RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Gregory,
 
If you intend to make a point, I don't know if anyone caught it in the
lengthy dialog. How about this, it might help make your point more
effectively: Why don't you just list those things which you believe are
opposite of "natural" besides the "supernatural". After a simple list of
those things, how about a brief explanation of why those things should be
considered opposite of natural
 
Second, I would invite you to defend your statement, "When IDists speak
about 'intelligent causes,' true, they are constructing themselves against
the simple natural/supernatural dichotomy." If ID supporters really
believed creation came about from the influence of any of a variety of
"intelligent agents" which were potentially not supernatural, this might be
a true statement. However, if the published ID concept of "intelligent
agent" is really a euphemism for "God" in order to make it potentially
acceptable in scientific circles, then I'm not certain your statement is a
correct perception of the contribution of ID. I'm not saying there isn't
potentially a contribution, but I don't think they have necessarily helped
construct a third alternative to "natural" or "supernatural", unless you
allow for alien or human Creators, which they don't in their heart of
hearts.
 
 
Jon Tandy
 <http://www.arcom.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:27 AM
To: Chris Barden
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
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 <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> 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 19:09:27 2007