Jkrebs
Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004
|
Over at ftk's blog, my friend Jeremy Mohn (a Christian and a high school biology teacher) has made some good points.
Jeremy writes,
| Quote | Suppose we adopt your first definition. Let's imagine that supernatural explanations are now deemed acceptable in science. Are you with me?
Okay, now what? How do we proceed?
What kind of experiments do we perform now that one of our options is to invoke an ultimate cause that is not bound by natural law?
How can we determine that the "natural" causes we observe are not the result of supernatural action intentionally disguised to look natural?
Hmmm...can we even do experiments anymore?
Also, how does invoking a supernatural cause differ from simply admitting that we don't currently know the cause?
Finally, given that a supernatural being could act in opposition to and/or in conjuction with so-called "natural" causes, how would you differentiate between a "supernatural" explanation and a "natural" explanation?
Just some things to think about. |
The sentences in bold are important, and well stated.
It is entirely possible, and is in fact one of the ways that theistic evolution can be interpreted, to think that the natural causes we observe are all intentional supernatural acts: the world is a manifestation of the mind of God, and that it exhibits the rational order and regularity we see because God, in his omni-everythingness, has a mind that is the epitome of rationality.
So if you open the door to supernatural explanations, then, as Jeremy asks, how do you differentiate between those supernatural "natural" events and those that are supernaturally supernatural? This is the theological issue that has led many evangelical Christian to reject ID as bad theology. ID and other creationist positions seem to be saying that when natural things happen, God isn't present, as if God was standing outside nature and only occasionally stepping in when supernatural action is needed. I call this view "punctuated deism": most of the time God is just passively observing the wheels he set in motion, and only when he is supernaturally present does he introduce "design" into the world.
But as Keith Miller has pointed out, a view of God's occasional presence is a view of God's usual absence, and this is unacceptable Christian theology. Jeremy is quite aware of this problem, and has pointed it out well.
It in facts supports good Christian theology to limit science to "seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," as the Kansas science standards state.
|
