David Campbell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 19:29:15 -0500
Jan de Koning wrote:
> As for myself: I believe, that the scientific method is based on a
>unchristian philosophy taken over from the world. That method will still
>try to obtain results without seriously researching the background of
>presuppositions needed to come to results. A Christian needs to take the
>bible seriously, that is, for example, the Fall in sin, and its results as
>described in the book of Romans. Chapter 8 tells how all creature awaits
>the "revealing of the children of God" (vs19) and then follows how creation
>is waiting to be set free from decay. How do we take that into account in
>our scholarly enterprise?
Although it is quite true that most scientists fail to examine the
philosophy underlying their methods and conclusions, Christianity seems to
me to be the worldview most compatible with the scientific method. God is
the same yesterday, today, and forever and does not do things on a whim.
Therefore, it's reasonable to expect everything, being under His control,
to behave in a consistant manner. Miracles are consistant with God's plan,
even though they are not consistant with the ordinary behavior of things,
but appear exceptional rather than the norm. Similarly, if we are created
in the image of the Creator as subregents ["subdue the earth"], it's not
surprising that we can understand some of the rules by which Creation runs.
Capricious or aloof gods and chance seem unlikely creators of a
comprehensible universe and creatures who can comprehend. What aspects of
the scientific method do you see as non-Christian?
Department of Geology
CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315
"He had discovered an unknown bivalve, forming a new genus"-E. A. Poe, The