Re: Signs of Scientism

*I discussed these issues in my extended earlier post.*

Ok. If I recall, this discussion was touched off by a comment concerning
the possibility of finding a "plausible solution to the origin of life" and
before that a statement that "common descent itself is not the subject of
any serious debate." If MN is the appropriately limited tool that you've
said it is, and alternative "theological" descriptions of the data that
don't assume MN are epistemelogically valid, I'm not sure how you can come
to such conclusions.

Did you mean "common descent is not the subject of any serious debate within
the scientific community?" That would be fine as far as it goes, since
common descent does seem to be the best explanation of the data without any
appeal to supernatural agency. And I agree, it is not inconsistent at all
with the general understanding of an active, creative, sovereign God. But
as a Christian who is called to bear witness to the Truth, is that really
enough? Perhaps I myself am more predisposed towards something like
Cornelius Van Til's presuppositionalism than I thought.

On 1/20/06, Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
> > Ok, but all of this has gotten lost in too many specifics about
> > particular miracles recorded in the Bible. The basic principle is
> > this: miracles that impact on the physical world imply physical
> > evidence thatsomething unusual has occurred. There was water; now
> > suddenly there is wine people can taste and enjoy. There was a dead
> > man; now suddenly peoplecan touch him and talk to him. If -- a big,
> > huge if that I'm not necessarily advocating -- God separately created
> > some kinds of life at different points in history, outside of or above
> > or through an accellerated common descent,it seems to me there should
> > be no reason in principle that we'd be humanly incapable of observing
> > that something unusual happened when sifting the ex post evidence.
> > The "a supernatural being can do everything and anything so there's no
> > way we could distinguish the supernatural from the natural" argument
> > makes no sense to me if I adopt an epistemology that allows for an
> > orderly God who sometimescauses observable "miracles" tohappen.
>
> I discussed these issues in my extended earlier post.
>
> 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 Fri Jan 20 10:30:32 2006