Does a commitment to methodological naturalism mean you have to ignore evidence of special creation

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Daniel_Fisher

1. I understand that you came, at some point, to embrace the larger Evolutionary perspective, and its attndent methodological naturalism, from your examination of various evidences. I imagine that, examining certain evidences, your prior perspective may have proven inadequate at explaining various phenomena, while the evolutionary perspective was for various reasons a more satisfactory theory in explaining the evidence.

Not what happened at all.

First, MN is not attendent to evolution. It is misnamed, but was most clearly seen by me in Christian theology from Bacon and Pascal. These were early scientists that certainly did not affirm evolution. MN is better understood as an important type of methodological revelation-driven-theism.

Second, God explains everything. That was never the problem when I was a YEC. The bigger problem was that I was willfully misreading Scripture and looking to human effort instead of Jesus. I had to turn from that idolatry to see the world clearly.

Third, scientifically what changed my mind was learning science actually taught about evolution, and seeing the evidence for itself. All of this is “explained by God”, but I had been lied to about evolution. Evolution explained the data as well as gravity explained the motion of the planets. It was not the whole story, but it was very very close.

@Daniel_Fisher

2. For what it is worth, I have followed that pattern to embrace an evolutionary understanding of many, but not all, biological phenomena. I grew up influenced to some extent by stereotypical creationist narrative, and rejected their explanation of various phenomena as less adequate than a recognition of natural forces at work in the world.

Okay, but I think God works through evolution. Even if science gets it right here, it does not have the whole picture. Even when its right, I do no think any scientific explanation is adequate.

@Daniel_Fisher

3). But, if I understand rightly, when you came to appreciate the evolutionary model, it seems as though you accepted it (or natural forces in general) as an adequate explanation for all biological phenomena (at least after abiogenesis?) -

No I do not think this. Evolution and natural processes is not a complete explanation of biology. That is an entirely unscientific claim that directly contradicts MN. I do not claim in any way that science gives complete explanations.

@Daniel_Fisher

both those you specifically examined, and those whose actual development are unexplained. If so, this is my core difficulty… one can scientifically conclude that evolution is the best explanation for a particular biological phenomenon… but it is a philosophical conclusion that it must therefore be an adequate explanation for all biological phenomena.

That is not what I am saying. Rather, I am saying there is overwhelming evidence pointing to the descent of life to common ancestors. The evidence I know best is in the form of quantitatively verified predictions made by neutral theory about genomes. God could have made us with genomes that proved evolution false. He did not. Why not? Finding no contradiction between evolution and Scripture, I posit that evolution is how God created us. That is why.

@Daniel_Fisher

4. Now, that being said, it does sound like you acknowledge that some things are designed, though you find it inappropriate to claim that as a scientific conclusion. I appreciate this, but remain unconvinced of this as a tenable position… let me unpack, and please correct my misunderstandings:

This isn’t your call. ID is not scientific conclusion. It violates the rules of science to even ask the question. It deviates wildly from the way how science works. Neither you or I or Meyer or Behe can change this.

Think what you want in your heart, but science is not in your heart. It is a community of discourse in the real world. Even if I did not like them, I could not change them for you. Even if I wanted to. A better way to make sense of this is to learn how science works without trying to hard to redefine it. You do not have the authority to do this. As long as you are trying, you will remain confused.

@Daniel_Fisher

A. I appreciate that some like Francis Collins see abiogenesis as likely territory where natural forces are inadequate as an explanation, and where God’s direct involvement may well be the cause. Granted, he avoids making this a scientific claim and holds it tentatively… he does not craft it into an argument or try to examine the evidence to reach design as a scientific conclusion. All of that I appreciate.

That is not what he says. Rather, he says that science has not figured out the mechanism of abiogenesis, but he thinks it might exist. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to wonder if this is a place that God’s action was required.

This is not a claim about natural causes. it is a claim about the status of scientific knowledge of these causes. Even if a process were found, we would embrace it as “they way God made the first life.” We would see this an example of God’s wise design in the world, even as Meyer’s arguments for design crumbled. I do not point to the “inadequacy of natural processes” as evidence of design. This is too often an idol.

@Daniel_Fisher

But what I cannot help but observe is that Collins reached that basic position through scientific considerations. that is, from my reading of him, he has embraced this position on abiogenesis not due (primarily) to faith commitments, nor biblical interpretation or the like… but through his professional, scientificly informed perspective, where he perceives the difficulties of abiogenesis as so insurmountable that he does not see natural forces as an adequate cause.

That is not his claim. This is Meyer’s claim.

@Daniel_Fisher

Granted, he has not developed this into a rigorous scientific argument as Meyer has attempted. But I cannot help but observe he has taken this (however tentative) position due to scientific, not philosophical, reasons. that is, if tomorrow evidence were presented that life could be generated unguided and de novo in a test tube just by adding certain ingredients, I assume that Collins would not maintain his skepticism about abiogenesis from natural causes. His skepticism here stems ultimately from scientific, rather than philosophical or theological, reasons, no?

One can use scientific data in philosophical and theological reasoning. That is not a bad thing to do at all. For example, look what I wrote in another thread…

@Swamidass

There is a parallel in the size of the universe. The observable universe is about 93 Billion Light Years, but may extend much farther.

@Swamidass

We think the earth is about 4.8 billion years, and the universe is older. This is just a fraction of the age that the universe is large. If there is no hint of the vastness of the universe in Genesis, I’m certainly less concerned there is not a clear sign of its age.

@Swamidass

That being said, I think Genesis is ambiguous. God was wise in it with this ambiguity. He made a universe beyond the comprehension of those who first read Genesis. The vastness of the universe declares His power. However large the universe is, God is greater still. The age of the universe amplifies His title, the Ancient of Days. The older it is, the more we understand His ancient nature.

See how I am using scientific information in a theological argument? Scientists are allowed to do this as much as we want, as long as we are clear that these reflections are not science themselves. That’s the rules. Collins plays by the rules. So do I. We do not make the rules, but we follow them.