Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Gregory

I don't respond to your comments as they are highly confusing, misrepresent others and it seems that you have got on this list to slag off the ASA.

I simply cant be bothered to respond to your rants, so please desist from telling me what I actually hold, when you cant get it right.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Chris Barden
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 5:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

  Chris,
   
  Thank you for returning to contribute on this topic. This branch of the thread on "Polkinghorne and 'natural' science" began in response to a statement by Dick Fischer, stating that "Causes have to be natural to qualify as science, that's all." Do you believe/accept this? What if the definition was changed from 'natural' to 'physical' - would you then accept it? When human beings/human nature are/is involved, then restricting 'science' to either 'natural' or 'physical' causes alone becomes problematic.
   
  It is just the same that 'natural selection' may be all well and good until it confronts non-natural things, for example, when the case of 'human selection' (or 'artificial selection' in 19th century thought) is preferable conceptually to 'natural selection'. Do you see what I'm driving at here, Chris?
   
  Dick's only response to my questioning of whether or not certain social-humanitarian disciplines thus qualify as 'science' or not, that is, because they study 'non-natural things,' was simply one sentence: "natural as opposed to supernatural." To me, this is representative of many thinkers on the ASA list who 1) insist that the ONLY opposite of 'natural' is 'supernatural' (and so let me say frankly, It Isn't!"), and 2) are unwilling to compromise their views about this to the degree that they could possibly become relevant in contemporary discourse. That is, if they continue to insist on the inviolability of the natural/supernatural dichotomy, they will miss out on opportunities to engage contemporary culture (i.e. people living today) rather than hiding behind an ancient theological, not even doctrinal, position that is functionally outdated in today's academic diversity.
   
  Not just Dick, but no one else on the ASA list was ready or willing to challenge or meet this topic, as it seems to be TABOO! And that is exactly why I raised the question in the first place; to show the ASA list their silences and dependencies, because frankly I've become tired of hearing repeats about ID, theistic evolution and how natural scientists know more about 'nature' than anybody else - of course, this includes 'human nature' where human-social thinkers might just possibly, maybe, in some far out chance situation, potentially have something important to say if they were not uninvited to or super-rare on the ASA list! Michael Roberts seems to think geology-theology-history counts as 'social-humanitarian' - who'da thunk it?!
   
  I wrote: "A privileging of 'supernatural' over against all of the other opposites to 'natural' is obviously strongly promoted at ASA."
   
  If you disagree that this is true at ASA, Chris, then please give some examples of persons who do not privilege the dialogue as I suggest. I'd be glad if even you would show that you do not so privilege it. Otherwise, I don't think what I've said is unfair at all, but at least representative of many of those who dialogue on the ASA list. Even the word itself 'privileging' is something that many natural scientists in their fear of post-modernism have come to label as off-limits to practical scientific discourse. Thus, they silence it.
   
  Did you wonder at all, Chris, why Michael Roberts simply didn't address the notion that "the natural/supernatural distinction needs to be recast"? Zero, nul, nada, is what he said about it, instead diverting! Did it surprise you more that NOBODY on the ASA list addressed it, not even George Murphy or David Campbell? I've gotten rather used to silence (though David C. seems rather courageous) in response to difficult questions put to the ASA, like the simple question of asking for examples of "things that don't evolve (into being or having become)." It was mainly the non-regulars that made contributions and helped with ideas on the topic, not those who are 'entrenched' in TE/CE (the charge that neither Dick nor Michael liked) and who simply can't imagine ANYTHING that doesn't evolve, so strongly have they intertwined their theology with 'evolutionary science' that there appears no alternative for them.
   
  For me there is no such natural/supernatural problematic perhaps simply because I am not a natural scientist but a social-humanitarian thinker. For a social-humanitarian thinker, there are many opposites to 'natural' that count as valid, legitimate, relevant, etc. which the natural scientist is not practically trained to dignify or acknowledge. These things are simply outside the vocabulary of natural science. And so, the natural scientist, especially one who is unread in history and philosophy of science (HPS), not to mention sociology of science (SoS), is unprepared to dialogue about all of those things that are not 'natural' but which still count as objects/subjects that can be scientifically studied. At the same time, however, it is surely possible and acceptable to acknowledge that the Lord is separate from the Lord's creation, i.e. not to confuse the creator and the created.
   
  You bring up ID, Chris, presumably because I wrote about the IDM as more 'progressive' than ASA. I said, "The IDM and its satellites, branches and network is so far ahead of ASA in being contemporary on this front, it's astonishing!!" Your last message was 2/3 about ID and 1/3 about the thread's topic. But I only brought up ID b/c they (Dick and Michael) dodged the nature/supernature dichotomy and so I wanted to provoke them by pointing out the IDM's successes in comparison to their own.
   
  You wrote: "The natural/supernatural dichotomy is a misleading way to talk about things, true. But.I still think ID-as-a-program doesn't really have much to offer."
   
  For me, the first sentence is on topic for the thread. If you agree that "the natural/supernatural dichotomy is a misleading way to talk about things, true," then we are on the same page. Agreed! We may also be on the same page about ID-as-a-program, but that is not the topic at issue in this thread. When IDists speak about 'intelligent causes,' true, they are constructing themselves against the simple natural/supernatural dichotomy. But I take that recognition no further here because it is not my purpose in this thread to defend or challenge ID.

  You also wrote: "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."
   
  Then why couldn't Dick openly answer with something like this: "sure, anthropology, sociology and history can be/are scientific, or legitimate fields, even though they don't depend entirely on natural causes. Thus, my earlier definition of 'science' is somewhat partial, because it didn't take into account that causes that are non-natural can be included in what counts as scientific"? Why all the hiding? Is it protectiveness, is it myopia, is it pride of not wanting to back-peddle in public? Why did it take you, Chris Barden, to defend what Dick 'really' meant?

  On the other hand, do you really imagine that you can reduce 'people,' 'communities' and 'points in history' to all being 'natural,' and then leave it at that?! Wow, we could have a long conversation over many kettles of tea if you really thought that!? I refuse to allow the lesser philosophy in America to dictate to contributions to knowledge from other places that rely on philosophy and that can out-duel their American non-philosophical counterparts on philosophical grounds.
   
  Can I offer you another possibility? It is because Dick is dependent upon 'positive science,' in the model of traditional natural science, rather than on a model of 'reflexive science' that characterizes contemporary social-humanitarian thought, that he doesn't dignify the scientific character of human-social sciences. So he and other folks continue (long after their due) to call social-humanitarian thought 'soft' or 'not-hard' when in fact it is more 'difficult' than natural science because it is obviously more complex because it involves human choices which are not reducible to simple bio-chemical or physical (cf. 'natural') laws. Thus, it probably bothers Dick (and others like M.R.) to be challenged about the 'naturalism' apparent in his philosophical methodology, which is what he showed when restricting science to natural causes and then retreating into a classical theological argument that 'supernatural' is opposed only by 'natural' when in fact there are many other ways to speak about what is non-natural than forcing the dialogue toward 'supernatural.'
   
  Theologians who are not prepared to engage the social-humanitarian disciplines likely won't appreciate these words and their meanings. Those who are already recognize the value of social-humanitarian views, both for apologetics and evangelism, are well-ahead of their specialized natural scientific brothers and sisters and more prepared to engage contemporary culture. However, the latter situation seems to require a trickle-down effect to reach those natural scientists/theologians that are stuck in one kind of science-religion discourse, when the signs of the times are indicating something new is ready to broaden the horizon, lighten the load. This is what I've been hinting at for several months on the ASA list, by signalling the status quo EC/TE view and showing how ID is (in some few cases) trying to advance the discourse in keeping with the spirit of the age. It may not be the 'science of ID' that is doing it, but then again, science is only one contributor to knowledge and others spheres of knowledge should be respected too.
   
  One hint: Charles Taylor winning the Templeton Prize this year, the first philosopher, first social-humanitarian thinker, shows that what was in the past is not necessarily what is now. A new day has come, sings his Quebecois compatriot Celine Dion. This is exactly what ASA will miss out on if it gets stuck, entrenched in outdated views.
   
  "Because something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mister Murphy, Fischer, van Meurs, Peacocke (Jones)?" - Bob Dylan
   
  This the way a young person thinks in the new electronic age. But others can just ignore it and continue on with their elevator music, if it pleases and comforts them.
   
   
  On and on and one,
  Gregory Arago

  Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com> wrote:
    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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 19 14:41:25 2007