answer we give to that question entails foundational assumptions that
> are beyond "proof." Carving "science" or "proof" out from the broader
> context of what constitutes human knowledge seems to lead sometimes to strange
> conclusions about what can be considered "true."
>

Yes, there are "girders" and Goedel to contend with.

First, I tend to disagree that science must depend upon the uniformity of
the laws. What has happened is that we have learned through many millennia
is
that the laws _appear_ to be uniform, and because they are appear to be
uniform,
we are at liberty to _use_ that information (assumption) to make predictions
about
the past. But it is not at all necessary (in principle) to do science in a
universe
where the laws were not uniform and constant over time, as long as there is
some discernible range or pattern in which they operated. Of course, I would
question how intelligent life could develop in such a place, but what do I
know.
What gives science its "sex appeal", as it were, is that it can make
predictions
that fit within some specified set of tolerances. But let's take the YEC
claim
that the laws of physics have changed since the beginning (6000 years ago).
Yes
that is "possible", but we should be able to detect that pattern and it
should be
consistent throughout all branches of inquiry that apply. What we see instead
is an inverted pyramid. Science is an effort to bring diverse information
together
into a coherent picture of how our world operates. In as much as that can be
done, science is useful. Of course, God could have made the earth 6000 years
ago, and made it appear as though it was billions of years old to anyone who
really
tries to examine it seriously. All I can say to that is, "well, I've done my
best".

But my argument is a little different. Science is simple. It works with
"substance",
it measures that "substance" with other "substance", and finally, it tries to
make
predictions about that "substance". If God is also material, indeed we should
be able
to measure God. But that is exactly where we run into problems. Because if
we
claim we can make these measurement of god, it's probably not God at all. In
a
way, we're really finding ourselves returning back at similar discussions of
the 2
and 3rd century about the Trinity and trying to fit it with new and fancy
tools,
yet it appears nothing particularly new that the church fathers didn't
wrestle
with. Indeed, from what I have read, they appear just as worried in that
time
as we are in ours. There's nothing new under the sun.

I definitely agree with Augustine that God comes to us, not that we can reach

God. The rest of the baggage I can't commit to, but it is quite clear that
we cannot
get out of our sin and even our denial by our own power. I fear that too
much
reliance on science endangers this point. If you have a gun at someone's
head,
the person is likely to obey you, but we know that God isn't like that. God
asks
for obedience. Damnation can appear as a threat, but only if you care about
having
a relationship with God. Even fear is not enough. So if we start being able
to
__detect__ god with science, it is probably not actually God.

Wayne:
> However, let's just say, for the sake of consideration, that this were true
> and you just read it in the newspaper? Would you burn your bible and join
> the atheists?
>

David

> The problem here may be the phrase "the origin of life." When I hear the
> word "origin," it sounds to me like "ultimate cause." If God is not the
> ultimate cause of life, then we should burn our Bibles (or at least read them
> merely as interesting literature rather than as authoritative in any sense),
> because the narrative of our faith would then be false. As Richard Bube said in
> a PSCF article, "We Believe in Creation." (
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1971/JASA12-71Bube.html) If science could offer complete naturalistic
> explanations for all causes preceding the Big Bang and back through eternity, it seems
> to me that the doctrine of Creation would evaporate. (I have trouble even
> conceptualizing this; it always leads me back to something like Acquinas'
> "unmoved mover.")
>

I had not thought so much about the expression "origin of life". I don't
know who
coined the term, but scientists are not beyond looking for "sexy" words to
inspire
funding. What it means is that, in principle, you would pour fertilizer into
one
side of an apparatus that simulates the early earth conditions, and you would

obtain on the other side a self replicating, self sustaining system on the
other.

If life is really inevitable, as some try to claim, then that quite probably
should
happen. But it seems like if that is so, then it is also most likely that it
forms
in only one way. Self assembly, for example, often relies on the fact that
thermodynamics will favor some state due to an increase in the entropy of
the surroundings. So whereas biology is extremely complex, it is still
unlikely
that there are infinitely many real possibilities, and something like
ribosomal
RNA would have to be "inevitable" were that the case. It would follow that
Star Trek with Klingons and captain Kirk would not be too far from correct.
The evidence for life is presently one: ourselves. As Enrico Fermi put it so

well, "if the universe is full of intelligent life, where are they?". (Then
again,
maybe he was talking about people of earth.) To summarize, science might
explain the process, it might even discover that it was effectively
"inevitable",
but that does not prove or disprove the existence of God. All it would prove

is that the universe is built with an inherent tendency toward intelligence.

That's pretty profound too when you think about it.

>
> I'm pretty sure, though, that the phrase "origin of life" has a different
> meaning as Ken is using it. Say, for example, that we could somehow confirm
> that organic molecules developed throughout the universe through "natural"
> processes and arrived on the proto-Earth through comet impacts. My guess is that
> would be the kind of solution to the origin of life question Keith mentions
> (assuming that neo-Darwinism really accounts for the development of life from
> those organic molecules). But that wouldn't cause me to throw away my Bible
> (though it would cause me to once again reexamine the first couple chapters
> of Genesis) because it wouldn't address the question of ultimate causation.
>

Calvin, I think put it as, "seeing through the eyes of faith". It's not
easy, and
only the blind or stubborn would say it is.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Thu Jan 19 00:58:17 2006