To: All Msg #16, Jan0294 03:34PM Subject: Man and Creation Before Christmas I mentioned th

From: James J. Lippard To: All Msg #16, Jan-02-94 03:34PM Subject: Man and Creation Organization: University of Arizona From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) Message-ID: <2JAN199416344269@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> Newsgroups: talk.origins Before Christmas I mentioned that I had recently obtained a copy of Michael Bauman, editor, _Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology_, 1993, Hillsdale, Mich.: Hillsdale College Press, 306 pp., $9.95 (no p & h) from (800) 437-2268. I managed to read the book during my flights to and from the American Philosophical Association conference in Atlanta, and so what follows is a brief overview. Mark A. Kalthoff, "God and Creation: An Historical Look at Encounters Between Christianity and Science" Kalthoff, an assistant professor of history at Hillsdale College, argues that the military metaphors frequently used to describe the relationship between science and religion are inappropriate, and mask the complexity of the relationship in history. He looks at the history of the use of military metaphors, beginning with Andrew Dickson White's _A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom_ (1896) and John William Draper's _History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science_ (1874). Kalthoff argues that the Christian church was actually the major patron of science and played a significant positive role in its development. He briefly looks at the publication of Copernicus' _De Revolutionibus_ and Galileo's run-in with the Inquisition, maintaining that the early supporters of Copernicus were Christians and that Galileo's main opposition came from university scientists who were overly committed to Aristotelianism. He points out that in the case of Galileo, all participants were Christians who acknowledged biblical authority, but who disagreed on theories of biblical interpretation. He argues that Galileo made tactical errors by endorsing Copernicanism for reasons other than his examination of the scientific evidence (Kaltenhoff is not any more specific than this) and by endorsing a liberal interpretation of the Bible. I think Kaltenhoff's article is pretty good, though it would have been nice to see a bit more detail in his case studies. (He does cite plenty of references for further information.) Ronald L. Numbers, "The Evolution of Scientific Creationism" This selection is an excerpt from his book _The Creationists_--a _Reader's Digest_ version of the book in 43 pages. Richard H. Bube, "Seven Patterns for Relating Science and Theology" Bube, emeritus professor of materials science and electrical engineering at Stanford University, sketches out seven possible views of the relationship between what he calls "authentic science" and "authentic theology," which he defines as follows: By the term "authentic science" we mean *a particular way of knowing based on human interpretation in natural categories of publicly observable and reproducible data obtained by sense interaction with the world*. (p. 76) By the term "authentic theology," we mean a way *of knowing based on the human interpretation of the Bible and human experience in relationship with God*. (p. 79) He defends each of these definitions with a few pages of argument, and claims that "It is impossible to do science without a faith commitment to a number of fundamental *presuppositions*--that the world is understandable through rational processes of the human mind; that natural phenomena are reproducible; that patterns of order can be sought and found, and that there is a physical reality that does not depend ultimately on us." (p. 78) He also contrasts "authentic science" with "pseudoscience," which he says "springs from three identifiable sources: (a) bad science, in which the basic guidelines of authentic science are neglected or ignored; (b) claims of scientific achievement that exceed the capabilities of science--for example, the derivation of ethics from science; (c) attempts to arrive at scientific conclusions under pressure from a philosophical, metaphysical, religious, or political ideology that defines from the beginning what the results must be." (p. 79) Corresponding to "pseudoscience," there is also "pseudotheology," according to Bube. Bube's seven patterns are: Pattern 1: Science Has Destroyed the Possibility of Faith *Science and theology tell us the same kinds of things about the same things. When scientific and theological descriptions conflict, one must be right and the other wrong. In this encounter science always proves to be the winner.* (p. 83) Bube cites as holders of this view Freud, Marx, and V. Y. Frenkel. Pattern 2: Faith Is to Be Upheld in Spite of the Findings of Science *Science and theology tell us the same kinds of things about the same things. When scientific and theological descriptions conflict, one must be right and the other wrong. In this encounter, the theological descriptions always have priority.* (p. 86) Bube cites as holders of this view John Whitcomb and Henry Morris and Phillip Johnson. (He cites their works in a footnote on the sentence "The attempt is made to determine by theology which theories in science are consistent with Christian faith and which are not, or even to reformulate science so that its format can be dictated by theology.") Pattern 3: Science and Faith Are Totally Unrelated: Neither One Can Say Anything About the Other *Science and theology tell us different kinds of things about different things. There is no common ground between them. Science has absolutely nothing to say about theology, and theology has absolutely nothing to say about science. Conflict is impossible.* (p. 88) Bube also calls this "compartmentalization," and cites Karl Barth as a proponent. Pattern 4: Science Provides the Rational Basis That Demands Faith *Science and theology tell us the same kinds of things about the same things. The scientific descriptions of the world provide such overwhelming evidence of the truth of the Bible and Christian theology that we have no choice but to believe them.* (p. 89) Bube cites J. P. Moreland and John Warwick Montgomery as advocates of this view. At least one of Bube's criticisms of this view, however--that it gives science priority over theology--does not apply to Moreland's views in the book he cites (_Scaling the Secular City_). (I think a case can be made that Moreland fits better under pattern 2.) Pattern 5: Science Provides the Philosophical Structure in Which Faith Needs to Be Redefined *Science and theology tell us the same kinds of things about the same things. Traditional biblical theology must be thoroughly redefined and rewritten in order to be consistent with the developments of modern science.* (p. 91) Bube cites R. W. Burhoe, R. J. Russell, and F. Capra and D. Steindl-Rast with T. Matus. Pattern 6: Both Science and Faith Need to Be Redefined So That an Appropriate Synthesis Can Be Achieved *Science and theology should tell us the same kinds of things about the same things, but the present status of science and theology makes this impossible. What is needed, therefore, are radical transformations of science and theology into new approaches compatible with one another and a new understanding of reality.* (p. 94) There's some overlap here with pattern 5; Bube cites Russell, Capra et al., J. Templeton and R.L. Herrmann, M. Dowd, and J. White as advocates and characterizes this as a "New Age" position. Pattern 7: Faith and Science Provide Complementary Insights into Reality That Need to Be Integrated *Science and theology tell us different kinds of things about the same things. Each, when true to its own authentic capabilities, provides us with valid insight into the nature of reality from different perspectives. It is the task of individuals and communities of individuals to integrate these two types of insight to obtain an adequate and coherent view of reality.* (p. 96) This is Bube's preferred view, which he also attributes to H. J. Van Till, J. Polkinghorne, I. Barbour, D. MacKay, and R. J. Berry. This is one of the better papers in the volume, though I think the definitions of "authentic science" and "authentic theology" that he uses leave something to be desired. He also doesn't say much about the possibility of hybrid or overlapping views, apart from his remarks about pattern 5 overlapping with pattern 6. J. P. Moreland, "Creation Science and Methodological Naturalism?" Moreland, professor of philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University (formerly at Falwell's Liberty University), makes more or less the same argument that Alvin Plantinga has made in a few recent papers. He sets out five different views of the relationship between science and theology which are slightly different from Bube's, and does so without attempting to define either term. His categorization scheme is roughly as follows: 1. Science deals with the natural, theology with the supernatural. These are two distinct realms of reality. 2. Science and theology deal with the same reality, but do not interact because they deal with different kinds of questions. 3. Science produces the view of reality which theology must come to grips with. 4. Theology produces the view of reality which allows for science (understood in realist terms) to be practiced. 5. Science and theology deal with the same reality, they interact, and can be in conflict or agreement. Moreland advocates 5, and puts Howard Van Till in one of the first two categories, thus pointing out that he construes these categories quite differently than Bube. I think that Bube's categorization is superior to Moreland's in that it draws a distinction between the kinds of things being examined and the kinds of information being produced, while still allowing for interaction. Bube's pattern 7 is like Moreland's 2, except that it disagrees with Moreland's definition on the subject of interaction (which Bube calls "integration"). Moreland argues for the possibility of "theistic science," science which begins with a commitment to: (1) God, a personal agent of great power and intelligence, has purposely created and designed the world through direct primary agent causation and indirect secondary causation and has intervened directly in its development at various times (including prehistory, i.e., history prior to the arrival of human beings); (2) the commitment expressed in Proposition 1 can appropriately enter into the very fabric of scientific practice and the use of scientific methodology. (p. 107) Moreland specifically cites progressive creationism and young-earth creationism as consistent with the program he spells out. (To be continued later, with further details on Moreland and the rest of the book.) Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721