Re: Signs of Scientism

The way I look at this is that "nature" has its mission, its direction
and its means. That is not to anthropomorphize nature - its designed-in
ground rules and mechanisms accomplish remarkable things, achievements
that would not happen without it being the way it is, and without which,
we would not exist. We humans, on the other hand, are a different (dare
I say, higher order) kind of component within that Creation, with a
different mission. We can sense, reason and think abstractly, which
allows us to anticipate, avoid or temper some of the blows from the
unsensing and unreasoning dynamics of nature. Failing that, we have the
capacity to love and provide comfort, healing (in some measure),
restoration, redemption in many forms, and so on, when the forces of
nature overwhelm our defenses (in some cases, those of the weak; in
others even those of the strongest of us).

In short, it would seem that one of our fairly unique roles as
participants in Creation is to soften the harsh edges of nature's normal
and necessary operations, and lend comfort and redemption to the
innocents caught up through circumstance in its machinery. Nature must
do what it does, but we alone have the capacity to forestall or ease the
consequences. This is not far at all from the Biblical articulations of
our mission among ourselves.

JimA

Robert Schneider wrote:

> Merv, you write:
>
> "Nature targets the weak, decrepit, and crippled with a cruel and
> indifferent eye, and yet we are called to be part of an "upside-down"
> kingdom where such disadvantaged as these are the especially valued
> brothers and sisters -- the "least of these, my brethren.".
>
> But it this not anthropomorphizing nature? Cruelty and indifference
> may be terms proper to human psychology, but is this really a
> description proper to nature? I would not call this "evolutionary
> wisdom," as if nature "knows" what it is about. What you've raised
> fits more into theodicy: how could a loving and beneficent God create
> a universe in which such is "the natural condition"? And I don't
> believe that the answer lies in "original sin," as the YECs assert.
> The latter would lay God even more open to the charge of "cruelity and
> indifference."
>
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mervin Bitikofer <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>
> To: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism
>
> Ted Davis wrote:
>
>>>>>Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> 01/22/06 10:30 PM >>>asks:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Herbert Spencer coined the term "survival of the fittest" didn't he?
>>Didn't Spencer's ideas actually predate some of Darwin's -- or at least
>>his publication? Sorry if this was all recently hashed and I missed or
>>forgot it. But social darwinism fascinates me even if in some morbid
>>sort of way.
>>
>>Ted responds:
>>Yes, Spencer coined the term, which Darwin then employed in later editions
>>of the Origin of Species (but not the first edition). We can fairly assume
>>that Darwin regarded it as a fair summary of his idea of natural selection.
>>
>>D himself was both more of a social Darwinist than is sometimes said (see,
>>e.g., Peter Bowler's downplaying of this in "Charles Darwin--The Man and His
>>Influence") and less than is sometimes said (see Michael Roberts' comments
>>on Richard Weikart's book a year or two ago). He realized that evolution
>>might have implications for social policy (and thus he was worried about
>>sending the best and brightest off to war), and at the same time he accepted
>>some conclusions of morality that go against selection (such as his
>>acceptance of vaccination for his own children, despite his expressed
>>realization that vaccination counters natural selection).
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>>
> So how do you respond to the charge that evolutionary wisdom
> (seems?) (is?) so contrary to the notion of Christian charity?
> Nature targets the weak, decrepit, and crippled with a cruel and
> indifferent eye, and yet we are called to be part of an
> "upside-down" kingdom where such disadvantaged as these are the
> especially valued brothers and sisters -- the "least of these, my
> brethren".
>
> The notion of how vaccination fits into this is fascinating also
> -- and overlaps with a previous thread, though I don't remember if
> we discussed these implications in that thread.
>
> --merv
>
Received on Tue Jan 24 13:14:32 2006