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

I totally agree with Allen taking Rom 1 21as seeing God in the grandeur of nature. As I wrote a few weeks ago we see it all around us and tonight I took the dog for a walk just before dark as I find that time on a bright day (yes it is sunny in England today- very odd for November) absolutely wonderful especially I as return walking west so see all the glory of the end of sunset. Who cares about design when you see that beauty which to me reflects the wonder of God.

I also find that Paley is closer to me than to the ID crowd which have a totally different understanding of design. To Paley design was in everything and to ID it is only in the Gaps (and fine-tuning which they nicked from others)

Below is the introduction to my chapter in Debating Design ed Ruse and Dembski - which probably finished me off with Dembski. Please note especially what I say about Calvin as that is close to what George says (so George must be right:)). I buy Miller on the beauty of nature

Michael

The Design Argument evokes William Paley walking on a Cumbrian moorland and discovering a watch. In the windswept silence he developed his Watchmaker analogy of an intelligent designer, and thus Intelligent Design may be considered as the restatement of the old argument refuted by Charles Darwin. There are similarities but also important differences between the old Design Arguments of Paley, William Buckland and even John Ray and those of Behe, Dembski and other proponents of Intelligent Design. To make a valid comparison, it is essential to consider the content and context of Design, old and new, the relationship of both to geological time, biological evolution, naturalism (or secondary causes) and a "theological approach" to science. My major concern is the refusal of Design Theorists to take sufficient cognisance of the vastness of geological time. Secondly I show that historically scientists cannot simply be type-cast as "theistic" or "naturalist" as both some design theorists and critics imply. Thirdly I show that Intelligent Design is more an argument from rhetoric than science, and lastly I seek to demonstrate difference between Intelligent Design and the 19th century design arguments and how Intelligent Design is very different from Paley's.

Design arguments came to prominence in the 17th Century evolving from theological arguments of 'nature leading to nature's God' in a culture dominated by mechanistic science. There are roots in Calvin, who wrote in Book One of The Institutes; 'Hence, the author of . Hebrews elegantly describes the visible worlds as images of the invisible (Heb. 11. 3), the elegant structure of the world serving as a kind of mirror, in which we may behold God, though otherwise invisible.'[1] And then of 'innumerable proofs, not only those more recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural sciences, are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them.'[2] Calvin made clear the general appeal of his argument including both the scientific and the popular. Proof is not rational demonstration but rather the sense of awe and beauty "demonstrating" 'the admirable wisdom of its maker'. The 'recondite' side of Calvin's 'innumerable proofs' was taken up a century later by members of the Royal Society as in the Physico-theology of William Derham and many others. Robert Hooke in Micrographia (1665) is a fine example when he compared the perfect design of living things with the blemishes of man's artefacts. Brooke comments, 'Compared with the filigree precision of nature, human artefacts made a very sorry sight: "the more we see of their shape", Hooke observed, "the less appearance will there be of their beauty."'[3]

The development of the Design Argument in the 18th century culminated in William Paley's Natural Theology (1802) and William Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise in 1836. Paley and Buckland emphasised the perfection of mechanical structures, but Hugh Miller writing in the 1850s focussed on the beauty of natural structures, indicating a shift in the design argument.[4] After Darwin the detailed appeal to Design went out of vogue, though the liberal Anglican Frederick Temple could write in 1884, 'The fact is that the doctrine of Evolution does not affect the substance of Paley's argument at all.'[5] Clearly Temple's 'substance' excludes the detailed design argument of a Paley or a Dembski. The detailed design argument has resurfaced in recent years with both Intelligent Design and more general arguments of both Old and Young Earth Creationists. The focus here is on Intelligent Design.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] J. Calvin, Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 5, section 1.

[2] J. Calvin, Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 5, section 2.

[3] J. H. Brooke and G. Cantor Reconstructing Nature, 1998. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 217

[4] H. Miller, The Testimony of the Rocks, 1858, London, 238-44

[5] F. Temple The Relations between Science and Religion, 1884 London:Longmans, p113

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: SteamDoc@aol.com
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Cc: john_walley@yahoo.com
  Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 4:49 PM
  Subject: [asa] 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 and Make AOL Your 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 15:01:05 2007