Lewontin was more honest because he recognized the implications of the naturalistic view in science. If we accept scientific explanations for everything in nature,then we accept,de facto and practically,the naturalistic world view.
Really!
How can that be if one does not also accept a priori the view that "natural" implies the rejection of God?
That is not how our Christian ancestors understood the term "natural". They saw natural processes as God-given, God-empowered. To them the light of day and the darkness of night, the cycle of the seasons, the rain and the flowing streams, the fecundity of plants and animals were all "natural" and also all "providential" i.e. part of God's providing for his creatures.
What makes Lewontin's view more logical than that view?
Are we really supposed to think that because scientists have worked out what the physical processes are that enable the sun to give off light that God no longer has anything to do with the gift of light to the earth?
Because that is what Lewontin's "logic" means. And you are agreeing with that "logic". "Oh, science has now explained it, so I guess we can stop thinking God provided it."
Why is it that anti-evolutionary "creationism" is so riddled with this atheistic notion?
I didn't say that it was more acceptable. I don't believe that scientific explanations are adequate to explain all natural phenomena.
I do believe that scientific explanations are adequate to explain natural phenomena. What I don't believe is that this means natural phenomena are not created, sustained and empowered by God as the expression of his providential care for his creation. What is the logic behind saying that a scientific understanding of natural processes means they are no longer to be thought of as the way God works in the created order?
Scientific methods do not suggest that science cannot say anything about the supernatural. [snip] God's interaction in nature cannot be tested . . .
Yes, scientific methods do suggest that science cannot say anything about the supernatural---because your second statement is true. Science can only speak about what can be tested empirically. And, as you say, that is not the case with God's interaction in nature.
God's interaction in nature . . . is known through common observation and reason,as well as scripture and Christian doctrine.
Agreed. And none of these are science.
The "agnosticism" of science amounts to naturalism and atheism. Since knowledge of God's power in nature is excluded,
But it is not. It cannot be affirmed, but it is not denied either.
The power that creates life and moves the natural processes of living creatures does not need to be tested to be known.
True, it can be known, as you say, "through common observation and reason,as well as scripture and Christian doctrine", but none of these are science. It can only be known scientifically if it can be empirically tested.
Of course, this means that the range of scientific knowledge is smaller than the range of all knowledge. It means that scientific knowledge is always partial knowledge. Some things that are knowable by other means are not knowable by scientific means. The interaction of God in nature is one of those things.
That is no reason to reject what science can tell us. We just need to remember the limitations of science and not take it for the whole ball of wax.
But that is what Lewontin does. Remember what he said in that essay? "Science is the sole begetter of truth."
That is the principle you are upholding when you say his logic is better than that of agnostic or believing scientists. Lewontin puts limits on knowledge. He puts the limitations of scientific method on knowledge and then claims this is all the knowledge there is. And because those limitations don't allow for testing the untestable interaction of God in nature, Lewontin's little atheist view of nature does not include God.
Why on earth are you agreeing with him?
Scientists do much more than describe physical facts,they describe things that cannot be shown to have happened or to exist,such as common descent and macro-evolution and quarks.
Scientists infer these events or entities from observation of empirical data. They can test the data empirically to see if it matches theoretical projections.
Then why do you accept the theory of evolution? It is a story that tells of species evolving into existence from natural processes alone.
When you add the word "alone" you are adding an element of atheism that is not part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution describes the process of evolution, which happens to be a natural process like plate tectonics or reproduction or the growth and development of an organism (e.g. egg->tadpole->frog). It does not include ideology about the nature of natural processes.
To an atheist natural processes act alone. To a Christian, they do not. But these notions, being untestable, are not part of science and so not part of the theory of evolution.
This sounds like false piety. You accept the theory of evolution with its naturalistic explanation for how species came to exist,and yet you say that it never acceptable to exclude God from any part of nature.
It only sounds like false piety to you because you are assuming that the process of evolution excludes God. I don't agree with that assumption.
God is not involved with nature in a uniform manner. He allows for various kinds of undirected movement in natural things,just as he allows for human free will.
Just so, God might also allow various kinds of undirected movement in the history and process of evolution.
It would be unreasonable to think that God directly causes the common effects of gravity or light
And it would be equally unreasonable, for a Christian, to say that God does not provide light and gravity for our good---even if in particular cases they have effects we deplore. Same with evolution. We don't need to attribute every particular effect of evolution (especially some of those commonly referred to as 'substandard design') to God's direct intervention. But, as for light and gravity, we can accept that the overall process of evolution was created for the good of living creatures, including ourselves.
. . . as he causes living creatures to exist.
Do you make a distinction between causing a living creature to exist and causing a species to exist? I recall you saying that each conception is God's direct work. I have no problem with that. Conception refers to the inception of each particular creature. Evolution doesn't operate on that level; it is a population-level phenomenon. I can see these two ideas co-existing harmoniously.
It is true that God is everywhere involved,but it is also true that there is much undirected natural causation.
Nothing is undirected except by God's will and within the limitations God sets. The waves of the ocean can go where they please until they meet the bound God has set for them. I like the idea that insofar as undirected causation exists in nature, it is an analogue to free will in humanity. Free will has its limits too. When we use free will to trangress natural and moral limitations, there will be retribution.
Why do you disagree with that,when you believe in nature alone explanations for everything natural?
I believe in natural explanations for everything natural. I don't see that it follows that I must believe that nature is independent of God or can act in any way as "nature alone".
In my view, the idea that a wholly natural explanation of what is natural excludes God is essentially atheistic. I prefer the Christian view of nature as God's ordinary and providential interaction with creation. I see no reason why we might not , via science, be able to explain the physical side of that natural process. Equally, I see no reason why explaining the physical side of it is ipso facto an exclusion of God's participation in it.
The why do you add God to scientific explanations?
I don't. At least not in the sense of including God as part of the scientific explanation. God transcends the scientific explanations. Scientific explanations are incapable of showing how God interacts with creation. So God is added theologically, metaphysically, but not scientifically.
Natural processes need God. But God is not the process or an element in the process, so is not describable in a scientific theory.
Scientific explanations do exclude God. That is what methodological naturalism is about.
Scientific explanations do not directly refer to God, but that is not what methodological naturalism is about. Methodological naturalism does put limits on what science can tell us, so effectively it means science can't tell us about God. But that is an effect, not a mandate.
MN is defined by the exclusion of the supernatural from science,and that means God is excluded.
You see? You have just effectively equated God with the supernatural only and written God out of nature. You may as well be Lewontin's disciple spreading atheism.
Prior to the infestation of Christianity (and science) with these effectively atheist ideas, that is not how our Christian ancestors viewed God and nature. They never limited God to supernatural only. It was not only miracles that directed their attention to God. It was a whole array of ordinary, everyday,
natural events.
That is the view we need to recover. Under this traditional Christian view instead of "natural" being an antithesis of God, it was the synonym of "provided by God". "Natural" meant "not made by man" and
therefore "made by God." Under this view, there is nothing atheistic about naturalistic explanations, for it is precisely because they are naturalistic that we know they are God's work and not ours.
