I would like to ask you a question, Mark.
Let me preface my response by saying I appreciate the civility and thoughtfulness of your questions. These are things that I think about a lot and it's refreshing to have the chance to organize the ideals I have in response to serious and critical questions. I have long considered creationism to be an experiment in evidential apologetics and I derive great personal benefit from these discussions for that reason.
You posted these rules of science from Newton in one of the other threads.
• Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
• Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
• Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
• Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. (Principia, Isaac Newton)
So, I shall answer your question with a question.
Take a look at rule #3.
I'm not sure what question you mean but ok, lead on.
Take a look at this part, emphasis in bold added by me:
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments
So it seems that if God is a cause, then all bodies would have the quality of being created by God. So what experiment shows that quality? Made out of atoms, sure. We can show that by experiments. Subject to gravity? Sure. But created by God?
God is an inference predicated on the revelation of God in nature (sometimes refereed to as the lessor light of revelation). Bear in mind that we are talking about a primary 1st cause of creation and because of that it's transcendent. To paraphrase Aristotle its the substantive principle that transcends all reality, or in this case, the entire heavens and earth.
What I am describing to you is metaphysics. Newton, like many scientists, believed that while God as designer is warranted it had little, if any, bearing on natural phenomenon. God as the cause of creation is not the same thing as determining whether or not Ivory soap floats.
Also, where does the line stop?
That would depend on the phenomenon in question.
We don't need time, mutations, natural selection, common descent to explain the diversity of life, God did it. God is a cause.
Ok, you got a lot going on here, lets see if we can take this one at a time. You predicated the list with 'we don't need', without telling me what we do or do not need them for. Don't get me wrong, I know what you mean but it's important to focus on something in particular.
I'm really not trying to be asinine but let me answer your question to my question with a question.
What do we need these for?
- Mutations- Single-base substitutions, Insertions and Deletions, Duplications, Translocations
- Natural Selection- adaptation, speciation and mortality selection (aka survival)
- Common Descent- The common ancestor a population has in common.
In other words, what specific effect are we wanting to assign these causes to?
We don't need charged ions in the atmosphere, clouds, and electricity to explain lightning, God does it. God is a cause.
God can and does direct natural forces, determining whether or not God acted in time and space requires specific criteria. The New Testament has a long list of miracles evidenced by internal, external and bibliographical proofs. God confirms the Word that is going out by signs, miracles and mighty deeds. In order to determine whether God directed the lightning directly would require special revelation to that effect.
We don't need germ theory to explain disease. God does it. God is a cause.
We don't need atomic theory to explain chemical reactions. God did it. God is a cause.
Same issue with these two statements. While God is the transcendent 1st cause the warrant for determining that every disease and chemical reaction does not exist rationally.
Newton assigned specific causes to specific effects, you have to sort out what kind of a cause you are looking for. He had a specific cause and effect relationship when he performed this experiment for the Royal Society in London.
Now let me ask you, do the rules of Newton's experimental philosophy apply to a demonstration of his theory of light? Well, I don't think that anyone would try to argue to the contrary, of course it does. On the other hand he also included an intelligent design argument in revised editions of Principia, did he follow the same four rules in that argument? To be honest I don't think so nor do I think it was warranted to do so. The reason being that his 1st philosophy of science used an inductive approach to natural phenomena while an intelligent design argument is an inference based on a much broader general deduction.
Wrestling science from the clutches of Aristotelian philosophy was the key departure from medieval scholasticism during the Scientific Revolution. That does not mean that we have abandoned the wisdom of this great philosopher we are just using his mental tools in the proper context.
For example, if you substitute the word used here 'thing' with phenomenon, Aristotle distinguished different causes this way:
- A thing's material cause is the material of which it consists. (For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.)
- A thing's formal cause is its form, i.e. the arrangement of that matter.
- A thing's efficient or moving cause[2] is "the primary source of the change or rest." An efficient cause of x can be present even if x is never actually produced and so should not be confused with a sufficient cause. (Aristotle argues that, for a table, this would be the art of table-making, which is the principle guiding its creation.)
- A thing's final cause is its aim or purpose. That for which the sake of which a thing is what it is. (For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.)
Four causes
So, why is the first valid but not the rest? Or are they ALL valid? If they're all valid, why be so picky about which one you choose to apply?
Metherion
Because Metherion, we are talking about epistemology here as applied to rules of science. What you would have to do is to discern between the different causes for specific effects? Of course we need not invoke God as the cause of chemical reactions, lightning bolts and certainly not always blame God for a disease we might be diagnosed with. Naturalistic causes are:
- True and sufficient to explain their appearances.
- The same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
- The qualities of bodies...(as qualified by the rest of rule 3) are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
- In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena
The ten plagues during the Exodus are not.
The creation of life in general and the creation of man in particular does not fall under induction from phenomena. The underlying question has to be what cause and effect relationship you are trying to determine and by what means.
Thanks, the subject material will make an interesting blog entry.
Grace and peace,
Mark