A phenotype is the outward expression, the visible manifestation of a genotype (one's genes). Hence, one may have a gene for a particular eye color. This person's eyes are blue both in her genotype and her phenotype. Phenotypes then, obviously, apply to the physical characteristic of an individual. Yet, a phenotype is not limited to physical characteristics on the individual herself
A beaver is isolated from her family at birth. She is raised without the company of other beavers later to be released as an adult into a wetland void of beavers. Instinctively she sources the flow of water through her wetland, builds a dam, and forces the creation of an artificial pond. This behavior was obviously not learned as she did not learn it by observation: it is instinct and was coded in her genes.
The beaver's dam is, thus, an example of a phenotype: the outward expression of a genotype. Differences in phenotypic beaver dams exist. Some may allow more water flow; others less, etc. One beaver phenotype may present a proclivity for poplar trees, and a later birch-tree fungus, which kills off all available birch, may hence find the poplar-tree phenotypic proclivity of a particular beaver may spare her the plight of absent birch. Another beaver that prefers birch might not fare as well during the same birch-tree kill off.
How does natural selection act on the individual worker ant? She is incapable of reproduction, yet she cares for the larval brood, protects the colony, gathers food, builds and repairs the hill. Are her behaviors adding to the beneficial pressure of natural selection?
The worker ant is the offspring of the colony's queen and one drone who died moments after copulation--possibly weeks, months, or even years ago. The behaviors of the individual ant are phenotypes of the queen. All female ants in the colony share the same DNA; however, worker DNA ignores reproductive coding, soldier DNA recognizes and acts on coding for size and larger mandibles, and the queen DNA acts on coding, ignored by the others, for size and reproduction.
The phenotypic behaviors of the worker ant are actually phenotypes of the queen. If the queen produces phenotypic behaviors among her offspring that lend toward less community stability, then the chances of reproductive differential diminishes. Hence, the workers are phenotypes of the queen. Altruism and social cohesion as phenotypes of the queen favor the survival of the colony and reproductive differential in the queen.
Understanding how this relates to memes and human morality will be developed in the next installments. Particular attention will be placed on the ceremonial observances of the Pentateuch.
Perennial parthenogytes and sired sisters of a common brood, the worker ant seems the most unlikely entity to be influenced by sexual/natural selection. The complexity of ant society, though, depends on the ability of each individual worker to predictably participate in structurally-stabilizing societal routines.
The colony is disturbed. Three fingers wrap around the underside of a flat sandstone, exposing a brood of ant larva. Within seconds open-jawed ants, mandibles spread for the pinch, pour out of covert caverns in numbers and with movement that is startling to the unsuspecting toddler. Soon a dozen ants cling to his fingers, a dozen more dart up his hand, and dozens more rush to the site of the disturbance. In the shadow of the stone can be seen dozens more ants carrying the uncovered pupae and larva to underground safety. A parent wipes the ants off of the toddler's hand and several ants dye in the process.
How did the ants mobilize so quickly? Was there a sub-perceivable siren like a war trumpet calling the colony to action? A similar ability to communicate is evidenced in ant trails.
Notice an ant trail. Often ending at a choice item of caloric density, the ants closely follow a narrow trail--sometimes single file. Try this at home: find an ant trail, locate an open spot between ants on the trail, rub a finger or a napkin over the gap with enough friction as to spread a hypothetical grease smudge. Now observe. The ants will arrive at this gap in the trail and stop. They will veer away from the direction of the trail, trying to pick up where it resumes. Ants on both sides--coming and going--will do this until eventually the trail is reestablished. This process may take several minutes.
Why is it that ants are able to follow a trail so closely? What do the above portraits show? Ants are efficient communicators. Many ant species use hormone-rich liquids to communicate. A disturbed ant disperses an aqueous alarm. The receptor ants pass along the liquid alarm--often depositing the liquid on the ground for passerby ants to pick up the message. Similarly, an ant scout discovers a sugary spill on the sidewalk. She makes her way quickly back to the colony while she unnoticeably deposits a liquid trail, Hansel style, to direct her sisters back to the feast.
The general absence of reproduction among worker ants (there are exceptions--vestigial evidences of the former evolutionary ability of ants to individually reproduce) makes the worker an elusive candidate for natural selection. Yet the influence of natural selection acts on the individual ant. The next installment will explore more of the connections between ant behavior, natural selection, genes and memes.
by Sara B.
On Tuesday September 25, 2007 the United States President, George W. Bush, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in an effort to motivate promotion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted in 1948. The President called on every UN member to join in a mission of liberation from tyranny, hunger, disease, illiteracy and poverty. For these great purposes, pleads President Bush, should the great institution of the UN aim for. He continues on to urge the UN members to build a world "where people are free to speak, assemble, and worship as they wish; a world where children in every nation grow up healthy, get a decent education, and look to the future with hope". "America" he states, "will lead toward this vision where all are created equal, and free to pursue their dreams". Quite the compelling plea from one of America's most criticized presidents, accused of heading a military campaign blamed for the killing of tens of thousands of innocent lives, and defending controversial policies such as the use of capital punishment on America's own home front. So how can one assess this seemingly empathetic message? What lays beneath this impassioned speech to the world's head institution for defending human rights? In the paragraphs that follow, I will offer my comments and critique of this address relating to its use and understanding of civil-political, social-economic, and cultural development human rights.
Civil-political rights as defined by Gordon Lauren and David Hollenbach are considered "negative" rights, or those rights which are non-intervention. These rights include (but are not limited to) life, liberty, personal security, freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, recognition and equality under the law, freedom from arbitrary arrest or exile, right to vote, right to assembly, etc. Michael Ignatieff in his Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Princeton University April 4-7, 2000) makes note of the very individualistic nature of such rights. Consequently, then, they act as an effective remedy against tyranny and are a high appeal to those of non-Western origin. Claims to civil-political rights can be used by individuals against larger institutions such as the state or church. In this, human rights are basically morally universal, applicable regardless of culture or nation. Or as Jack Donnelly describes, " there is an international consensus on the system of human rights rooted in the UN DHR is relatively uncontroversial" (40). Donnelly would assert that internationally accepted human rights do not depend on any particular religious or philosophical doctrine, however, he does not believe they are compatible with all comprehensive doctrines (41).
It is in Donnelly's description of civil-political rights that I see president George Bush advocating in his address to the UN. When speaking of the situation in Burma, Belarus, Iran and North Korea he claims "basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted" . He continues stating that "terrorists" and "extremists" deny the truth stated in the UD that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". In other parts of the world, AIDS and Malaria are serious health threats which those of more prosperous nations, such as the US, should alleviate. All people, from all parts of the globe, with their own respective religious and philosophical traditions, it would appear the President is saying, have a claim to such civil-political rights.
However, what the President says and what he does lack congruence. It is arguable that he cherry-picks the issues and rights which he can provide evidence for US goodwill and leadership. For example, all people should be free from the use of torture. Yet, frequent independent reports arise revealing torture used at America's Guantanamo Bay, violation of article number 5 of the UDHR. Presently, a cameraman from the Al-Jazeera news network, Al-Hajj, is being held prison at Guantanamo Bay for unknown reasons. Al-Hajj has never been charged with any crime, which is a clear violating of article 9 and 10 of the UDHR. Al-Hajj is currently starving himself in protest. Significant reports shed light on the excess force and indiscriminate killing tactics of American military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Furthermore, America is one of the new "developed" nations which still employs capital punishment.
Furthermore, President Bush does not seem to believe democracy or the vision of human rights is compatible with those who espouse "terrorism" or "extremism". Such rhetoric conveniently, and self-servingly justifies the President's War Against Terror. Current statistics indicate the loss of over 100,000 Iraqi lives, comprised highly of innocent civilians since the United States led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Also in the Middle East, President Bush makes a mockery of democratic policies in the Occupied Palestinians Territories. When the people of Palestine democratically elected the Islamic political party Hamas in 2005, President George Bush called for a halt of all money flow into the territories from outside nations. This was a significant blow to an area of the world highly dependent on international aid. As a result, many public services were halted in the region, including trash pick-up, and public service workers, such as teachers, were left without pay for months to follow. Israeli military attacks continued on the Palestinians territories and even into Lebanon during the summer months of 2006, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children. These acts of terror against civilians were carried out not only with Bush sponsored U.S support but also with U.S arms and weaponry. One may ask how actions such as this don't fall under the definition of state sponsored terrorism. George Bush's cry for democracy seems to fit with only those nations and political parties which agree to participate in American foreign policy. Apparently, President Bush does not seem to believe in civil-political rights for those who vehemently oppose his political doctrines.
It is also important to evaluate President Bush's speech in regards to social-economic rights. Although the President does not make direct reference to issues of social security, work, work conditions, etc., he does make reference to Article 25 stating "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food and clothing and housing and medical care". President Bush attempts to provide evidence for how his country is upholding and promoting this clause of the Declaration. He mentions how America purchases the crops from African farmers, donates billions of dollars to help combat the AIDS epidemic and Malaria, and has donated textbooks and trained hundreds of thousands of teachers. America, he states, has "dramatically increased our own development assistance". This would include the signing of free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea, striving for the alleviation of weapons of mass destruction, and open market talks.
Superficially, President Bush seems to be contributing to the social-economic rights of people of various nations all over the world. He has stated a myriad of ways in which the U.S has "aided" the under developed nations of the world. However, no amount of monetary hand-outs or altruistic aid can right the systematic injustices and human right abuses the capitalistic system espoused by the U.S president. One must ask, what type of history are those American bought textbooks teaching to children of other nations, what kind of training are these "teachers" receiving and what are they teaching these children. Why is free-trade the way to go, and if it is why is there so much widespread poverty in North America following the signing of NAFTA? President Bush doesn't ask the question of what kind of working environments or economic conditions free-trade is fueling in various countries. Or, for that matter, if the President Bush is so adamant about peoples' right to adequate health care, a fair paying job, and sufficient living conditions, why is his own country plagued with so many people homeless, jobless, and without proper health care? What policies can the President point to domestically that resemble the values of the UNDHR? Again, the dichotomy between what President Bush says and does is evident and needn't be overlooked. Structural injustices will not be overcome with hand-outs and good-will offerings.
The final component to human rights being analyzed here is that of cultural development. Jack Donnelly would assert that cultural rights are those that protect a communal way of life, focusing on the individuals in cultural communities, ensuring they are protected from the state and the majority culture (219). Ishay would attest that they are a stepping stone to universal rights and a way by which to protect the rest of the world from Western domination (5). As a whole, cultural rights are a right to self-determination.
President Bush does not directly address the issue of cultural or development rights in his speech to the UN. In fact, many could read the Presidents speech as a candy-coated imperialist ploy. Only once does the president speak of protecting the desires, autonomy, or culture of the nations in current "need". He states that "ethic minorities are being persecuted". The President is right, ethic minorities are being persecuted, on American soil. Legislation promoted by President Bush, such as the Privacy Act, and Anti-Terrorist Act has allowed racial profiling, and resulted in other major offenses to those of Arab descent and Islamic allegiance. Minority groups have not been protected, but insulted and suspected. Further America has trained, America was distributed textbooks, countries are trading with America, America is the "promoter" of democracy, so the President claims. Where is the respect for the will of other countries? Why are only minority groups which uphold American foreign policy given protection? For example, President Bush offers support for the "brave citizens" of Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq who are making a "choice for democracy". What does that make the other citizens of those countries? It is clear that, once again, the President is drenched with hypocrisy, half-truth statements, and misrepresentation.
The conclusion is clear: President Bush's speech to the UN may make mention of civil-political, socio-economic, and cultural development rights, but the onus is on President Bush to justify his disparate record of foreign and domestic policy. Individuals of America and elsewhere must take President Bush's speeches with a grain of salt, bearing in mind his attempts to promote American-military sponsored "democracy" and arbitrary enactments of human rights. We must not let a few examples of American good-will to paint our view of the Bush administration or his presidency. Instead, we must examine the structural components that make up a system that leads the global economy today in light of the extreme poverty and utter disdain for human rights it seems to promote.
Israelis may content that one cannot balance the simple desire to live in peace in the state established by decision of the United Nations against the demands of those who resort to violence and terror and who threaten the very existence of Israeli society (11).
The Zionist case relies on the aspirations of a people who suffered two millennia of exile and savage persecution culminating in the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history, on the natural belief that a normal human existence will be possible only in a national home in the land to which they had never lost their ties, and on the extraordinary creativity and courage of those who made the desert bloom (46).
"A translucent dome, like an inverted basin, placed 'in the midst of the waters'
[defining] the spatial boundaries of God's work...The solid 'hammered-out'
firmament restrains 'the waters' of chaos from above and receives its blue color
from them. 'Heaven' is therefore the upper protected limit of created
order."
“…the expanse (sometimes called “the firmament”) set up in day two is the
regulator of climate. The ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed the cosmos
as featuring a three-tiered structure consisting of the heavens, the earth and
the underworld. Climate originated from the heavens, and the
[firmament-rakia] was seen as the mechanism that regulated moisture and
sunlight. Though in the ancient world the [firmament-rakia] was generally
viewed as more solid than we would understand it today, it is not the physical
composition that is important but the function. In the Babylonian creation
epic, Enuma Elish, the goddess representing this cosmic ocean, Tiamat, is
divided in half by Marduk to make the waters above and the waters below”
(Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, 2000).
.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים--יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם, שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה; וְעוֹף
יְעוֹפֵף עַל-הָאָרֶץ, עַל-פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם.
And spoke
Elohim, Let swarm the waters, swarming [with] living souls, and flier let lfy
above the land, upon the face of the firmament-rakia of the heavens
Methodological Naturalism
In coming to understand the world which surrounds and encompasses us as human beings, we have been able to test certain occurrences within the physical universe and come to understand them in their predictability and testability. In its original denotations this study is known as “science” and consists of testing hypotheses and organizing the data's results to understand regularities and laws within the physical universe. Science, in it's connotation however, has come to contain a wide range of meanings and substructures, including those things which cannot be empirically verified. Of these include studies such as theology and philosophy. Scientist claim that such studies are outside the range of empirically verifiable evidence and therefore should not be considered “science”. However many philosophers, and more prominently theologians, have tackled this argument and asserted that their worldviews are compatible with science studies and should be allowed within the frameworks of science. They reject the notion of methodological naturalism (MN) and the limitations they feel it holds.
MN's basic tenets assume that the methodology of natural science can only be based on evidence to which is empirically verifiable. The goal of science is to explain “the contingent natural phenomena strictly in forms of other contingent natural phenomena” (Moreland, Reynolds “On Creation and Evolution” 19). The scientific item in question must be empirically qualified or falsified by reference to natural law and employ measurable factors by which predictions prove to be repeatable and fruitful in guiding future research. This is not to say that one must be atheistic to do science, but rather that they cannot infer into their hypotheses an element of supernatural force. This method of conducting science must not be confused with metaphysical naturalism, which states that natural forces are all that exist. The theist then may conduct science within the methods ascribed by MN as long as he or she realizes this tool provides only partial truths (Haarsma, 78). They believe that all authentic science corresponds to God's activity in the world without embracing metaphysical naturalism. One can take scientific methodology without its naturalistic philosophies and call it “MN”. Michael Ruses' definition of MN states: “The methodological naturalist is the person who assumes that the world runs according to unbroken law; that humans can understand the world in terms of this law; and that science involves just such understanding without any reference to extra or supernatural forces like God. Whether there are such forces or beings is another matter and entirely and simply not addressed by methodological naturalism”(Ruse, 364.)
MN is not able to explain (yet) all physical events in the world and this is where theists believe this method of conducting science falls short. Because there are such phenomena (such as origins of the universe) which may never be explained by science theists believe it is scientifically okay to assume God's miraculous activity. Paul Nelson and J.M Reynolds state that “to the practicing Christian scientist the limitation of scientific descriptively to natural categories is not at all the necessary result of an atheistic worldview by simply a choice to make it possible for science to be a well-defied and reliable albeit limited activity” (Nelson, Reynolds, 262).
Opponents to MN must plead their case and supply support in order to gain credibility within the scientific world. Alvin Plantinga, possibly Americas most prominent philosopher of religion, in comparing creationism with evolution suggests that if theists adapt an attitude such that an acceptable hypothesis consists only of the laws of science, than by far the most probable of the scientific hypotheses for the make up of the universe is evolution (Plantinga, 137). The theists' use of MN leads to this conclusions for two basic reasons: 1) we don't know how it all happened and 2) it involves confusions between claim that all this “scientific acceptable hypotheses leave common ancestry as the most probable explanation” (Plantinga 138). Although it would be best if a proposition in question proves to be empirically verifiable, we cannot limit ourselves to it simply because some developed standpoint of naturalism assumes it so. Theists must choose the hypothesis which is best overall. Plantinga continues his argument in asserting that the Christian theist is not limited to that which has some scientific evidence, unlike the naturalist. We know the creation is from the Lord, and we aren't held down to a priori dogmas as to how the Lord did it (Plantinga, 138-139). Accordingly, Plantinga suggests scientists and other academics need to utilize both cultural criticism and Christian science (Plantinga, 141). Further, Plantinga even seems to question of whether natural laws even exists. Consider the following statement: “There are regularities, of course, but a regularity is not yet a law; a law is what is supposed to explain and ground a regularity. Furthermore, a law is supposed to hold with some kinds of necessity typically thought to be less stringent than broadly logical necessity, but necessity nonetheless.” (Plantinga, 146). Whether conventional science is satisfactory or not, the study should be open to something broader. Something which allows for the intervention of God, as we might call “miraculous”. To limit theistic science to theories of MN makes the theist seem as if he is moving in a path of desperation. He does, however, criticize the use of the God-of-the-Gaps theory, since he believes God is consistently involved in creation and in complete governance of it. God does not need to intervene now and then, but rather has a constant presence within it. Therefore, “...the right way for the Christian community to attain scientific understanding” includes that which we know by way of faith (Plantinga, 341).
Michael Ruse is one of Plantinga's main opposer's. His article in I.D. Creationist and it's Critics entitled “Methodological Naturalism under Attack”is a rebuttal to many of the criticisms of Plantinga. For starters, Ruse provides the following definitions to science: “...what we mean by the word 'science' in general usage is something that does not make reference to God and so forth, but which is marked by methodological naturalism. To associate evolution, for example, to an atheistic philosophy is a mistake of many theistic scientists. He believes in order for something to be truly scientific it must follow these guidelines (Ruse, 296-301 {1996}):
Scientific explanation “relies exclusively on blind, undirected natural laws and naturalistic process.”
“A scientific explanation may try to explain how one phenomenon follows in a right and definite way, as a result of the working of natural law.”
Conclusions of science must be testable
Conclusions of science must be tentative.
Ruse does not propose the there isn't presuppositions within the realms of scientific study, he does hold firm to the belief that we should do our best to work outside of our presuppositions, whether they be atheistic or theistically grounded. He states “...the scientist may or may not have very strong theological views, which one may or may not share. But inasmuch as one is going to the scientist for science, theology can and must be ruled out as irrelevant (Ruse, 366 {2001}). Plantinga does make reference to the what he believes are inadequacies of the evolutionary theory. But he obviously, as Ruse believes, has made up his mind of the issue prior to starting the investigation. Plantinga might use arguments against the atheistic scientist claiming they begin with a presupposition which effects the outcome, however he himself is guilty of the same accusation. Ruse claims that Plantinga uses a similar type of attack to MN in areas of study such as paleontology, systematics, animal instinct, and embryology. However, his argumentation against the scientific outcomes of such things are very similar to his own.
Some may claim, as does Plantinga, that not all science appears to be “repeatable” and therefore cannot be considered a “law” or “regularity”. Therefore, MN should be abandoned as an adequate form of testing hypotheses. However, in using the example of the extinction of dinosaurs, Ruse admits that it may not be a repeatable phenomena, but the various components involved in the extinction may be brought beneath regularity. Things such as the death of plants (Ruse, 368, {2001}).
In conclusion of Ruse's claims and propositions of MN we must note that he does admit that “methodological naturalism does not succeed in doing everything that it sets out to do. It may be that it never will. But to assume that there are going to be 'science stoppers', and that this should lead one to pull back from a commitment of methodological naturalism is to reveal that one has another agenda” (Ruse, 381 {2001}). Plantinga is committed to a tight and extreme literal interpretation of the Bible, and refuses to allow scientific evidences to challenge his interpretations of such things. It is made obvious that Plantinga's agenda is that of Christianity, and unfortunately this may have caused him to be ignorant to current works of science . Although proved right by empirically scientific theories Plantinga does not give these scientists and their conclusions the credit they deserve (Ruse, 382 {2001}).
Loren Haarsma in his article “Does Science Exclude God?” states that although God can and does intervene in nature, it usually works in consistent ways. However, since the factors which brought on the scientific revolution are still debated “neither atheists nor Christians should claim to 'own' the scientific method” (Haarsma, 80). People of various faiths may disagree in regards to philosophical beliefs about God and nature however by working side-by-side they can reach some consensus on scientific questions.
Haarsma, again referring to the usual consistency within nature, asks how then should the Christian conduct science outside the boundaries of MN? In regards to an unusual event, science cannot seem to either prove nor disprove the superseding of the law effected (Haarsma, 84). Science, although not able to scientifically explain a cause for some events, puts the situation into one of two categories: “unexplained” or “partially explained”. Yet, events which fall into these categories are able to change as new empirical methods are developed. However, there are some events which are known to have happened and have no scientific explanation. The Christian theist then can reasonably assume that God is able to supersede natural laws, and does in fact do so, which results in a certain event to be “unexplained” within the framework of scientific empiricalism. However, Haarsma does not believe a lack of evidence necessarily means the Christian should embrace it as a potential cause for a miracle but opens the possibility of it being so. Scientific proofs can be just as glorifying as, and more helpful theologically, as assuming God's supernatural intervention (Haarsma, 94).
In Science Held Hostage Howard Van Till, Young, and Menninga provide two main questions lying outside the realm of MN. First, although science can account for the various structures of the physical world it is not able to deal with the question of origins (Van Till “Science Held Hostage” 20). We are able to deal with events which occur within time, but natural science is unable to account for those things which concern the very existence of time. Those who adapt MN are left with no choice but to remain silent on the issue. Secondly, although natural science can investigate the behavior of physical things, it cannot answer the question concerning its governance. “The question of governance cannot be answered by describing patterns of behavior” (Van Till, “Science Held Hostage” 23). Following a MN approach to science would inhibit the naturalist from making a distinction between an autonomous or a theonomous perspective on the governance of physical behavior. Therefore the authors suggest that MN is intelligible with resident inside of the physical universe but unintelligible to describe the relationship between the physical universe and the transcendent realm (Van Till “Science Held Hostage” 25). Van Till attempts to make an appropriate balance between Christian faithfulness and intellectual integrity. He states that “neither natural science nor Christian theology can claim to deal comprehensively with all aspects of reality, and neither can claim that their theories capture the fullness of the reality they seek to represent.” (Van Till, 173 {1999}). He admits that theology is concerned with God and His relation to creation, contemporary natural science focuses on the natural world and how its developed properties and capabilities behave over time. Likewise, to force science to explain questions about divine action is exaggerating the competence of natural science. He feels, like Ruse, that for theology to assume its competence to speak on different properties and systems within formational history is an inaccuracy (Van Till, 174 {1999}). To summarize his views on MN, Van Till suggests that the theist should ask questions about the natural sciences and slowly move into questions which force a person to look outside of science for the answer. Therefore, science is not forced to assume any sort of presuppositions, neither is theology impeding on scientific facts nor pressing on the walls of it's structure.
J.P Moreland also acts as a strong critic against MN and the claims that it is necessary for a study of natural science (NS). Some claim that NS limits science to physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and related fields. Theistic science is than considered faulty and seen as an unfruitful research program. Moreland believes that any view of science which is limited in this way should be abandoned. He seeks to undercut the advocates of this “hands-off” view of science which is proposed be individuals, such as Van Till, and wishes attack their arguments (Moreland, 42 {1994}). He believes that such claims to “science reduce physical object statements about actual or possible sense data which turn out to be private metal entities” (Moreland, 50 {1994}). If this is true, the study of the existence of matter is not a necessity for the study of natural science. Likewise, Moreland attests that NS has a number of goals for scientific theory formulation: simplicity of theories, empirical accuracy, predictive successfulness, clarity and consistency, fruitfulness in future research and avoidance of certain explanatory devices. It is not limited to one goal which insists on MN. A realist and anti-realist may have different interpretations of these goals. The realists sees these epistemic virtues as true, whereas the anti-realist believes these virtues merely show the rationality and preservation of the phenomena. If the goal of NS is stated in realist terms then anti-realist statements of science become impossible. He believes that anti realist treatments of the goals are philosophies of science (Moreland, 49 {1994}).
Moreland concludes that trying to discredit theistic science based on the demarcation of criteria is not successful. Although these claims are not primarily scientific, they act as a philosophical left-hand giving input into science of which the scientist is not qualified (Moreland, 43 {1994}). Moreland agrees that the physical universe is an important study, but admits that not all of its aspects or qualities are within the realm of scientific inquiry. Questions regarding transcendent issues (such as origins) are outside the domain of MN and NS. For thinkers such as Van Till than to abandon this fact is to deny the history of science.
What, than, does Moreland believe theology provides for the study of natural science? He believes it sheds light on scientific conclusions for the following four reasons:
by providing rationally justified background beliefs against which rational assessment of a specific scientific theory can be made,
yielding positive and negative result that can be tested,
by recommending certain methodological rules over others, and
by providing extrinsic goals of science and helping to justify intrinsic goals for science (Moreland, 56 {1994}).
In an assessment of these views proposed by creditable scholars, philosophers and scientists we can safely conclude that there consists an extreme plurality of thought about the proper methodologies as to which science must be subject to. Some believe, as we have seen that the limitations that science conducted strictly within MN. They hold that the natural scientists' assumption that theist science is fundamentally misguided is an improper attitude towards the integration of science and theology (Moreland, 42). An appropriate conclusions to their thoughts are provided in the words of John Stek:
Theology must take account of all that humanity comes to know about the world, and science must equally take account of all that we come to know about God. In fact, we cannot, without denying our being and vocation as stewards, pursue theology without brining to study all that we know about the world, nor can we, without denying our being and vocation as stewards, pursue science without brining to that study all that we know about God (Stek, 260-1).
On the other side of the spectrum are the theistic adherers to MN, namely that of Michael Ruse. His views, and those theistic scientists who follow MN as well, may be summarized in this following statement:
“...I am not prepared to accept that methodological naturalism is a philosophy opposed to theism. I see no reason at all to den the Christian access to methodological naturalism, saying that it is untenable for the Christian to insist that in our understanding of the natural world one employ only the methodologically naturalistic approach (Ruse, 383 {2001}).
The theistic scientists must decide where he or she stands on such issues, and be prepared to offer rebuttals to the opposing arguments. Ultimately, we should seek to find a balance between the two, without forsaking the goals of the other. Maybe Van Tills suggestions to science and theology contributing to the other is a proper goal to attempt to achieve. In any case, we should realize that the debate between the two will not cease until either science or God proves to be unmistakingly ungrounded and falls into utter ruin. We must wait to see which falls first.
Works Cited
Haarsma, Loren. “Does Science Exclude God? Natural Law, Chance, Miracles, and
Scientific Practice.” Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Ed. Keith B Miller.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2003.
Moreland, J.P. “Theistic Science and Methodological Naturalism.” The Creation Hypothesis. Ed. J.P Moreland. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Moreland, J.P, John Mark Reynolds. Introduction. Three Views On Creation and Evolution. Ed. J.P Moreland, John Mark Reynolds. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.
Nelson, Paul, John Mark Reynolds. “Young Earth Creationism.” Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Ed. J.P Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.
Plantinga, Alvin. “When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible.” I.D Creationism and It's Critics. Ed. Robert T. Pennock. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
Plantinga, Alvin. Methodological naturalism. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49, no. 3, 1997.
Ruse, Michael. “Methodological Naturalism under Attack.” I.D. Creationism and It's Critics. Ed. Robert T. Pennock. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
Ruse, Michael. But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1996.
Stek, John, “What Says the Scriptures?” in Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the Worlds Formation. Ed. H.J Van Till, R.E Snow, J.H Stek, and D.A Young. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1999.
Van Till, Howard. “Theistic Evolution.” Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Ed. J.P Moreland, John Mark Reynolds. Grands Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.
Van Till, Howard, David A. Young, Clarence Menninga. Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science and Evolutionism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם,
לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים,
וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.
טו וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ
הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן.
טז וַיַּעַשׂ
אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל,
לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת
הַכּוֹכָבִים.
יז וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם,
לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ.
ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם, וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל, בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם.
ז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן.
ח וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שֵׁנִי.
