Fwd: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

Yes that makes sense, and I agree with you completely. I didn't see that
kind of browbeating in Don C.'s posts, but perhaps I missed something that
was there -- I guess he can speak to that.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> David, that was exactly my point when I wrote: "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." I'm
> puzzled by your question about whether Al, Del and Jamie are in the
> "warfare" camp -- of course not, and that was precisely what I was getting
> at.
>
> Christians can (and should) dissect and debate the relationship between
> science and the supernatural, and they need to be able to do this without
> being browbeaten by those who seem to think that Christians must speak with
> one voice against the positions of the AAAS and the National Academy. This
> is how I read Don's comments, especially when looking at his recent posts on
> this listserv, but of course I could have misunderstood him.
>
> My concern is not that we will have a diversity of views on this matter; in
> fact, that's what I expect. My concern is that some views will be baptized
> as "Christian" views. I don't mind hearing from Jamie or Del or Don that
> they don't buy the MN thing, but I reject any claim that their views are
> uniquely Christian. Does that make sense?
>
> Steve
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 06/02/08 4:22 PM >>>
> 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
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
-- 
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.