Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Gregory,

I don't think you're being entirely fair to people on this list, and
certainly not of ASA as a whole (for which this list should not be
considered representative, given that one need not be a member of ASA
to contribute). In particular, anthropology, sociology, and history
are fields that Dick Fischer depends on for his work on Genesis, so
I'm sure he is not denigrating them. I doubt also that he meant that
they could not be science because they don't study the natural, since
they obviously study natural people in natural communities with
natural points in history.

The natural/supernatural dichotomy is a misleading way to talk about
things, true. But even if we called it something else (McGrath favors
"creation") and avoided playing any demarcation games, I still think
ID-as-a-program doesn't really have much to offer. The cosmological
argument and other arguments from design that rely merely on
inspection are echoes of Romans 1:20, and they are certainly valuable
for "mere" apologetics. But Behe or Dempski's idea of positive,
"offensive" ID apologetics are not likely to bear fruit. They are
ostensibly based on -- indeed, their credibility as positive research
programs depend essentially upon -- methods of forensic science. Such
methods clearly include aspects of sociology and psychology, but also
(bio)chemistry and physical techniques. The physical science aspects
of the program are essential to its validity. And I am not convinced
that ID's physical science aspects can prove anything about where the
Designer's fingerprints lie. Neither are many others on this list,
which is why they are so down on it.

If you can think of a way in which ID could utilize the "soft"
sciences without having to rely on the methodological weaknesses
inherent in its "hard" science methods, I'd be glad to hear about it.
That's what us physical scientists folk would like to hear.

Chris

On Nov 16, 2007 6:34 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> You've displayed exactly the type of behaviour, Michael, that has led me to
> back away from participating lately on the ASA list. Thankfully, some of the
> new voices on the list are encouraging and inspiring. They are challenging
> and engaging the ASA faithful on their views with respect, curiosity and a
> willingness to share ideas and to ask questions in the interest of our
> common faith. As one result, the hardcore anti-IDists (sometimes who are
> also excessive or even absolutistic TEs, much less often they are ECs) seem
> less persuasive.
>
> For someone ordained, Michael, you can be pretty obtuse and surprisingly
> cynical! Did you even read what I wrote or just choose to respond with
> prejudice toward someone who sees things differently than you and honestly
> calls you out on your views (in this case indirectly, since I didn't address
> you)? Obviously you didn't read what Chris Barden wrote because you simply
> didn't address the notion that "the natural/supernatural distinction needs
> to be recast." In fact, since two days ago nobody at ASA has addressed it!
>
> If you had read what I wrote, there would be no reason to write: "You seem
> to overstress humanity so we are not natural," as you did, when I had
> specifically written: "Does that make human beings 'not-natural'? No. Does
> it make us 'more-than-just-natural'? [This is a] more realistic scenario."
>
> You have not offered a shred of dialogue ON TOPIC, instead choosing to have
> a monologue with yourself, taking occasional pokes at me. How unfortunate!
>
> I referred specifically to those who are 'entrenched' in a
> natural/supernatural dichotomy. These people do exist Michael, and your
> complaining, hand-waving away and distracting antics by trying to get
> personal with me won't change that fact. In the past I have indicated
> alternatives to the natural/supernatural dichotomy, but no one seemed to
> want to hear it or discuss it. For example, Dick Fischer, who wouldn't
> dignify anthropology, economics, psychology, sociology, culturology and
> other social-humanitarian fields as 'scientific,' giving no defence other
> than "natural as opposed to supernatural." Such a retreat into a classical
> theological dichotomy is discourteous to the dialogue and shows no
> willingness to engage with the academy as it currently exists today. I call
> this retro, not future looking.
>
> There seems to be an unwritten rule that if a person proposes any other
> opposite to 'natural' than 'supernatural,' then that person and his or her
> ideas shouldn't be addressed, but instead isolated and silenced. A
> privileging of 'supernatural' over against all of the other opposites to
> 'natural' is obviously strongly promoted at ASA. Yet, if ASA isn't willing
> to entertain new possibilities, as even the Rev. Dr. A. McGrath suggests in
> terms of 'recasting the distinction,' then ASA will remain a retro
> organization that is, stuck in the past, defending status quos (repeat after
> US: evolution really IS scientific, evolution really IS scientific). The IDM
> and its satellites, branches and network is so far ahead of ASA in being
> contemporary on this front, it's astonishing!!
>
> As for your lecture about recognizing that people are partly natural,
> Michael, I'd most probably skip the course. "We are part of the natural
> world and have classified ourselves as such." That's quite a platitude,
> really! Did I ever say we are 'detached' from the natural world? No, I did
> not say that. And yet you, Michael Roberts, posture that I have said it and
> unfairly put words into my mouth. Such e-behaviour is as unbecoming of a
> chaplain/priest, as it would also be of a respectable common layperson.
>
> The bathroom tip is condescending and trite. Next time you offer communion
> to a communicant, ask yourself: is this all just a natural event? Next time
> you observe a cultural custom, ask yourself: is that just natural behaviour,
> or is there more to it than that, that a geologist-theologian, interested in
> history (i.e. not a historian), might not be trained to know much about
> (i.e. that a culturologist might be able to enlighten you about)? The Lord
> teaches us new things all the time if we are not too stubborn or closed-off
> to listen and be ready to receive some of the wonders of the world. You,
> Michael Roberts, or George Murphy, or David Campbell, are not a controlling
> authority on 'the nature of things.'
>
> We all have our limitations, roles and purposes Michael, a bit of humility
> would help to display yours. Sadly, I don't expect it.
>
> Dismayed by the entrench-ness and apparent unwillingness to care at ASA.
>
> Gregory
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Gregory:
>
> Answers can be simple and easy to comprehend, though perhaps less precise,
> or answers can be complicated, a bit more precise and more difficult to
> comprehend. There are trade offs whatever you do. If this is an issue that
> warrants walking the floor, sleepless nights, and endless hand wringing,
> then by all means, knock yourselves out. I'm more inclined along the lines
> of Michael's comment – "horseplay," although I'm not sure "play" is the
> appropriate ending.
>
>
> Dick Fischer
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Gregory Arago
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:35 PM
> To: Chris Barden
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science
>
>
> Hurrah and Amen! 'A new category'...to recast the natural/supernatural
> distinction. This has been my position all along.
>
>
>
> And yet some people wish to exclude any position that denies nature's only
> opposite as 'supernatural'!
>
>
>
> What may appear to Michael Roberts (geologist, theologian) as horseplay is
> actually quite serious to other scientists and scholars. Sadly, he doesn't
> show respect for difference, but rather chooses to denigrate perspectives
> that differ from his own. Why not recognize that 'nature' is not a category
> 'owned' by natural scientists? Why not imagine that 'natural as opposed to
> supernatural' is incomprehensive? It would make for friendlier dialogue
> indeed.
>
>
>
> This whole thread began in reaction to Dick Fischer's exclusive definition:
> "Causes have to be natural to qualify as science, that's all." Such a
> definition, imho, simply needs to be backed away from and reconsidered. It
> would allow more inclusive dialogue with people who are also invested in the
> discourse of science, nature, religion, society, culture, et. al. yet who
> are not among the small percentage of natural scientists who walk the face
> of the Earth.
>
>
> Thank you for considering rather than simply dismissing this, those of you
> who are entrenched in the natural/supernatural dichotomy at ASA.
>
>
>
> Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I may interject -- Alister McGrath spends nearly half of his Scientific
> Theology, vol 1, arguing that "nature" as a category is so laden with
> socially constructed views from centuries past (e.g. nature-as-everything,
> nature-as-everything-physical,
> nature-as-everything-physical-excluding-humanity, etc.) that it cannot bear
> the weight of any one position. He suggests we need a new category, in which
> case the natural/supernatural distinction needs to be recast.
>
> Chris
>
>
> ________________________________
> All new Yahoo! Mail - ________________________________
> Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 17 20:48:08 2007