Re: Signs of Scientism

Keith,

Regarding

"The
logical consequence of such a perspective is that all such research
should be immediately stopped, since it constitutes a waste of
resources and an excercise in futility."

it seems you go too far. I can envision having gaps in our knowledge that
are in some way
intrinsic, and yet finding validity in continuing research. Godel's work did
not bring mathematics
to an end.

Pete Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism

> > Keith Miller says: "It is entirely reasonable given our current state
> > of knowledge (both positive and negative) that a very plausible
> > solution will be found to the origin of life."
> >
> > Please also excuse if I mention that this is one of the most obvious
> > cases of 'scientism' I've seen. Is it not to most people at ASA? A
> > solution to the origin of life? What science is so bold as to suggest
> > such a thing? Does this not represent an opposite pole from the IDM's
> > designer-did-it approach? At least the IDM is apparently wise enough
> > to insist upon the mystery of life's origins, aside from making some
> > scientific claim to proof.
>
> The thing that drives science is attempting to resolve currently
> unsolved problems concerning the history and mechanisms of the natural
> world. It is the open questions about our natural world that drives
> the work of the scientific community and inspires the work of
> individual scientists. The goal of science is not to merely describe
> the known, but to press the boundaries of the unknown. The origins of
> life (chemical evolution) research has been very fruitful in greatly
> enlarging our understanding of some fundamental aspects of biological
> systems in extreme environments, abiogenic organic synthesis, early
> Earth environments, etc. I see no reason why that research will not
> continue to be fruitful and continue to resolve outstanding problems.
>
> Your view above would seem to argue that there will never be, in fact
> can never be, a solution to physical, chemical, and biological
> questions involved in the origin and early evolution of life. The
> logical consequence of such a perspective is that all such research
> should be immediately stopped, since it constitutes a waste of
> resources and an excercise in futility. Unfortunately, this is the
> position taken by at least some ID supporters and it would certainly
> seem to be the logical extension of their claims.
>
> The other underlying assumption in the above reaction to my comment
> seems to be that scientific descriptions of a given process or event
> somehow diminish or eliminate the creative activity of God. I see
> God's creative activity in the very processes that we DO understand
> from a scientific perspective. As I mentioned in a previous post, the
> origin of every new life is a creative act of God (Psalm 104:27-30). I
> believe that I was knit together in my mother's womb and given life as
> a creative act of God. But we can still describe the development of a
> newborn as a continuous biological/ developmental process. Why should
> a scientific description ever be a threat to faith?
>
> 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 Sun Jan 22 22:40:03 2006