Re: [asa] God and Science Teaching

Let's see how this works out. I recently had operations to remove
cataracts. My optometrist, a devout Christian, recommended the surgeon as
the best around. Does this make him better than the recommendation of a
pagan or atheist? Does the fact that I committed myself to the Lord's
care make him a better surgeon than would be the case with an atheist
undergoing the same operation? Graphing the surgical success against
theological commitment, will I get a straight line sloping up? sloping
down? a scatter of points?

I always thank the Lord for my food. But what advice should I have given
to the truly Christian California farmers so that the recent freeze would
not have damaged their citrus and avocados, lettuce and strawberries? How
is the farmer to get God on his side with the weather, pests, and all the
other matters that affect growth and harvest?

I see a great difference between science, theoretical and applied, and
faith. The one comes from investigation of the world, the other from
revelation.
Dave

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:58:46 -0800 (PST) Bill Green
<wgreen82004@yahoo.com> writes:
If God is the cause of all things in any real sense, then any description
of natural processes without reference to God is incomplete, just as any
account of Jesus life without reference to His divine nature is
incomplete.

If we in science education leave God out of the picture, does this please
God, who we have acknowleged is the first cause of all things and whose
glory fills the earth and is proclaimed by the heavens?

Were my students created by blind chance funneled through the seive of
physical laws, or were they each, individually created by God? If the
answer is both, then a naturalistic description is incomplete in the most
important way.

Can I remedy this by telling them that I am referring to secondary causes
only and not primary causes? Do they understand what that means? Will
they understand how a "first cause" is a real cause? Will they
understand that the naturalistic explanation is fundamentally incomplete?

Why should a "first cause" even be relevant or significant to them? If
the secondary causes are all we need, then a first cause is superfluous.

Must I push the significance of the first cause to questions about
morality and meaning? I hope not, because such a God-of-the-Gaps
approach is on shaky ground in the eyes of the materialist, who has
mechanistic expalnations for meaning and altruism as well as creation.

"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together, " and we,
like Nebuchadnezzar leave Him out of our explanation (Daniel 4:30). "It
is He who has made us, and not we ourselves (Ps. 100)."

"For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the
glory forever. Amen. Rom 11)."

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 18 16:22:07 2007