Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

  David Opderbeck wrote:

> 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.

There can be no real conflict if we believe that the God of scripture
is the God of all reality. We are human, our current scientific
conclusion can be in error, or our current interpretations of
scripture can be in error. But there can be no ultimate conflict
between the nature and history of the material universe and the God
who created it.

>
> 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.

The whole point of the concept of MN is that science IS limited. It
is not the whole Truth nor can it ever be. To remove the MN
limitations of science is in essence an expression of "scientism" in
which science becomes the arbitor of all truth. This point is made
my Paul de Vries in his essay that I referenced earlier.

>
> 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?

Why is there a conflict? The universe cannot be explained without
reference to God. But science does not explain, nor can it, such
things as ultimate cause, purpose, meaning and morality. Science is
incomplete, that is the whole point.

>
> 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.
>

As I have tried to state, MN makes not such claims for science --
just the opposite. My whole point is that science is not, and cannot
be, a "fully-orbed Biblical understanding of Truth."

Keith
Received on Sat Mar 4 16:11:40 2006