From: John W Burgeson mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Allen, you wrote: "In trying to decipher your argument, it has become
>> obvious that Naturalism and Creationism should be defined:
> I commend to you the definitions used by my friend, David Griffin. You
> can read them in his excellent book, RELIGION and SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM.
> Check out my review, which was published by Metanexus and also appears on
> my web site (the link is on page 2).
I have been reading and studying your review of Griffin's book.
You state "Seeking a religion/science harmony, he [Griffin] sees three
things as necessary:"
It is right at this point that I and many YECs are in disagreement with
Griffin. I do not see science as some kind of philosophy with which
religion needs to be harmonized. Rather, Creationary Catastrophists
(including YECs) think of science as only a logical methodology with which
to study nature. Importantly, the scientific method does not have built in
interpretive values, rather those values are supplied by the interpretive
paradigm within which the scientific method is conducted such as:
Naturalism(sam), Naturalism(ns), Creationary Catastrophism, or Creationism.
The real issues in Evolutionism vs. Creationism have very little to do with
science, but rather, have everything to do with basic assumptions. It is
those basic assumptions with which I dealt in the previous email.
Therefore, Creationary Catastrophists would disagree with the three things
that Griffin things are absolutely necessary -- i.e. that Science and
1. share a worldview
2. science must insist only on naturalism(ns),
3. religion must live with naturalism(ns) and no supernaturalism
What Griffin is really saying is that in order for Evolutionism and Religion
1. they must have the same worldview (i.e. abandon creationism)
2. that science can only be interpreted within the philosophy of Naturalism
(any kind of naturalism)
3. and religion must submit to Naturalistic philosophy.
It is no wonder that Griffin disagrees with P. Johnson. He doesn't
understand what Johnson is talking about.
However, Creationary Catastrophists and Evolutionists do hold in common some
assumptions that must be true for the scientific method to have validity.
As mentioned in my previous posting they are.
1. Uniformity of law over time and space.
2. Uniformity of process over time and space.
3. Uniformity of rate over time and space.
However, Creationary Catastrophists add the following caveats acquired from
their Biblical worldview:
1. These assumptions are valid only since origin.
2. They are unable to define origins.
3. That inorganic and organic origins are beyond the ability of science to
4. That time is limited to that defined by God's word.
5. That non-uniformity of rate and non-uniformity of process are possible
on occasion as
delineated by God. (Amos 3:7)
Any scientific inquiry that is done within the Evolutionary/Naturalistic
world view that does not violate these caveats is perfectly acceptable to
Creationary Catastrophists. (This, of course, includes nearly all practical
The concept that God invented, designed and made the natural laws by which
creation functions eliminates the silly notion of 'a god of the gaps.' Man
may have discovered some of the laws by which nature works, but that does
not mean that God has been eliminated from the explanation of how nature
functions. It simply means that we have discovered some of the laws that
God invented, designed and made. In this way, the more that man discovers
about nature and how it works, the bigger God gets. Our gaps in
understanding simply reflect the finiteness of man, not the smallness of
Unlike Evolutionary theorists, who focus their study on
developing theories of Origin of matter/energy/motion, Abiogenesis and the
origin of species from common ancestory according to natural law,
Creationists start with knowing how the universe and types of life forms
originated. They have no need and, indeed, will not even attempt to
develop theories of origins. Creationists study nature not to discover how
here, but how it functions as designed by the Creator. The origins were
singular events which have little to no relationship to the day-by-day
Since Creationary Catastrophists disagree with Griffin's primary assumptions
the rest of his book is basically irrelevant to the issues between
Creationists and Evolutionists.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 15:42:01 EST