But once science comes to be taken as the only universally valid form of knowledge within a culture, it follows at once that methodological and metaphysical naturalism become for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. They are functionally equivalent. What needs to be done, therefore, is to break the grip of naturalism in both guises, methodological and metaphysical. And this happens once we realize that it was not empirical evidence, but the power of a metaphysical world view that was all along urging us to adopt methodological naturalism in the first place. Yes, the heavens still declare the glory of God, and yes, God's invisible attributes are clearly seen from God's creation. But to hear what the heavens declare and to see what the creation makes manifest, we need to get rid of our metaphysical blinders.
The statements above are drawn from an article entitled What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design written by William A.Dembski, Ph.D..
This is an insightful article that will prove very helpful for Christian apologists in the coming days given the distribution of Dawkin's latest book on evolution.
Of particular note in the article are the questions Dembski provides which should be asked of Darwinists:
Why does Darwinism, despite being so inadequately supported as a scientific theory, continue to garner the full support of the academic establishment?
What is it that continues to keep Darwinism afloat despite its many glaring faults?
Why are alternative paradigms that introduce design or teleology ruled out of court by fiat?
Why must science explain solely by recourse to naturalistic, materialistic, purposeless processes?
Who determines the rules of science?
Is there a code of scientific correctness which instead of helping to lead us into truth actively prevents us from asking certain questions and thereby coming to the truth?
What keeps Darwinism alive? Why is it so difficult to debate its merits fairly? In so pluralistic a society as ours, why don't alternative views about life's origin and development have a legitimate place in academic discourse?
No comments:
Post a Comment