Re: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

>
> I have just finished reading the first third of "Three Views on Creation
> and Evolution", edited by J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. The first
> third contains the young earth creation view, including their view that
> methodological naturalism is a faulty viewpoint because it limits science to
> not consider all causes, which could be supernatural in origin. Instead,
> they argue for what they call an "open philosophy of science" which they say
> means that when science looks at a phenomenon to find out its cause, it
> should be allowed to consider a wide variety of causes, natural and
> supernatural.
>

Part of the issue here is also the exact definition and role given to both
MN and to science. Is MN considered a good first thing to try, or the only
possibility for science, or the only possibility for anything? Is the
assciation of MN and science a statement of the limits of what science can
do, or is science assumed to aswer everything?

As you note, there is no way to get further data on the exact mechanism
involved in the virgin conception of Jesus. Such unique events are not
amenable to scientific analysis. Even if we could get data, e.g., a DNA
sample that proved to have a totally unique component to it, science could
only bring us to the conclusion that science did not provide any answer
(assuming that the result was scientifically mysterious).

Superstition-like or magical supernatural explanations can be amenable to
scientific tests, if they claim that a particular phenomenon will
consistently occur under a given set of circumstances. E.g., newspaper
horoscopes do not provide a better description of the experiences of those
who are supposed to go with one sign than with another, whether or not you
adjust the dates by two months to match astronomical reality. Randi can use
sleight of hand, etc. to replicate what Geller claims to achieve
psychically.

However, that's not how God works. The Journal of Irreproducible Results a
while ago had a paper purporting to test the suitability of angels as lab
animals. Ability to go through walls and disinterest in food made them much
less suitable than rats for maze tests. More seriously, God is not to be
put to the test, and is free to act above the ordinary laws of nature that
He created.

On the other hand, creation behaves in very orderly ways. Not only is it
the creation of a rational being, and no rival powers outside His control
are going to mess things up (unlike in polytheistic or dualistic views), but
also as He created us to be stewards over creation, He must have given us
the ability to understand how it works and what the consequences of our
actions will be.

Science can deal with things that obey regular physical laws, though these
laws could in theory be supernatural and often in practice are statistical,
highly contingent, or otherwise not amenable to a precise universal result.
It can't deal with things that don't obey regular physical laws.

YEC and intelligent design advocates use MN all the time. They print
articles instead of assuming that their views will be miraculously revealed
to all true believers. They assume that things around them will behave
according to the laws of nature. They only reject it when the evidence goes
against their views.

> How would a Theistic Evolutionist respond to the Incarnation in this
> context? Would they allow for a non-scientific (non-naturalistic)
> discontinuity as the "first cause" for an otherwise natural human
> development? I mean in the sense of a scientific phenomenon, rather than a
> religious ideology. If so, then why could there not be similar
> discontinuities in the Creation, as with the OEC view? I am writing this
> with the understanding that the Theistic Evolutionary view of creation is
> that God did not act outside of normal, methodologically natural processes (
> i.e. they reject the periodic supernatural interventions claimed by
> OECists). Or would the TE say the birth of Christ (miraculous in its first
> instant, but fully natural thereafter) illustrates how God created a "fully
> gifted creation" in the first instance, which has ever since been operating
> according to marvelous but natural processes?
>

The exact boundary between TE and OEC is somewhat vague, as there are a full
range of views from separate creation of species (even the ones we observe
evolving from other species at the present) to full continuity of natural
law for the whole physical process of creating organisms. There's also the
Arminian-Calvinistic continuum which influences how one pictures God
interacting with creation.

As far as I know, those who would identify more or less with the TE label
typically accept God's ability to act miraculously but hold that the
evidence suggests that He did not do so in the process of creating
organisms. Rejecting God's ability to do anything that does not follow
natural law seems more deistic than theistic, though it is a common
characteristic of anti-TE caricatures.

>
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 11 18:16:40 2006