RE: [asa] Polkinghorne quote on time required for the evolutionary process

As to Merv's point about the museums and science in general being afraid to
admit they don't know, this is understandable and partially justified by
their honorable desire to prevent the YEC's from rushing in to fill this
knowledge vacuum with their dogma. However I do think they are going a
little further than the scientific evidence suggests in order to make it a
neat and tidy believable package and therein lies the problem. On one hand
we have Ken Ham and Henry Morris "lying for Jesus" and then to counter this
we have mainstream science "lying for naturalism". You may reject this
seemingly extreme comparison and say that mainstream science isn't really
lying but then again Ham and Morris don't think they are lying either.

In either case truth is the casualty and that should be an affront to
Christians since Jesus identified Himself the Truth. Why does it have to be
either/or in this faulty dilemma? It doesn't but in my opinion modern
science has been hijacked to exclude any causes besides natural ones. This
is not MN it is PN. And if the universe and life can not be explained by
natural causes then science is impotent and unsatisfying as it is not able
to yield a rational explanation of what we observe in nature. I respect the
fact that those of you that have careers in science have to be very cautious
about this but I contend that uncritically accepting the just so stories of
naturalistic science just to displace YECism is dishonest and is a
disservice to real science and to truth and to the Christian faith.

As Wayne points out and I agree with, randomness is probably not the correct
root cause of this disconnect and I will take responsibility for introducing
that red herring a few emails back when Strobel's comments came up but I
guess now a more precise restatement of this disconnect between the
naturalistic just so story and the Christian perspective would be a term
that describes how God was involved was in creation. Without getting caught
up in the technical definitions, at the basest level of analysis any process
that has God behind it to me does not qualify as being random, but by
definition has to be directed or guided somehow although we may not know
how. I will concede though that this is a theological and philosophical can
of worms and probably not the best way to describe this problem.

On the other hand, the only other alternative I can think of, naturalism, is
also fraught with an inherent tendency to be misinterpreted as some would
infer from that term a process devoid of any supernatural intervention or
being, but most of us can easily see how God could set up natural laws first
and then operate through them naturalistically. Although the precise
language to capture this distinction escapes me at the moment, I think this
is how we as Christians should engage in the debate and try to refocus it.
We don't have to see gaps in the naturalistic processes as being proofs of
God nor do we need to conclude that even completely explained naturalistic
processes would remove the need or involvement of God. I think Christians
need to focus on the primary cause of the naturalistic processes that we do
observe and that I think is the best scientific argument we can make for
God, defensively however not offensively.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of dawsonzhu@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:02 AM
To: mrb22667@kansas.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Polkinghorne quote on time required for the evolutionary
process

Merv wrote:

Even to someone who has no theological hangups with evolution, -- even a
level headed atheist, this should be grounds for criticism, shouldn't it?
There are times, I believe, when a teacher over simplifies something so a
student can understand (speaking of accommodation!), but this seems more an
indoctrination into something not yet understood by the would-be educators,
but merely assumed. And that assumption isn't even scientific, but a
religious proposition. I applaud Polkinghorne if he challenges these
habits. YECs should not be seen as giving the only alternative answer to
such sloppy pretense of certainty. A museum should not be afraid to use the
words "we don't yet know this", and yet apparently they are afraid.

I don't recal Polkinghorne saying this either.

However, I can see your point here. When we use science as our "god", we
must offer an answer for everything. When we use science as a "tool", we use
it properly for the purpose a tool is made for. Of course, one can improvise
with a tool, and one can discover new uses for a tool he/she didn't realize
could apply. But tools should be used with discression.

This is not the first time we have had this discussion. It has come up time
and again since I have been on this list. The issue is, as you point out,
that even the atheist (if their honest about their faith) should resist
using science as a tool to justify their faith. It is for exactly the
reasons you point out above, that this sloppy kind of just-so presentation
is used because the writers were embarrassed to admit that they don't have
an answer. And it impoverishes our thinking because even the atheist should
realize that there may be more than he/she knows or even can know in
principle. To present such speculation as authoritative fact actually
stifle scientific progress, because we some people will just stop asking
questions. Good science always inspires more questions than it answers in
my experience. And science progresses because we learn how to ask the right
questions.

The central conclusion I have observed is that we should resist assertions
of randomness as "undirected and purposeless". That is a statement of
faith, not a statement of fact. All we know is that the process appears to
be random with the "tools" we have. That may be all we ever know, but it
proves nothing. Moreover, we should (indeed must) resist scientism. We
should resist the claim that matter is all that is and that science can
explain everything. Maybe it can, but that is certainly not a known fact. It
is not the "randomness" that is wrong, it is the use of this randomness to
prop up one's faith that we should resist. Such dogma does stifle asking
questions. When this is done as though it were the big stamp of "science
proves", it is a distortion of science.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne (ASA member)

-----Original Message-----
From: Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:06 am
Subject: Re: [asa] Polkinghorne quote on time required for the evolutionary
process

Sorry -- this isn't an answer to your question, but just a thought provoked.

As John Walley wrote, it's a needed critical response to a sloppy habit
where science interfaces with the public / educational arena. I remember
going through the Denver natural history museum which (typically I'm sure)
had great graphical presentations of atoms and molecules randomly coming
together and forming a more complicated molecule and onward -- to the first
cell. I don't remember there being any technical substance to the
presentation of this particular exhibit (forget about amino acids, proteins,
etc.); it was obviously geared for an elementary audience. The main thrust
of the content seemed to be the implication of "randomness" in its typical
metaphysically inflated role. And there was no hint of speculation
anywhere in it. A young child may just as well have thought he was seeing
some actual video footage of this kind of thing happening.

Even to someone who has no theological hangups with evolution, -- even a
level headed atheist, this should be grounds for criticism, shouldn't it?
There are times, I believe, when a teacher over simplifies something so a
student can understand (speaking of accommodation!), but this seems more an
indoctrination into something not yet understood by the would-be educators,
but merely assumed. And that assumption isn't even scientific, but a
religious proposition. I applaud Polkinghorne if he challenges these
habits. YECs should not be seen as giving the only alternative answer to
such sloppy pretense of certainty. A museum should not be afraid to use the
words "we don't yet know this", and yet apparently they are afraid.

--Merv

Steve Martin wrote:

I remember seeing a quote by Polkinghorne to the effect that it mystified
him how evolutionary biologists were so confident in their account of the
development of life on earth. How could they be so sure that 3.5 billion
years was enough for the evolutionary process to explain the development of
single celled organisms all the way up to the current state of terrestrial
diversity? As a physicist and a bottom up thinker, he felt that more
detailed calculations should be provided before conclusions were so
confidently proposed. (I'm pretty sure he closed the paragraph saying he
trusted the evolutionary biologists anyways).

My question: Does anyone know where this quote is from? I'm skimmed through
a couple of Polkinghorne books now and can't seem to find it.

-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com <http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/>  
 
  _____  
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.