You raise an interesting counter-point Grim. Not only do ‘scientific’ creationists generally advocate ‘intelligent design’ they also oppose Darwinian Theory – done solely on appeal to the authority or inerrancy of the Bible. Quite interestingly a parallel exists in Islam, where it is generally recognised no true knowledge of God is found outside of the Qu’ran, thus raising serious difficulties for any notion of natural theology. Most Muslim theologians have followed the general approach of Al-Ghazali, who regarded both natural philosophy and theology as posing a significant threat to Islamic orthodoxy. Dan, and those of similar belief, perhaps face similar threat.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals, for whom science and religion continue to speak the same language, are quite likely to see conflict with certain scientific findings. Liberal Protestants following the Kantian tradition of two languages (or “two minds” - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#148561) see no conflict; they are more likely to embrace evolutionary theory, for example, or even incorporate evolution into Christian anthropology. There is an acceptance of two separate disciplines, 'languages' or perhaps ‘kingdoms.’

The notion of “explanation” reflects the simple fact that “knowledge” and “understanding” are not identical. Gravity, for example, was unquestionably an explanation of an observation. Yet Newton was quite unable to offer an explanation for gravity itself. Indeed, Newton was deeply troubled by the notion of “action at a distance”, which he regarded as intrinsically implausible at the time. The quest for a “theory of everything” or a “grand unified theory” can be seen as an attempt to offer a comprehensive explanation of explanations – the simplistic ‘scientific creationist’ approach, with its further and rather decorative ID postulate, does just this. It is far from satisfying or explanatory, and theologically quite naïve.

Dan

You might note that miracles are not discussed in the Bible in the context of the violation of 'natural laws'. That is hardly surprising given that the Bible predates modern science by some 1600 years.
In the Biblical context the distinguishing attribute of miracles was their function as 'signs'. Clearly what makes an event 'miraculous' is its 'interpretive' potential and the actual interpretation applied to the event rather than its plausibility within the framework of 'natural phenomena'. It is worth noting that the English words semiotics, semantics and semaphore are all derivatives of 'semeion', the Greek word usually translated 'miracle'.

The inevitable conclusion of these observations would be that any discussion of miracles predicated on the assumption that the Biblical miracle stories were intended to relate 'supernatural events' as being historical is anachronistic at best and extremely shoddy exegesis.

Science is distinguished from theology by the accepted constraint that science limits itself to 'natural phenomena'. It is really rather pointless to criticise science for imposing such a constraint because this is precisely the constraint that distinguishes science from theological and religious discourse. Since Intelligent Design and Creation are clearly predicated on the asssumption of Divine interventions that violate 'natural law' they do not properly fit within the general discourse of science.

Im afraid your contributions to this thread only serve to illustrate the irrationality and the ignorance of fundamentalist dogma, particularly as expressed in the religious culture and language of the popular, evangelical churches.

Dan S,
At second thought, you are right if you take the Jewish understanding of the day in which God “rested“ according to Gen 2:2.

As for the general discussion about science and religion, their respective understanding of “reality”, I think Ian Barbour‘s now classical typography (conflict, independence, dialogue, integration, see e. g. his “When Science meets Religion”, Harper 2000) is very much relevant. I myself came across his pioneering work “Myths, Models and Paradigms: the Nature of Scientific and Religious Language”, SCM Press 1974 by accident in the late seventies, and it made me immediately understand, that in the language of his later typography, “dialogue“ rather than “conflict“ was the proper way of seeing this relationship.

Later a whole school of thought evolved around Barbour (1923-) - he has been actually credited with literally creating the contemporary field of science and religion - as well as Arthur Peacocke (1924-2006) and John Polginghorne (1930-, my favourite), all three successful scientists (Barbour and Polkinghore physicists, Peococke a biochemist) with degrees in theology.

As for myself, I somehow trust more established scientists with later degrees in theology, than theologians with or without degrees in e.g. physics, when speaking of science and religion. Of course, one can also learn from scientists displaying ignorance of theology or even religion; one only has to be more careful in trusting them when they make statements outside their expertise.

Here is my own two pence worth to the problem:

It is not true that religion and science are on a collision course.
It is not true that religion and science are mutually irrelevant.
It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course.
It is true that "uninterpreted" religion and "uninterpreted" science are mutually irrelevant.

When an English speaker “pulls your leg”, taken verbatim this is very different from when a German (or Slav, or Hungarian) “pulls your nose“, but properly interpreted both things mean the same. In this sense also “properly interpreted” science and “properly interpreted” religion are - of course not the same, but - compatible.

Grim,
For what I believe, I would go along with the idea of the engineer, who monitors, and makes checks and adjustments. God is transcendent, meaning he is greater than the universe. He is behind it, sustaining it, and can affect it if he wishes.

Humans also can have meaningful affect on the world. God set it up this way as he originally intended humans to govern and steward the world (but Adam quickly got off on the wrong foot in this department). If we were just the cogs of a machine in a preplanned exercise, then how could there be meaningfulness to our actions?

So God has incorporated free will into the plan. He can monitor and make adjustments. He’s a God who likes interaction. However, could I also state that miracles, by definition, are the exception rather than the rule. God’s main line of interaction is by communication: prayer, response, and the proclamation and interpretation of God’s word (usually quiet revelation rather than miraculous intervention).

I don’t believe fossils were planted in rocks as red herrings.

If I go back to what I said on 22/8, I said Biblical creationists like to begin their investigations by first consulting the Bible. Now quite a few chapters early in the Bible detail a world covering flood. If such a recent cataclysm occurred, we might expect to see evidence of it, perhaps the remains of animals trapped by the violent action of water and the movement of silt eventually settling into sedimentary rock. In short, dead things buried in rock layers all over the world.

Many claim they don’t see any evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood, they just find fossils buried in rock layers all over the world.

Much argument centres on the dating of the fossils, which once again largely boils down to your philosophical preconceptions (bias) as to what parameters should be used in the dating techniques. For no one today was actually around at the time to observe what happened when.

Relda, I want point out something in your first paragraph.

You said creationists advocate ‘intelligent design’. This is true. They have been doing so for a while, going back at least to William Paley (1743–1805). Yet you then say creationists oppose Darwin on Scriptural grounds alone, appealing to the authority of the Bible.

This is clearly contradictory, and spoils your whole paragraph. For you cannot claim that Paley’s argument relied solely on the authority of the Bible. (If so, which part of the Bible?) Neither is this true for current day ID proponents who found their arguments on logic, observation, and natural theology.

George,
You mention Polkinghorne as a favourite scientist. He is featured briefly in the documentary I endorsed earlier, called ‘Expelled’. I hope this doesn’t imply you endorse the film too, or you risk entering AJ’s bad books.

Polkinghorne’s comments I’ve typed below.

Waterboy,
What language are evangelicals supposed to use? Must I use longer words to sound more erudite or aloof? I might not be an academic, but hopefully I’m echoing some who are, such as Polkinghorne.

John Polkinghorne, mathematical physics, Cambridge University - “People who tell you, for example, that science tells you all you need to know about the world; or that science tells you that religion is all wrong; or that science tells you there is no God, those people aren’t telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions for metaphysical reasons.” ... “I believe that science gives us one perspective on the world, and our religious insight gives us another perspective on the world. And by putting the two together, then we’ll see more deeply and more truly.”

If science cannot investigate the non-physical, where does that leave the question of origins? Must we continue to accept Darwinian theory whatever its problems? To claim a non-directed naturalist theory must be accepted by default, to the deliberate neglect of the possibility of an intelligent agent, is to make a metaphysical claim, and the admission that the discussion has entered the realm of philosophy.

Dan

In my experience evangelical Christians appear to be predisposed to making extravagant metaphysical claims in relation to events that have perfectly natural explanations.They might exercise a little more caution in their analysis of events before expounding their conclusions.

They might also try to avoid the sort of deceptive verbal manipulations that appear in the following paragraph from your recent post.

"If science cannot investigate the non-physical, where does that leave the question of origins? Must we continue to accept Darwinian theory whatever its problems? To claim a non-directed naturalist theory must be accepted by default,to the deliberate neglect of the possibility of an intelligent agent,is to make a metaphysical claim, and the admission that the discussion has entered the realm of philosophy."

Clearly the genesis of the 'physical' universe is a natural event that can be investigated by science. Scientific theories, however, are not beliefs imposed as absolute truths or as alternatives to metaphysical speculations. Scientific theories are working hypotheses open to be challenged by the application of reason based on sound evidence. No-one is forced to accept Darwinian theory. In fact it is part of the proper work of scientists to attempt to disprove any such theory. Creation, on the other hand, is predicated on the assumption of the existence of a metaphysical entity, a divine creator, and therefore belongs to the realm of metaphysical speculation and is of no scientific interest. You assert that the exclusion of metaphysical speculation from scientific hypotheses amounts to a 'metaphysical' claim, albeit a negative one. This is illogical. Science does not deny the possibility of the truth of metaphysical claims which is what would be required to complete your faulty syllogism. Science simply has nothing to say about supernatural theories and recognises that they are inherently irrefutable and unrepeatable and therefore bound to be fruitless as scientific theories.

You may continue to believe your mythical stories which is more than the inquisition allowed many 17th century scientists. Dont be surprised, however, if scientists persist in providing plausible, natural explanations for the same events, even the natural events of cosmogenesis and abiogenesis.