[asa] RE: Undue elevation of science in (some) natural theology (was D'Souza vs. Hitchens)

Allan,

To remind you of your excellent intro example of the Family Circus cartoon,
I think it applies equally well to whether or not God leaves his
fingerprints on creation or whether we base our faith on Jesus Christ. They
are both true.

I don't think Phil Johnson would agree that God must leave His fingerprints
on creation for Him to be meaningful. If he actually does, then I agree with
you this is flawed. But I think he would more likely rather say that God
leaving His fingerprints on creation is consistent with His nature, and
because we do observe them, it is rational and logical to deduce that
creation came from Him. And I agree with this general premise of ID.

The point is we do not need to elevate science to prove God, but we cannot
ignore science either. Your proposed Biblical response of just basing things
on Jesus Christ is not sufficient to eliminate YEC and other factually
errant teachings of the faith, including the very ID of Johnson in your
example.

Clearly our faith still boils down to faith at the end of the day, but I
think it is reasonable (I am using that word cautiously but deliberately) to
expect that what we do observe in nature would at least be consistent with
our faith and the teachings of the scriptures, which I think is what we see.
There has to be a rational component to our faith as well and to some extent
it has to comport with what we observe in the physical world.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: SteamDoc@aol.com [mailto:SteamDoc@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:49 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Cc: john_walley@yahoo.com
Subject: Undue elevation of science in (some) natural theology (was D'Souza
vs. Hitchens)

Since my web writing at
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter4.pdf

was invoked in this thread, I thought I would chime in to make a
clarification.

John Walley wrote:

Thanks for the reference and I agree that is an excellent article and indeed
a prescient recapitulation of this very thread.

I have the following comments about it though:

I find the following criticism very curious because that is what I see as
the antithesis to natural revelation mentioned earlier. To me, natural
revelation does not elevate science, it subordinates it. It does elevate
reason and spiritual discernment though which is crucial in engaging our
secular culture. Rejecting natural revelation does elevate science however.

[Below is a quote from my writing - AHH]
"A third potential problem with natural theology is that it can be guilty of
elevating science above other ways of knowing, and elevating human reason
above revelation. Are we following the science-idolizing lead of the
Enlightenment by insisting that God should be scientifically detectable in
order to matter?"

My clarification:

Earlier in that section, I believe I say that these critiques of "natural
theology" are in some cases only applicable to certain varieties. I would
say that is the case here (notice my "it CAN be guilty" language). I did
not have in mind the flavor of natural theology that simply sees God in the
grandeur of nature (which must be what Rom. 1:20 is talking about if it is
talking about natural theology at all).

Instead, the "natural theology" I had in mind in that comment was that of
Paley and his modern successors in the ID movement, who make scientific
evidence (or "gaps" in that evidence) foundational to the faith (to the
extent they make it foundational, one might mention I Cor. 3:11). For
example, you have Phil Johnson saying that in order for God to be a
meaningful reality, God must leave scientifically detectable "fingerprints
all over the evidence." That is a blatant example of "elevating science
above other ways of knowing."

It is true that those who reject natural revelation may also unduly elevate
science. This would be those like Richard Dawkins who say that science
doesn't show evidence of God (and/or has explained away the "gaps" once
attributed to God), so therefore there is no God. But the Biblical response
to this is not to agree with their underlying science-elevating premise
(that God is in competition with scientific explanations and scientific
arguments are the best evidence for all questions). The Biblical response
(see Romans starting at 3:21 and the early parts of I Corinthians, for
example) is to base things on Jesus Christ, the crucified and resurrected
Messiah, who is not primarily known via scientific means.

Allan (ASA member)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

  _____

See what's new at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170>
and Make AOL Your
<http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> Homepage.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 3 13:39:06 2007