Re: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

Gregory Arago wrote:

> In this regard, I wonder if there is any flexibility allowed in
> your statement that "human activities that obey the laws of physics
> count as natural"? Again, as with Keith's approach, I perceive here
> a conflation of 'physical' and 'natural' (or physics and nature),
> with no space allowing for the 'social' (or cultural) as its own
> sphere of discourse - i.e. that which is not necessarily (by
> definition) reducible to natural laws. Also, the spiritual
> dimension of human existence is entirely absent from such a (human
> - physics - natural) viewpoint, even if one can't quantify or
> empirically measure 'spirit' according to physical or natural laws
> that would satisfy the demands of natural scientists. There just
> seems to be an overlap where natural scientific communication
> requires a sort of deference of authority to social scientists, who
> study human beings and their activities in depth.

I don't have time to engage in this discussion, but I will try again
to clarify my position. The reason that I see MN as a good and
valuable description of the realm of scientific exploration is for
the very reason that it validates and gives place to other valid and
vitally important areas of study and knowledge. This was also the
reason "methodological naturalism" was coined by Paul deVries. What
I am trying to oppose is the view that science somehow is the arbiter
of all truth and that if a conclusion is not "scientific" it is
either invalid or subjective and irrelevant. This is scientism or
philosophical naturalism. Some popular scientists see science in
just this manner. Furthermore, much of the YEC and ID community take
the views of such individuals (Dawkins, Dennet, Provine -- to mention
a few) as though they represent the scientific community and their
views accurately describe modern science. Both these groups accept
the same definition of science as inherently materialism or
atheistic. THEY ARE WRONG.

I am aware that there is no sharp, unambiguous, demarcation that
separates science from non-science. The boundaries are fuzzy.
However, science is a distinct discipline with unique objectives and
tools. Science cannot answer all questions -it doesn't have the
methodological tools to do so. It is thus proper, and in my mind
absolutely vital, to make clear what those limitations are.
Otherwise, science becomes equivalent to "knowledge" and turns into
scientism. Science falsely becomes the arbiter of all truth -- thus
even theology must submit to the authority of science. This view
results in efforts to rest the truth of the Bible and the gospel on
scientific evidence and proof. This does not elevate theology, it
lowers it below the hegemony of science.

All the best,

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 22 10:39:25 2006