Comments on: YouTube Q&A Continued… http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2009/04/02/youtube-qa-continued/ Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation Sat, 19 May 2012 16:05:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: GJG http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2009/04/02/youtube-qa-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-6855 GJG Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:19:56 +0000 http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/?p=212#comment-6855 jtandy - I disagree with your first comment. MN is how science works, period. Of course, we both know that doesn't rule out the existence of special providence, but it does mean that science is blind to special providence. We believe in miracles by faith, not because they are repeatable or predictable. Special providence is the result of a discontinuity in the ordinary patterns of material behavior. If investigating a discontinuity -- like the sudden transformation of water into wine -- science doesn't work. There is nothing scientific about such a singularity. It might be perfectly rational to conclude that God intervened to cause this to happen, but that conclusion is not scientific by any definition. jtandy - I disagree with your first comment. MN is how science works, period. Of course, we both know that doesn’t rule out the existence of special providence, but it does mean that science is blind to special providence. We believe in miracles by faith, not because they are repeatable or predictable.

Special providence is the result of a discontinuity in the ordinary patterns of material behavior. If investigating a discontinuity — like the sudden transformation of water into wine — science doesn’t work. There is nothing scientific about such a singularity. It might be perfectly rational to conclude that God intervened to cause this to happen, but that conclusion is not scientific by any definition.

]]> By: jtandy http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2009/04/02/youtube-qa-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-6842 jtandy Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:14:46 +0000 http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/?p=212#comment-6842 Gordon, some comments on these: 1. Methodological naturalism is how science is "believed" to work (going back to the "assumption" question). We have a pretty good idea that it does work that way in most instances. But what if God shows us one day that the origin of life was a miracle of His direct creation? Would we say He didn't do a good job, because he had to "tinker" with creation? At this point, we don't have enough evidence to prove one way or the other. 2. I do totally agree with your answer here. Again, using abiogenesis as an example, science proceeded on the assumption that life could arise spontaneously. It searched, and pretty much has come up empty-handed so far. Maybe it will eventually succeed in showing how life could have started, and then we would still have the compounded probability question of how this and many other coincidences came together in the time and manner that it did. 3. I agree with you here too, except for the characterization that intervention means that God "obviously could not get [it] right the first time". 5. It is probably true that naturalists use vestigial organs as evidence for evolutionary development, and ID reactionaries triumph when a purpose is found for the organ. Both arguments are non sequiturs, as you point out. Gordon, some comments on these:
1. Methodological naturalism is how science is “believed” to work (going back to the “assumption” question). We have a pretty good idea that it does work that way in most instances. But what if God shows us one day that the origin of life was a miracle of His direct creation? Would we say He didn’t do a good job, because he had to “tinker” with creation? At this point, we don’t have enough evidence to prove one way or the other.

2. I do totally agree with your answer here. Again, using abiogenesis as an example, science proceeded on the assumption that life could arise spontaneously. It searched, and pretty much has come up empty-handed so far. Maybe it will eventually succeed in showing how life could have started, and then we would still have the compounded probability question of how this and many other coincidences came together in the time and manner that it did.

3. I agree with you here too, except for the characterization that intervention means that God “obviously could not get [it] right the first time”.

5. It is probably true that naturalists use vestigial organs as evidence for evolutionary development, and ID reactionaries triumph when a purpose is found for the organ. Both arguments are non sequiturs, as you point out.

]]>