Re: [asa] public response

> A common theme involves natural explanations of natural phenomena.
> Any mention of the supernatural is excluded from consideration. If
> we were really honest, all the discussion on this listserv that
> makes any mention of God in any type of involvement in the process
> of evolution would be considered non-scientific. I have often
> wondered how the scientists here reconcile their concepts of God
> acting through evolution with the definitions offered by three
> influential science groups.

This issue has been discussed extensively on this listserve. The
issue being addressed by the statements you quote concern the proper
purview and limitations of science. Science cannot study the
supernatural. There is simply no method for subjecting the action of
a supernatural agent to scientific test. Supernatural agents are not
subject to the limitations of natural law or regularity and therefore
can accomplish any conceivable end. As such they provide no basis
for a scientific description of the natural world.

What we are engaged with here is the important task of integrating
scientific insights with the revelation of God in Christ. This is an
absolutely vital task, but one that transcends science. Science
also has no foundation upon which to address the critical questions
of meaning, purpose and ethics (ought as opposed to is).

As Paul deVries emphasized when describing methodological naturalism,
to make the supernatural part of the domain of science is to yield to
the culture of scientism that sees science as the ultimate arbiter of
all truth.

My view of continuous creation that sees God actively involved in
natural processes, including biological evolution, is NOT a
scientific conclusion. It is NOT science -- it is philosophy and
theology.

Keith

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 19 22:51:58 2008