Comments on: Science and Religion: A Review Essay [7] http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/04/science-and-religion-a-review-essay-7/ A First Things Blog Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Coyle http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/04/science-and-religion-a-review-essay-7/#comment-9991 Coyle Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:03:57 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6140#comment-9991 Just finished this series on my drive to work- you're right, it <i>is</i> both awesome and thoughtful. I likewise appreciated your posts on the issue. Just finished this series on my drive to work- you’re right, it is both awesome and thoughtful. I likewise appreciated your posts on the issue.

]]> By: W. Vida http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/04/science-and-religion-a-review-essay-7/#comment-9980 W. Vida Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:19:43 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6140#comment-9980 "Principe is correct that methodologically speaking, looking for natural explanations is the best way to do science." I disagree with this with regards to historical inquiry. If scripture tells us that the earth was created out of nothing by God 6000 years ago and yet we sit there and say, "how did this happen naturally over time." We are looking for something that we know from the outset is clearly false. I would argue that is bad science - and sort of silly. Instead, a better approach to science is 'what is the likely explanation for this?' - realizing that God's usual mode is to use His providence/natural forces to enact His will but also recognizing that God's Word is true. Also, the contrast between miracle and natural is unnecessary. Imagine a small boy gets his foot stuck in the track just as a high speed train comes into sight in the distance. Death is certain. But amazingly, the train stops just inches from the boy - his life is spared. In investigation reveals a natural explanation...the engine failed due to poor maintenance. Is there anyone in the world who would deny that this was a still miracle despite the 'natural explanation'? “Principe is correct that methodologically speaking, looking for natural explanations is the best way to do science.”

I disagree with this with regards to historical inquiry. If scripture tells us that the earth was created out of nothing by God 6000 years ago and yet we sit there and say, “how did this happen naturally over time.” We are looking for something that we know from the outset is clearly false. I would argue that is bad science – and sort of silly.

Instead, a better approach to science is ‘what is the likely explanation for this?’ – realizing that God’s usual mode is to use His providence/natural forces to enact His will but also recognizing that God’s Word is true.

Also, the contrast between miracle and natural is unnecessary. Imagine a small boy gets his foot stuck in the track just as a high speed train comes into sight in the distance. Death is certain. But amazingly, the train stops just inches from the boy – his life is spared. In investigation reveals a natural explanation…the engine failed due to poor maintenance. Is there anyone in the world who would deny that this was a still miracle despite the ‘natural explanation’?

]]> By: Bret Lythgoe http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/04/science-and-religion-a-review-essay-7/#comment-9970 Bret Lythgoe Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:14:49 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6140#comment-9970 Principe has also done a great job on another Teaching Company lecture series on the history of science. My hope is that he will produce another lecture series, say on the science of Aristotle, or Roger Bacon. He does not take a sympathetic view of ID. But, let's face it, most scientists, religious or not, do not either. Principe has also done a great job on another Teaching Company lecture series on the history of science. My hope is that he will produce another lecture series, say on the science of Aristotle, or Roger Bacon. He does not take a sympathetic view of ID. But, let’s face it, most scientists, religious or not, do not either.

]]> By: John http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/04/science-and-religion-a-review-essay-7/#comment-9958 John Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:39:38 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6140#comment-9958 Plus--precisely when and where did these "events" occur? Plus–precisely when and where did these “events” occur?

]]> By: John http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/04/science-and-religion-a-review-essay-7/#comment-9957 John Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:21:24 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6140#comment-9957 "events" in Genesis? Did any human being ever witness or participate in these "events"? “events” in Genesis?

Did any human being ever witness or participate in these “events”?

]]>