Re: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

*However, neither YEC, nor OEC, nor TE hold that MN always covers every
aspect of everything.*

Thanks David. There's no doubt that the quality of discourse could be
improved by better defining terms and by not using slogans such as "MN" as
codewords for the culture war. That said, I'm not sure I'd characterize
your examples as "MN." Maybe we need to distinguish between "stronger" and
"weaker" forms of MN?

My understanding of "MN" as ID proponents use that term is that only
naturalistic explanations are valid ("strong" MN). I think that's very
different than saying "naturalistic explanations are preferred" ("weaker"
MN). In the "strong" understanding of MN, if there is no apparent
naturalistic explanation, it is assumed that one in fact exists and that it
hasn't yet been discovered, or perhaps is unknowable, although "strong" MN
often includes a presumption that all natural explanations are in principle
knowable. So, for example, "strong" MN would hold that the "apparent"
resurrection of Jesus must be the result of mass hysteria, "swooning," or
simple fraud. And, "strong" MN would hold that the "apparent" design
inherent in nature must be attributable entirely to natural causes.

In the weaker form of MN, it is valid to propose a non-naturalistic
explanation if the circumstances suggest there is no true naturalistic
explanation. So, with the resurrection of Jesus, the circumstances suggest
that natural explanations are not probable, and our scriptures tell us that
it was a miracle. Here I think is the more critical issue, which is one of
epistemology: TE's (at least some TEs who allow for miracles), and OECs and
YECs and other theists, do not accept the epistemic presupposition that the
only possible causitive factors are natural ones that are always in
principle knowable.

The rub between TEs and OEC-YEC / ID proponents is in whether the
circumstances of the development of life can validly suggest
non-naturalistic causes. TEs say "no," sort of -- there are
non-naturalistic causes in the sense that God sovereignly directs the
development of life, but the mechanisms He uses to do so are entirely
naturalistic and in principle knowable. ID proponents say "yes" -- when
naturalistic explanations become highly implausible (as in the case of
Irreducible Complexity), it is valid to propose non-naturalistic causes that
are not knowable.

At this point, the "God of the gaps" argument arises. I wonder, though,
whether the TE's use of "God of the gaps" sometimes implies an a-theistic
epistemology. It seems to me that this is where the work needs to be done.
Rather than throwing around slogans like "MN" or "God of the gaps" (which is
just as much a culture war slogan as "MN," IMHO), we need to develop a more
nuanced theistic epistemology that explains when we as human beings have
warrant for inferring non-naturalistic causes from a given set of
circumstances.

On 8/17/06, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/11/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > I don't think I'd totally agree with this characterization. They would
> also believe, I'm sure, that God uses the articles they print to work in
> people's hearts and minds in ways they would characterize as miraculous or
> at least not explainable by natural laws, and they also I'm sure would
> believe that things around them sometimes do and sometimes don't behave
> according to natural laws -- for example when someone in their church
> fellowship is healed from an illness or blessed in some other way that
seems
> to be God working directly merely than simply natural laws. And all of us
> would probably believe the same things as well, OEC, TE, or whatever, so
> "they" could just as well say of "us," "they believe the supernatural
> intervenes in the natural in other areas of life -- why can't they believe
> it happend in natural history too?"
>
> "All the time" is ambiguous and I should have made it clearer. Everyone
> uses MN all the time in the sense of using it every day and arguably every
> second (depending on whether you count ongoing assumptions such as that
the
> atmosphere, furniture, buildings, etc. will continue to behave in a normal
> fashion). However, neither YEC, nor OEC, nor TE hold that MN always
covers
> every aspect of everything.
>
> Some YEC and ID advocates label MN as inherently atheistic. The fact that
> everyone uses it all the time highlights that this is a thoughtlessly
> hypocritical way to slander the faith of anyone who disagrees with you
> rather than a valid claim. E.g., claiming that MN invariably leads to
> philosophical naturalism. Likewise, the fact that one can combine
printing
> articles in the ordinary fashion with prayer and God's work shows that use
> of natural methods is not inherently atheistic.
>
> Attacking MN is a red herring. Even if I assume that God worked
> miraculously in a particular situation, that doesn't change the fact that
> the physical evidence contradicts many YEC and ID claims.
> (any newcomers-Methodological Naturalism, Young Earth Creationism/ist, Old
> Earth Creationism/ist, Theistic Evolution/ist, Intelligent Design sensu
the
> ID movement)
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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 Sat Aug 19 09:43:49 2006