This is the beginning of a series of articles related to the issue of Christianity and Science. These are a short defense of the idea that Christianity is necessary for science. Here are the other parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Bibliography.
This was inspired by a Christian that attacked intelligent design and my attempt to give groundwork for a Christian perspective on science. He wrote an article proclaiming Intelligent design is not scientific and just a “philosophical worldview.” This will be an analysis of that position, science, and intelligent design’s validity. I’ll be approaching from a reformed Christian’s perspective. Here are my goals:
1. My attempt will be to correct a naive view of science and shallow criticism of intelligent design: A) Will be my criticisms and B) my agreements.
2. My attempt will be to give a framework for those that interested in the relationship of the Christian faith and Science.
A. Criticism
First, definitions are called for, they allow for clarity and precision. Intelligent design will be defined by intelligent design website as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
The misrepresentation comes in when one argues that looks like just question begging. The ID proponent is asking for whether the Neo-Darwinian mechanism is able to produce these anatomical changes. This is not merely a change in gene frequency of a population in an amount of time, and it isn’t just what is commonly called microevolution or speciation. We are speaking of macroevolution (or microbes to man), dealing with new anatomical features. The way they establish such is to test Neo-Darwinian paradigm and its mechanism of random chance mutations to produce such things and its probability.
In the article, he criticizes Anselm’s ontological argument. The article states that all Anselm said was “You can think of God in your head, then he can exist in reality.” That’s not what the argument is. It is that God is the greatest conceivable being, and it is better for this being to exist not only as an entity of a mind but also in the actual world. Immanuel Kant later elaborated that existence isn’t a predicate (some, like Alvin Plantinga, think that Kant was wrong). That is out of the scope of this conversation. It is simply a misrepresentation of Anselm.
Intelligent design can only advocate that a creator (whether it be aliens, God, or gods) explains the phenomena out there better than opposing theories. It isn’t attempting to prove what the designer is but rather that design explains the biological, and many other features of the world, better than random blind forces of nature. Which can conceptual scheme explain our experiences in a richer fashion?
The article continues using philosophy and science with preconceived notions of those tow consist of and how they relate. It’s even equated to a worldview, instead of an interrelated belief in a worldview. It seems kind of odd that one could think a person doesn’t bring their philosophical worldview and presuppositions to the issues of scientific and historical evidence. That is such a commonality in topics of NT scholarship that it is hard to see how a Christian could think that isn’t something to take into account. The fact that he is a Reformed Christian is even worse. Does total depravity not affect the way men think? It is so common for us to operate on the illusion of neutrality. But what is neutrality in a Christian world? What is a Christian brute fact? Aren’t all facts interpreted by the one who created them? Inconsistency is the test of a failed argument. Even later in this article, he states, “I would prefer he keep his religious life separate from his secular life as a scientist…”
Is that option viable to the consistent Christian? If theology cannot exist without logic, then why suppose logic can exist without theology? Science is dependent on logic and that presupposes such a worldview that can provide a transcendental such as logic. Which worldview does that? What worldview is the Christian suppose to look at God’s creation with? Clearly, it is taken for granted that the secular one is to be assumed as being the neutral ground in such a debate. The ignore that we all have a metaphysical bias on their parts. Why does he arbitrarily choose to rig science to be incompatible with another’s individuals Christian worldview must be abandoned in the illusion of being neutral and fair? Why not apply this thinking to other areas of thought? Why not approach the field of ethics on secular thought? That gives me a flashback to the old Twofold theory of truth (some philosophers have argued that you have truths of the faith and truths of reality. Example: It’s true by faith that Jesus rose from the dead, but it isn’t true that he physically rose from the dead in reality). How can we maintain the inconsistency of not applying our worldview in all areas of life? The Christian shouldn’t abandon God’s law in ethics and he shouldn’t abandon his worldview in science.
The question is, now, what is science and is intelligent design a valid theory? I haven’t seen any reason to discredit it as a conceptual scheme or possible theory of the world, but I’ll even try to establish that other theories are not on any better grounding.
Neutrality:
Is this concept of neutrality coherent? I think not. Every action we take presupposes metaphysical and epistemological commitments. To get out of bed presupposes causality, Logic, nature’s uniformity, eternal world, and various other commitments that one makes to do daily tasks. While affirming one proposition you deny its negation. You choose a metaphysic whether it be idealism, realism, solipsism, dualism, Monism, pluralism, Panentheism, pantheism, theistic dualism, etc. (and the many forms of those). You may grant those metaphysics as a necessary bias and not take it seriously because it is necessary. The problem is it’s not only metaphysics but epistemology, as well, whether it be empiricism, Scientism, logical positivism, rationalism, classical foundationalism, coherentism, externalism, internalism, skepticism, pragmatism, etc. This belief in philosophical Methodism (the method of knowing takes precedence over metaphysics and over other areas of philosophy) simply isn’t the case. We start with worldviews. For example, say someone decides the best epistemological outlook is Empiricism. What if he is also an idealist who believes the world is a mental construct? What empirical data do we receive from mental constructs? One should simply look at the history of philosophy and see how those with empirical epistemologies had a materialistic metaphysic. It’s not a coincidence. Dr. Bahnsen uses to give an example where a man receives an Apple orchard. The man designs a machine to sort the good apples from the bad apples. The million dollar question then is “What is a good apple?”.
Finally, the nature of the Christian worldview is antithetical to any opposition. It is the lordship of Christ over all things of his creation that gives meaning. His meticulous providence and decree testify of his absolute sovereignty over his creation. For all knowledge and truth are in Christ (Colossians 2:3). God, as sovereign Lord, gives no room for neutrality. Either it is a Christian worldview or it is a sinful worldview.
The Circular nature of the scientific community:
It is a fact the scientific consensus that evolution has happened. Especially, when those who specialize in biology And schools of science that deal with evolution. We, therefore, should accept them on their testimony. But is this the case? Should we accept what they believe to be the case? Here are 3 reasons why we shouldn’t.
1. The Scientific consensus is known for its fallibility. Such as beliefs in a geocentric earth and the phlogiston theory.
2. We should be skeptical of any theory dealing with religious, political, ethical, and other important implications. For we know nobody is neutral.
3. Evolution is self-defining and self-serving. To be an evolutionary scientist you need to accept the theory of evolution. If you wouldn’t accept it then you are not a part of that consensus. Who is the evolutionary scientist trained by? Evolutionary scientist. What are they taught? Evolutionary theory. It would be like asking the consensus of professional football players is whether football is a great sport. It is replied, well it’s unanimous even by scientist that don’t specialize in evolutionary science. But these scientists do not specialize in those sciences. So, when they are asked why they believe in evolution, they defer to the evolutionary scientist.
B.Where is there agreement?
I find ID proponents to be inconsistent and compromising on the issues of the Christian worldview. They refuse to be faithful to the Bible or any revelation in attempts to appear more scientific to the secularist. As a prominent ID theory website states:
“Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence.”
Which worldview is the foundation of any knowledge other than the Christian faith? Intelligent design neither absolutely establishes the Christian faith nor does it want to. While all the ID proponents presuppose the Christian worldview, the ID proponent has to defend his position without the Christian God. This shows why his arguments will always remain inconsistent. The ID position can be defended along with Christian presuppositions as scientific and biblical. That means Intelligent Design needs to be defended on Christian grounds. We should not allow the proponents of a theory to get in the way of the theory itself. This is why I’m skeptical of ID defenders as much as he is, for biblical reasons. I’ll try to show how the neutral ID proponent is undermining the foundations of science.
What is science? Well, that counts on who you ask. I would say that it’s the study of God’s creation to create models to help us understand the created order and to function to have a life obedient to God. There are other attempts to define science so we shall look into a few definitions of science. Which will lead us to the question of “What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of science?”.
Since we have turned our eyes to “What is science?”. The issue of definition arises. The easiest way of answering this question is simply to point out that there is a scientific method that does it for us. It includes positing a hypothesis and from that testing those through rigorous scrutiny. That is universally agreed upon by everyone. That is what it seems like in modern times and public education. The truth of the matter is that that is a myth that there exists a scientific method in the first place. Which isn’t even considered by anyone before they proclaim something isn’t scientific in common dialogue. That is possibly linked more to ignorance then wrong intent. That isn’t my opinion, but down below we have philosophers that acknowledge that claim. We will progress and go through a few attempts and discuss how they can’t sufficiently demarcate science from non-scientific activities.
Dr. John Lennox wrote:
“And that brings us back to our question: What is science? Contrary to popular impression, there is no one agreed scientific method, though certain elements crop up regularly in attempts to describe what ‘scientific’ activity involves: hypothesis, experiment, data, evidence, modified hypothesis, theory, prediction, explanation, and so on. But the precise definition is very elusive.”
Dr. J. P. Moreland has written:
“There is a fairly widespread belief that there is something called the scientific method that can be characterized in a fairly clear, unequivocal manner and that separates science from other fields. For example, the following statement occurs at the beginning of a widely used high school biology text: ” Scientists use the scientific method in attempting to explain nature. The scientific method is a means of gathering information and testing ideas … The scientific method separates science from other fields of study.” This stereotype is, unfortunately, both false and widely believed to be true. … First, there is no such thing as the scientific method, but rather there is a cluster of practices and issues that are used in a variety of contexts and can be loosely called scientific methodologies. Second, various aspects of scientific methodologies arise in practice of disciplines outside science.”
Dr. Stephen Meyer wrote:
“And that is the problem. If scientists and philosophers of science do not have an agreed-upon definition of science, how can they settle questions about which theories do and do not qualify as scientific? If scientists lack such a definition, it’s difficult to argue that any particular theory is unscientific by definition.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
One of the settings in which the legend of a single, universal scientific method has been particularly strong is science education (see, e.g., Bauer 1992; McComas 1996; Wivagg & Allchin 2002).[5] Often, ‘the scientific method’ is presented in textbooks and educational web pages as a fixed four or five step procedure starting from observations and description of a phenomenon and progressing over formulation of a hypothesis which explains the phenomenon, designing and conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, analyzing the results, and ending with drawing a conclusion. Such references to a universal scientific method can be found in educational material at all levels of science education (Blachowicz 2009), and numerous studies have shown that the idea of a general and universal scientific method often form part of both students’ and teachers’ conception of science (see, e.g., Aikenhead 1987; Osborne et al. 2003). … However, just as often scientists have come to the same conclusion as recent philosophy of science that there is not any unique, easily described scientific method. For example, the physicist and Nobel Laureate Weinberg described in the paper “The Methods of Science … And Those By Which We Live” (1995) how
“The fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time does not only make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally around and defend.” (1995: 8)
We’ll be briefly looking through some attempts to define science. Let us first discuss necessary and sufficient conditions. An easy way to explain this is an example. A necessary condition for fire is oxygen. But oxygen isn’t a sufficient condition for fire. A sufficient condition for fire is a fuel source, a heat source, and oxygen. That is to say, that you must have oxygen for there to be a fire, but merely the presence of oxygen doesn’t entail that a fire is present.
The goal here is to evaluate the features of these definitions to see how they demarcate science from non-science. We will evaluate how others have tried to do such a task.
1. Knowledge covering general truth or the operation of general laws especially obtained through and tested by the scientific method. Such knowledge pertaining to the physical world and its phenomenon.
i) Not all of science has to do with general laws because science also deals with singularities. This would leave one time events out of being scientific. For those who espouse the big bang theory are not doing science.
ii) This definition is dependent on the scientific method. It does not tell us what the scientific method is. This definition is either circular or vacuous. Saying that science uses the scientific method is like saying science is the activity of science.
iii) This definition presupposes physicalism which leaves fields like sociology and psychology out. Yet still, the advocate for this definition begs the question against those fields.
iv) It assumes scientific realism. It presupposes that we actually get to the mind-independent world. That out there exists theoretical entities, like quarks. There are some philosophers and scientists who don’t believe these theoretical particles exist. Some deny science actually tells us about the real world.
2. Judge William Overton’s definition:
Judge William Overton’s definition (His definition is a famous one which was used to show creationism wasn’t scientific and has been used in other courts for the same purpose). It had just 5 criterion for science:
“It is guided by natural law;
It has to be explained by reference to natural law;
It is testable against the empirical(observable) world;
Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word;
It is falsifiable.”
“1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explained by reference to natural law;”
i) What are all the natural laws? How can we explain the phenomenon if we don’t know the natural laws that are needed to explain such? What is a natural law, and on what basis do we know them? How do we know that they hold? It lacks any answers to these questions. Where does one know these laws apply? Universally? Does he have universal experience?
ii) It seems to me that Laws imply lawgivers. That these laws cannot just be impersonal. These laws show the intelligibility and rationality of the world. We should also note that these laws are language like. These two simple things are properties of persons and undermine the mechanistic impersonal view of scientific laws that most people in the realm of science hold.
iii) If they cannot know all the natural laws, then we’ll allow them the basic laws. The problem is that these basic laws of nature cannot be explained by further natural laws.
iv) What does it mean that science is guided by natural law? Does it guide scientist to an explanation of phenomena? Then, it is not different than the second point and we would only have four points. Another interpretation is that it could mean the motivation to explain the world by natural laws. But what does motivation have to do with science? If one does it for money, prestige, religious beliefs, or forceful parents, it has to affect science. It could also be denied any appeal of the supernatural. However, then, one could just study numbers or language and, therefore, be doing science. It is hard to think that Isaac Newton’s religious motivations discredit him as a scientist. Someone studying patterns in literature. If natural means physical, then things like sociology (what material is social forces made out of?)., therefore, he seems again to be question begging.
v) Some of the most important findings in the history of science weren’t discovered by an explanation of the phenomena but rather the discovering of it. If the only explanation was the case, then many like Galileo were actually not doing science. Einstein wasn’t viewing the facts and following this view or “the scientific method.” He did thought experiments.
vi) Astrology uses natural laws that govern their predictions. Are we now to give grants to those who study astrology? Also, big bang cosmology is not explained by examining natural laws. Singularities are therefore left out of science.
“3. It is testable against the observable world;”
i) I have a theory that gummy worms bounce more when they hit the floor then sour patch kids. This is tested by empirical data, but it doesn’t have anything to do with science. It’s testable to the empirical world. But I strongly think no scientist would care. I will await my grant for such studies. The point is that science seems interested in particular facts and not random facts.
ii) How many theorems are testable by empirical evidence? Does one go down the street to watch the big bang occur? No. The theory of evolution? No. Plate tectonics? No. These occur over millions of years and, in fact, cannot be observed. Only sub-theories can be tested.
iii) What about things we cannot test yet? Many ideas of theoretical physics cannot be tested, such as string theory. Is this not scientific? Many hypotheses are not testable. Look at the recent findings of gravitational waves.
iv) When can theories account for sets of evidence? Example: You take your car to a mechanic, and the mechanic tells you you’re out of gas. You ask for a second opinion, and the next mechanic tells you you’re out of gas and there are gremlins in your fuel system. Which theory is based on empirical evidence? Each theory has the same amount of evidence, but we would most likely accept the first. Why? The first one is more simple and therefore simplicity (like Occam’s razor) is a factor or bias that drives scientific thought. Recall the debate between geocentric vs heliocentric models. That isn’t answerable just on the basis of empirical observation. It was, rather, solved using the criterion of simplicity. Simplicity is decided on the basis of their presuppositions, and that’s what we all do (so the Christian should not be faulted for accepting theories that comport with his worldview). There’s more to it than empirical observation. As Occam’s razor can only tell you not to go beyond entities needed, but it does not tell you how many entities are too much or too few. That may not seem to you to be a problem in “real science”. Dr. Poythress said this:
Quantum mechanics is particularly troubling, because Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg developed two different versions, side by side. The two approaches later turned out to be mathematically equivalent, but they used two sharply differing pictorial starting points, which suggested two different philosophical interpretations. Schrödinger’s approach suggested a more realist interpretation, because he represented an electron as a wave spread out around an atomic nucleus (but the wave in question involved complex numbers rather than real numbers, which would still be disconcerting to a conventional realist!). Moreover, in developing his equation he used intuitive guidance from a realist picture, earlier developed by de Broglie, of wave motion around the central nucleus of an atom. By contrast, Heisenberg represented an electron by infinite matrices that represented experimentally observable quantities. Heisenberg’s model was more akin to empiricism. In fact, Max Born and Heisenberg self-consciously used an empiricist point of view in their search for the correct formulation, because they realized that an electron did not behave like a “real” macroscopic particle with fixed position and momentum. In short, one mathematical representation (Schrödinger’s) seems to support a realist interpretation, while the other (Heisenberg’s) supports an empiricist interpretation. This situation should disturb both realists and empiricists, because the mathematical equivalence of the two approaches suggests that it makes no difference, or at least that we cannot tell which directly represents “reality.” Maybe we are asking the wrong question. Or perhaps the equations of quantum mechanics are the “reality,” and what we call an electron is nothing more than a convenient label for the unity that we conceptualize in the equations (a more idealist point of view).
(Redeeming Science: a God-centered approach; Dr. Vern S. Poythress. Page 203, Crossway).
v) This also excludes predictive ability. The world appears different from what it would 30 years from now. It doesn’t take into account how time factors in scientific inquiry.
vi) It doesn’t take into account the person’s presuppositions. A man from a tribe, who has been isolated from technology, may observe a TV and come to a different conclusion than someone from the United States, who’ll know that it is a TV and not just a box. It’s just the fact we interpret future experiences on the basis of past experiences.
vii) Another issue is how to draw causal connections between pieces of evidence. For example, shark attack incidents increase when Ice cream consumption increases. Does ice cream consumption cause shark attacks?
“4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word;”
i) Scientist are quite often very dogmatic, as they often call theories “indisputable facts” and that such theories cannot be doubted. For example:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.”
Professor Richard Lewontin
ii) Are non-scientific theories dogmatic? The theory that I have milk in my fridge is not a theory that I would die for. Are you gonna call me a scientist? This fails to separate science from non-science and thus cannot actually be a criterion to demarcate the two.
“5. It is falsifiable.”
i) This final point comes from the thoughts of Sir Karl Popper (philosopher). Following Modus Tollens “If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.” How does mere falsifiability prove something is science? I have a theory that the Football team that scores no points wins the game. I watch a football game and see that this isn’t the case. My non-scientific theory was falsified. How does falsification set science apart?
ii) Now, falsification is never conclusive for any particular statement. Example:
P1: All Gods are immortal
P2: Apollo is a God
C: Apollo is immortal
Say Apollo dies. Which premise is falsified? It relies on the philosophical commitment of the one who answers. One could’ve proven either one of those premises to be false.
iii) Is this really what scientist do? Do they make predictions of the theory of evolution that certain animals have died out? Then they find this creature has seen multiple extinction events yet remains the same. If this line of reasoning is correct, then why is evolution still here? Why is it still being forced upon our conscious? How does one know when something is falsified over just a lack of information?
The Council 