Re: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

Good points Steve -- but then again, some of the most elegant and erudite
proponents of not excluding the "supernatural' from "science" -- or maybe
better stated, "critics of methodological naturalism" -- are Calvin guys:
Del Ratzsch and Alvin Plantinga (well, a former Calvin guy), not to mention
Jamie Smith's questions about the agency of the Holy Spirit in creation (
http://www.calvin.edu/scs/scienceandspirit/).

I'm not sure it's fair to put Ratzsch, Plantinga, and/or Smith into the
"warfare" camp (agree?), but they are raising the same questions Don raised.

For example, here's a 2003 excerpt from an interview with Ratzsch (available
at http://www.iscid.org/del-ratzsch-chat.php):

Michael
As a philosopher of science, do you think that ID is well developed enough
(now or in the future) to challenge the reigning methodological naturalist
paradigm?

Del Ratzsch
Good [question]- because it's a tough one. I think that methodological
naturalism as anything more than simply a strategy is hard to defend. ID has
raised some legitimate questions about it, but they have not yet been
perceived - even by many of those not hostile to ID - as powerful enough to
dislodge MN. In the future that may happen - but as someone once said,
prediction is difficult, especially when it involves the future.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> Ted--
>
> Thanks for a typically excellent commentary. One aspect of it, though,
> is making me uneasy. Your post deals with the warfare model and its
> unthinking acceptance by various players. I'm with you, and I think just
> about everyone here is with you. Denouncing the warfare model is
> practically a reflex at Calvin College. Don Calbreath, I'm sure, agrees
> with us on this.
>
> But look again at Don's posts. It seems to me that he's not attacking
> the warfare model. Instead, he's decrying the exclusion (in various ways)
> of *the supernatural* from science. Those statements from AAAS and the
> National Academy, which he quotes here and elsewhere, are manifestly *not*
> elaborations of a warfare model.
>
> I don't have any idea how Don wants the supernatural to be included or
> acknowledged by science, and I think that's an interesting topic for
> Christians and for the ASA. But I think it is very important to separate
> the legitimate questions regarding the purview of science with respect to
> the supernatural -- questions on which Christians can be expected to
> disagree -- from illegitimate claims of warfare or incompatibility between
> science and faith. Without that important distinction, your excellent
> comments could be misunderstood (or misappropriated) as a defense of a
> specific position on the question of whether and how science can detect or
> study the supernatural, and thereby (ironically) be employed in the very
> warfare we all seek to discredit. As it stands now, I worry that bystanders
> who have read your response to Don might wonder if I am embracing the
> warfare nonsense when I declare my strong agreement with the positions of
> the AAAS and the National Academy.
>
> Just my opinion, of course, and I hope I was clear.
>
> Steve Matheson
>
>
>
> >>> "Ted Davis" <*TDavis@messiah.edu* <TDavis@messiah.edu>> 06/02/08 1:45
> PM >>>
>
> >>> Donald F Calbreath <*dcalbreath@whitworth.edu*<dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>>
> 6/2/2008 1:20 PM >>>
>
> asks:
>
> I agree with you. I have been a scientist and a Christian for over forty
>
> years and see no problem in integrating the two on a practical basis as
>
> long as I keep my theology as the priority. My point is that "official"
>
> definitions of science, as offered by AAAS and NAS, are not being
> challenged
>
> openly by Christians who are scientists. We Christians try to dance around
>
> the problem and end up with some form of "supernatural explanations have no
>
> place in science". But what are we saying when we say this? What are the
>
> implications of these kinds of statements? The comments of individuals are
>
> one thing. But I don't see anyone saying that there should be wide-spread
>
> disagreement among Christians with these statements made by organizations
>
> that claim to speak for science. Debating individuals is valuable, but
>
> where do we take on the Establishment (good grief! I sound like a hippy of
>
> the 60s. I did go to college in the 60s, but my only "mind-altering
>
> substance" was black coffee and I had a crew-cut).
>
> ***
>
> Well, Don, it very much depends on what you mean by "take on the
>
> Establishment." I can speak only for myself, and I'm not a scientist--I'm
>
> an historian of science with a science background.
>
> My entire scholarly life, in and since grad school, has been devoted to
>
> debunking the cultural myth that science and Christianity are engaged in an
>
> ongoing, inevitable "warfare" that science is clearly winning. As I say,
>
> that's a myth. Lots of scientists buy into it, some even actively promote
>
> it, but it's historically bankrupt: that is, the history of science does
> not
>
> support that conclusion. I don't have to convince most of my fellow
>
> historians that this is so much rubbish--they already understand this.
> It's
>
> the scientists and science journalists who need to be convinced, but
> frankly
>
> many of them don't really understand historical scholarship very well, and
>
> some of them who seem to understand it don't want to accept what we're
>
> telling them. In terms of cultural authority, who is the "person in the
>
> street" more likely to believe--someone like me, an historian who teaches
> at
>
> an evangelical college, or someone like the late Carl Sagan, whose
> ignorance
>
> of my field was profound but who taught at Cornell? You can do the math.
>
> But even historians at prestigious schools are often given the automatic
>
> credibility that a Sagan or a Gould or a Dawkins is given, simply b/c
>
> science itself has such a large footprint in our culture.
>
> As I say, Don, I'm happy to take on the Establishment every day. My
>
> writing does it in a variety of ways and in a variety of places, and my
>
> teaching does it here and sometimes elsewhere. My work not only debunks
> the
>
> warfare view as a whole and in part, but it also advances a more accurate
>
> and more helpful picture of the history of science & Christianity; that is,
>
> it has a dual function. I'd be glad to send you a few samples upon
> request.
>
> By and large, however, with a few exceptions it hasn't been written for a
>
> general audience and perhaps for that reason most of it isn't very well
>
> known.
>
> Many other ASA members have also done it, for many years. To name just a
>
> few, there are Dick Bube, Francis Collins, Karl Giberson, Keith Miller,
>
> Guillermo Gonzalez, George Murphy, Don Petcher, Davis Young. Many other
>
> Christians have also confronted warfare thinking and/or provided helpful
>
> alternatives, including John Polkinghorne, Denis Alexander, Bob Russell,
>
> John Houghton, and the late Thomas Torrance. Not to mention Alister
>
> McGrath, who has probably responded the most directly to scientific
> atheism.
>
>
> There are so many people in this category, indeed, that I often wonder
> why
>
> so many people seem to think they don't exist. I think they are often
>
> overlooked, at least most of these folks, b/c they mostly don't reject
>
> evolution; rather they reject the extrapolation of evolution or any other
>
> part of science into a naturalistic worldview. The rise of ID and the
>
> popularity of "creationism" have, IMO, created a climate in which
> Christians
>
> expect Christians in the sciences to respond to scientific atheism by
>
> directly attacking the science, not the atheism. In that climate, those
> who
>
> accept the science while rejecting the atheism are not being seen as
> "taking
>
> on the Establishment." Heck, even Ken Miller took on the establishment in
>
> his book, "Finding Darwin's God," in the chapter about those who promoted
>
> unbelief using science as a weapon. But I rarely find him being credited
>
> for that; rather, I find him being attacked for rejecting ID and
>
> creationism. As I like to say, in the politics of science, the politics
>
> drives the science. What Ken did in that book is admirable, IMO; instead,
>
> he gets to wear horns as an enemy of the faith, in many circles. Nuts,
>
> IMO.
>
> Ted
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to *majordomo@calvin.edu*<majordomo@calvin.edu>
> with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.