What is left that theology can be brought to bear on?

John S. Wllkins says, writing on Accident and Evolution,

"Thing is, in a charitable and updated form, Epicurus was right about the natures of living things - science shows us (not just evolutionary biology, but all of science) that the natures of living things really are composed of their parts and the combinations of those parts. Once you have given a molecular, physical, explanation of what organisms do, there is nothing left over to explain. And the principle of natural selection shows us that any apparent teleology in biology is indeed due to physical, mechanical, processes.

"So, what is left over that theology can be brought to bear on? Nothing."

This is just sad. Sad for Mr. Wilkins, that is.

I'm sad for him that he thinks that science has really shown all this, when in fact it's not within the purview of science to draw such sweeping conclusions. Science cannot conclude that it explains everything, unless it begins by assuming that there is nothing outside its limits that needs explaining. The only way it can arrive at this conclusion is by starting with it.

Granted, the Epicurean approach he speaks of is successful in explaining a lot. Science is great at getting to the bottom of things in terms of their material properties and interactions. But is that all there is? Does science explain where this matter, and the regularities of its interactions, come from? No. Does it explain mind? Some think it does, but for my money, those explanations are completely unsuccessful. Does it explain the phenomena of meaning, purposefulness, love, rationality, and so on? No, it explains these things away. It makes them (on a deep level) just the mechanical, law-plus-chance interactions of particles; or it least, that is what it does if the Epicurean approach is taken to be the only approach. If it is taken to be a partner with other modes of knowledge, it does contribute toward an explanation. But it cannot deliver the complete explanation.

Does science explain why science works? No.

So even apart from teleology being possibly suggested through science (the ID program in both biology and cosmology), and even apart from God's self-revelation through history and the Bible, this assertion is grievously flawed.

He later says,

"So the canard is in large part due to a failure of theology to catch up with the physical world. And they had better catch up soon, or they lose all semblance of intellectual respectability.
...
"Time to get with the 21st century in your metaphysics..."

Sad.

(See also this follow-up. Article linked from Panda's Thumb.)

Posted: Wed - March 14, 2007 at 10:49 AM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

What is left that theology can be brought to bear on?

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson