Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

There is a good short exposition of Adelard in Edward Grant Science and
Religion 400BC -AD1550 (Greenwood Press - one of a guide to science and
religion) p161-2 Adelard does also say that when things cannot be explained
by natural causes "the matter should be referred to God". The book is very
useful.

The danger is to refer things to God too easily as does Behe over blood
clotting or RATE over faster rates of decay.

Randy wrote "None of this, I would submit, is
> consistent with the core Christian worldview assumption of the
> faithfulness and unchanging character of God the creator of all things.
> Though we cannot logically or empirically rule out such a possibility, it
> does not seem to be biblically or theologically consistent."

In many ways I go along with that as did Arthur Peacocke Except Arthur used
it to say that miracles were contrary to the nature of God. That is a tricky
one. However I prefer another Anglican William Temple ABC d1944 who said if
God is the creator of all, then at times He might override the regularities
of his creation, i.e. do a miracle. Interesting from a person whose
ordination was delayed because he did not accept the Virgin Birth at that
time.

Information can be lost in both historical science and history. This
happened with the earlier Ice ages as the geological evidence was removed by
later glaciation. And in history as doing some research on Darwin, the vital
letter was catalogued in the Cambridge library and was missing. However you
can work out the missing evidence as also on Darwin when working on a
geological map he made in 1831 I reconstructed his notes to go with the map
in a paper . Two years later Sandra Herbert found the copy of the notes in
Cambridge supporting my contention that one site on the map was in the wrong
place. That could have gone either way but I made a testable prediction.
Both historians and geologists delight in finding that new information.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

> I'm currently enjoying a course by Prof. Steven Goldman at Lehigh U title
> "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It." Certainly he
> underscores the rather shaky philosophical underpinnings of observational
> science. No, it is by no means absolute truth but, as you point out, it
> isn't relativism either.
>
> The debate about so-called "historical" vs "observational" science
> (categories which I hesitate to use) is indeed an important one from the
> perspective of what we know and how we know it. Goldman points out that
> "in explaining natural phenomena, nature must be treated as a closed
> system epistemologically (natural phenomena can be explained as the
> effects of natural causal agents only). This rule is first found in the
> 12th century treatise "Natural Questions" by the English monk Adelard of
> Bath." He goes on to talk about how the fundamental biblical concept of
> God's faithfulness and unchanging nature coupled with the creation of all
> things then leads to the basic assumption that the laws of nature apply
> everywhere and for all time. This provides the basis for being able to do
> historical science. Causal relationships that we observe today can be
> safely (though not in an absolute sense) assumed to have been valid in the
> past.
>
> In addition to the issues raised by several of you, questions about the
> validity of the "historical" sciences also seem to arise in order to allow
> for divine intervention in the past. This can range from wanting to allow
> for changing decay constants in radioactive elements (RATE) to progressive
> creationism with periodic intervention. None of this, I would submit, is
> consistent with the core Christian worldview assumption of the
> faithfulness and unchanging character of God the creator of all things.
> Though we cannot logically or empirically rule out such a possibility, it
> does not seem to be biblically or theologically consistent.
>
> Hence, I would suggest that the main limitation of "historical" science is
> that it is possible that crucial information may be lost forever and
> cannot be retrieved. But then in "observational" science there may be
> parameters that are beyond reach of our capabilities. Both have
> limitations. The distinction between "historical" vs "observational" is
> not the primary factor in what we know or don't know but the availability
> of critical and relevant data.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science
>
>
>>I think everyone is missing my point. I am NOT post-modern in my
>>thinking, and in fact rail against relativism in discussions with others
>>regularly. I believe in absolute truths, the value of science both
>>historical and non-historical, and see science as not just complementary
>>but also supportive of theology. But science, just like theology, does
>>not provide 100% proof of absolute truths. It provides evidence,
>>sometimes apparent indisputable evidence, that still must be accepted on
>>faith or belief. The fact we have free will to reason and accept or
>>reject the evidence does not belong to scientists, lawyers, theologians,
>>politicians or anyone other than the individual. Just because there is a
>>best way to explain an outcome, i.e., the rabbit and the fox example,
>>clearly doesn't make it an absolute truth. I just cannot always reject
>>other possible realistic outcomes just because there is some better
>>reason, or because that's all the information I have. To me that's overly
>>simplistic. But that doesn't make me a relativist. Individuals make
>>determinations of what are absolute truths based on what we learn
>>(evidence) through our five senses, at a given time and place in history,
>>and then apply reason to accept or reject them. This is our design and
>>what we are expected to do when we accept Christ. Otherwise there would
>>be no need for faith. I admit my legal training and experience could
>>easily lead me down a post-modern path, and I can see how you may have
>>interpreted my comments that way, but it's not the case. You view
>>information from the perspective of a scientist and I from that of a
>>lawyer, and yet we both believe in absolute truths. I think the
>>difference may be in how we process the evidence that ultimately leads us
>>to those truths. One thing I've learned from many years of school,
>>multiple degrees/certifications and human experience is that the more I
>>know, the more I realize the less I know, but that the more I also believe
>>in absolute truths.
>>
>> Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> To me this is frightfully post-modern and relativises everything.
>>>
>>> One of dawkins' sensible comments is "show me a postmodernist at
>>> 30000ft" i.e. about to be pushed out of a plane. All know the results of
>>> g even if one cannot give a number to it. g is truth!
>>>
>>> Too much can be made of objective and subjective and today science is
>>> far more aware that the observer has some bearing on the results but
>>> that does not make everything subjective.
>>>
>>> As for proof in the eyes of the beholder, this is where rigour in
>>> science comes in as much for historical science as anything else.
>>> Personal belief can prevent any seeing as in the case of global warming
>>> deniers, who have to run against the whole consensus of science.
>>>
>>> Finally geology is as much a hard science as anything like physics and
>>> chemistry. There is hard evidence to deal with as when with some groups
>>> (including Harvard students) we look at the Bellstone in Shrewsbury.
>>> This is a rounded boulder 3ft across which has been left. Darwin
>>> mentioned as inexplicable in 1820s. It was realised that the rock type
>>> indicated it came from Scotland and its original locatioon could be
>>> worked out. That is hard evidence, and histroical science seeks to
>>> explain things like that. As Keith points out these methods have rigour
>>> .
>>>
>>> Michael
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Bennett"
>>> <304law@bellsouth.net>
>>> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:53 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks Michael. I am only trying to parse the subjective from the
>>>> objective. There are sincere beliefs from intelligent folks that are
>>>> reasonable and supportable who are diametrically opposed. Some argue
>>>> persuasively that nicotine is not harmful or that global warning is not
>>>> real, or a host of other things. I'm not picking on the age of the
>>>> earth or any other particular "fact" of historical science to say it
>>>> can't be "proven". I only say that proof is in the eyes of the
>>>> beholder. If I see a car and say it is red and you see the same car
>>>> and say it is orange, whose to say my fact is right and yours is wrong
>>>> or vica-versa? Your fact may have far more support and be generally
>>>> accepted, but the acceptance of the 'fact' as fact is up to the
>>>> individual hearing about it and not by the person telling it. Bruce
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruce W. Bennett
>> Bennett Law Offices, LLC
>> P.O. Box 968
>> Grayson, GA 30017
>>
>> tele. (770) 978-7603
>> FAX (770) 978-7628
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 27 17:08:18 2008