Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

Though I can see many of the weaknesses of some specific ID arguments, I
have to say that I'm not entirely persuaded yet about the general philosophy
of science question. Here's the problem: what do we do if and when a
conclusion based on MN irreconcilably conflicts with a conclusion from
theology? How then do we define "Truth"?

The recent discussions on the list about Adam illustrate this well. What if
the only reasonable conclusion from scripture is that Adam was uniquely
created? What MN tells us about the origin of humankind is then false. So
then we say, I suppose, "well that reflects the limits of 'science'." But
that's not really so -- it would reflect a *conflict* between theology and
science, not two spheres of knowledge sharing a boundary within an
encompassing sphere of Truth.

With respect to the particular example of Adam, of course, it's possible
that the Biblical text doesn't require unique creation, and that the TE
narrative is correct. But it seems to me that the TE narrative simply
pushes the conflict between theology and science further back. MN says we
can explain the development of life without any reference to God. A
non-deistic TE position, however, says no, we can't do any such thing. The
Truth in a non-deistic TE view is that God sovereignly directed evolution.
Without this immanent God, there is no universe. The Biblical narrative of
God as an active, involved creator is the Truth, and evolution is the result
of His activity.

So, even if the TE view is correct (and I think I personally lean towards
that view), it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. At some point, TE has
to say that we *cannot* explain the universe without reference to God. You
can label that statement "theology" and place it in its own sphere, but that
sphere necessarily collides with the sphere of "science" somewhere down the
road if "science" excludes reference to God. We are still left with the
same question: which narrative is True?

Like it or not, there is a battle in our culture over Truth. It's
a spiritual battle that has raged at least since the founding of the Church
(Eph. 6:12). I'm not yet convinced that carving out "science" as a sphere
of knowledge defined strictly and always as MN represents a fully-orbed,
Biblical understanding of Truth.

On 3/3/06, Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> I entirely agree with Keith's comments on ID, MN, and theology, and (like
> Keith) I esp like what DeVries wrote 20 years ago. My views on this have
> not changed, despite my efforts recently to defend the intellectual
> freedom
> of scientific heretics. I'll always take Asa Gray over Charles Hodge and
> John Polkinghorne over Phillip Johnson. Hands down. In case anyone was
> having their doubts.
>
> Ted
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 4 10:28:12 2006