RE: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

Steve has stated the question well. I don't know how I want the supernatural included, but I don't like having it defined as being out of bounds by agencies that are supposed to have some "official" voice. That's why I have some problems with both NAS and AAAS - there does not seem to be any acknowledgement of anything other than the natural. Yes, I know that AAAS has a committee of some sort to dialog with religion, but I don't see much flexibility of positions in what comes out. I was involved with the Science and Spirit project that was mentioned and have had a number of conversations with Jamie Smith. We don't agree on everything, but he has some very good things to say. He and I are not in the "warfare camp", otherwise I would not have gotten a Ph.D in biochemistry.

Well, I've got to go mow the lawn before it rains and I have probably used my four contributions for today. Good discussion all around with some serious consideration of some very difficult issues.

Thanks,

Don

________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Matheson [smatheso@calvin.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:00 PM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

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
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.