Re: Snoke's response

From: David C Campbell <>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 16:12:33 EDT

>Somewhere in the equation doesn't the non-theism or anti-theism of
biological science, or even simply of Darwinian evolution, have to be
called to account? ....."<

At least two pairs of possible meanings need to be distinguished here:
Does non-theism/anti-theism mean simply that theological aspects are
not addressed, or does it mean that theological aspects are rejected?

Does of biological science/of Darwinian evolution mean inherent in
these fields or does it mean commonly associated with?

Because the universe is the creation of an orderly God, because He
created us with the resonsibility and ability to understand how it
works in order to care for it, and because there are no uncontrolled
factors (unlike in polytheistic models), we can expect the physical
world to behave in regular ways. Although these are ultimately parts
of God's overall providence, at a proximal level we can study the
patterns without particular reference to God, and someone who does not
believe in God can study these patterns and arrive at useful scientific
conclusions, despite his problems at a philosophical level. Science is
very useful at addressing questions about these physical processes, but
is largely unable to address questions of Christian theological

Thus, omission of theological aspects within science is theologically
appropriate. Rather, theology provides a motivation for investigating
science and tells us about how to use the scientific data (among many
other things).

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama, Box 870345
Tuscaloosa AL 35487
"James gave the huffle of a snail in
danger But no one heard him at all" A.
A. Milne
Received on Sat Aug 13 16:14:22 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 16:14:23 EDT