Joralex writes:
While a constrained metaphysic is theoretically possible, a metaphysic is generally regarded as all-encompassing. That is why a 'metaphysic' and a 'worldview' are synonymous meaning that
all aspects of existence are encompassed by that particular metaphysic/worldview.
As all-encompassing as they may be, people move between worldviews. These worldviews provide a context for interpretation, and many people use one for searching their hearts and another for searching the stars.
Also, what you propose above is a caricature - e.g., no knowledgeable person would consider employing Maxwell's Equations to study the Bible.
Caricature was not my intention, and I never mentioned Maxwell's Equations. I
did mention the scientific method, and many have approached the Bible this way.
Newton's Laws of Motion make no pretense to oppose the creationist worldview so there is no 'clashing' of metaphysics. Newton's Laws of Motion aim merely to describe certain aspects of the universe and not to suggest an alternate means by which that universe may have come about. The evolutionary paradigm, on the other hand, aims to replace the creationist worldview with materialistic naturalism - an alternate and opposing worldview.
Newton's Laws of Motion may not be in opposition to the worldview of the modern Creationist, but when first introduced they were in opposition to the Creationist worldview of that time, for back then it was believed that the heavenly bodies were in some way guided along their paths by divine providence, perhaps propelled by the beating wings of angels, or even by the hand of God himself.
And neither Newton's Laws of Motion nor evolution were introduced to "
replace" the Creationist worldview. They were both the result of scientific investigation. That they contradicted the Creationist worldview is just the way it happened to fall out.
So the important question remains: What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently?
--Percy