Rex Banks.

Introduction

Given the spirit of our age it's hardly surprising that public dialogue about a range of important issues is frequently treated by the media as a kind of morality play in which science and sweet reason are locked in a life and death struggle with Biblical fundamentalism and the dark forces of prejudice and irrationality. The hero of the plot is of course the calm, thoughtful scientist courageously dedicated to the pursuit of truth wherever it may lead, while the villain who opposes him at every turn is the wild-eyed religious fanatic who is intent upon protecting his prejudices at all cost and who threatens to drag mankind back into a dark age ruled by mindless superstition. Of course the characters change and the subjects vary but the theme remains the same - science is the future, scripture is the past; the scientific method brings enlightenment, revelation brings darkness. This is the unsubtle message of a stream of documentaries, news broadcasts and programmes of entertainment aimed at young and old alike.

Christianity's Contribution to science

Now all this is especially unfortunate in view of the fact that, as Dan Graves points out in his Scientists of Faith, "contrary to popular belief, Christianity has not impeded science but advanced it." Graves points out:

"Like the Jews, Christians believe that God has provided two revelations: Scripture and nature. Since both come from the same source, they must be reconcilable. But scientifically minded Christians went a step further. It was they who first attempted to synthesize all knowledge into a unified whole, setting the stage for later minds who would establish self-replicating science, that is, a methodology for building on prior discoveries to systematically and efficiently make new discoveries. Christian theologians first constructed the basis on which modern science has subsequently built."

Graves supports his claim with an abundance of evidence. He tells us of theologian Roger Bacon, (1220 - 1292) who profoundly influenced the development of experimental science and who held firmly to the inspiration of scripture. He reminds us of Robert Boyle, (1627 - 1691) and John Dalton, (1766 - 1844) founders of modern chemistry and modern atomic theory respectively; of giants like Michael Faraday, (1791 - 1867) Gregor Mendel, (1822 - 1884) Lord Kelvin, (1826 - 1866) and a host of others "who were agile in interpreting nature and humble and faithful in worshipping nature's Creator." Surely history itself is enough to demonstrate that belief in the Bible is not inimical to true science. Now this historical connection between the rise of modern science and commitment to the Biblical world view is no mere accident. Creationist Henry Morris makes the following insightful comment in his book The Long War Against God:

"It is significant that the 'scientific revolution' did not take place until the way for it was prepared for by the Reformation and the Great Awakening in Western Europe and North America, with the great upsurge in Bible study and evangelical Christianity that followed. The biblical world outlook is the scientific world outlook - namely, that the universe had a beginning and that its processes and systems are reliable and intelligible, operating in accordance with fixed laws that can be discovered and used."

"The pagan philosophies of the Greek and other ancient nations all involved belief in eternal cycles and a more or less idiosyncratic view of nature as a living entity and therefore subject to unpredictable behaviour. The founders of modern science, however adopted the biblical linear view of time, with a beginning and a pre-ordained goal, obeying rational and predictable laws established and maintained by the Creator."

The point is that those who view creation as an object of worship, who believe that the workings of the material universe are manipulated by capricious "gods" or who believe that God is all and all is God (pantheism) are hardly likely to investigate the processes at work in nature. On the other hand it is quite natural that the Christian belief in a creation which is inanimate, separate from its Creator and governed by regular predictable processes should encourage the development of the scientific method. This being true the obvious question is "Why do so many today speak of the relationship between the Bible and science in terms of conflict and enmity, and how did Christianity emerge as the villain of the piece in the ongoing war?" In order to understand how we arrived at this point, we need to know something about changing perspectives concerning the very nature of science, and something about the impetus behind these changing views.

A Word About Science

The word "science" is from the Latin scientia meaning "knowledge," and today most people associate the word with "empirical science." A typical dictionary definition is as follows:

"A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated and brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain." (Oxford Dictionary)

Notice carefully that according to this definition what is "systematically classified and more or less colligated and brought under general laws" is "a connected body of demonstrated truths or..observed facts." Clearly then science is based upon the observation of facts with a view to discerning orderly patterns in the observed data. In his book The Evolution-Creation Controversy, Creationist author Dr R.L. Wysong explains the beginning of the process thus:

"One applies the scientific method by first of all observing and recording certain natural phenomena. He then formulates a generalization (scientific hypothesis) based upon his observations. In turn, this generalization allows him to make predictions. He then tests his hypothesis by conducting experiments to determine if the predicted result will obtain."

Either the experiments do or do not support the hypothesis and as Pascal pointed out in the 17th century, it takes only one contradicting fact to falsify a hypothesis. If supported through continual confirmation, this tentative explanation may be adopted as the basis for a theory, which is "an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena". (The American Heritage Dictionary of Science) Theories explain scientific laws, which are simply statements of what always happens under certain circumstances.

Now clearly the scientific method has been remarkably successful in explaining the universe in which we live, and news of the latest medical breakthrough, space travel programme or communication development reminds us almost daily of just how profoundly science has transformed every aspect of our lives. But something else is equally clear from this discussion and it's this - since the essence of the scientific method is observation and repeatability, this approach to solving problems is not equally productive in every situation. For example it is possible to draw certain conclusions about the operation of gravity on the basis of observation, but clearly historical events such as the Battle of Hastings and the destruction of Jerusalem cannot be observed in the same way.

Again, it is possible to conduct experiments to determine the boiling point of water, but no laboratory procedure can be devised to solve the ethical questions involved in the abortion debate. In a word since it is clear that there are legitimate areas of inquiry and study where observation, repetition and experimentation are not possible, it is also clear that there are limits to the scientific method as well.

Scientism

Now in large measure the alleged conflict between the Bible and science is due to the failure to acknowledge the limitations inherent in the latter. In reality much of the tension is not between the Bible and science but between the Bible and scientism. J.P. Moreland editor of The Creation Hypothesis has the following to say about scientism in his introduction to the book:

"Scientism is the view that science is the very paradigm of truth and rationality. If something does not square with currently well-established scientific beliefs, if it is not within the domain of entities appropriate for scientific investigation, or if it is not amenable to scientific methodology, then it is not true or rational.

Actually there are two forms of scientism: strong scientism and weak scientism. (According to strong scientism) there are no truths apart from scientific truths, and even if there were there would be no reason whatever to believe them....

Advocates of weak scientism allow for the existence of truths apart from science and are even willing to grant that they can have some minimal, positive rationality status without the support of science...(but) every other intellectual activity is inferior to science...(and) there are virtually no limits to science.... Advocates of weak scientism are claiming that fields outside science gain if they are given scientific support, but not vice versa."

As Moreland points out, if strong scientism is true "then theology is not a cognitive enterprise at all and there is no such thing as theological knowledge." If this is the case then of course it is wrong to think that scripture teaches us anything about ethics, the nature of man, sin or salvation. If weak scientism is true "the conversation between theology and science will be a monologue, with theology listening to science and waiting for science to give it support." Spiritual "truth" would be constantly-changing, ever subject to revision and devoid of certainty. It is self evident that unlike science, scientism is the implacable enemy of all spiritual enterprises and indeed it is the enemy of any kind of inquiry which is not grounded upon empiricism. However the central claim of scientism is not merely presumptuous - it is also demonstrably false because (as Moreland points out) it takes the form of a self-refuting proposition.

Now as the term suggests, a self-refuting proposition is one which falsifies itself. Moreland gives the example of one who states "There are no truths." Clearly this statement is self-refuting because it purports to set forth a truth (i.e. the truth that "there are no truths"). Similarly the individual who states "Only scientific propositions are true" is himself affirming the truth of a proposition which cannot be tested scientifically. To put it another way there is no way to devise an experiment or engage in observations which would establish the truth of the statement "Only scientific propositions are true." It gets worse because of course science is grounded upon certain presuppositions (e.g. the knowableness of the natural world, the reliability of our sense faculties etc.) which are incapable of scientific proof. In other words far from being a friend of science, scientism actually destroys the very basis of the discipline.

Finally it is difficult to imagine even the most ardent defender of scientism living in manner which is totally consistent with his profession. For example he is not able to demonstrate scientifically that assault, murder, rape, violence and theft are wrong, but in the real world he is likely to act as if he believed these actions to be reprehensible and deserving of punishment. The bottom line is that the One who is the Creator of the universe is also the Author of scripture, and we need not fear that honest investigation of either will produce conflict. When conflict does occur it is because false views of science, religion or both are embraced.

Science and the Question of Origins

It is evident from the myths and legends of different cultures that humanity has always been fascinated by the question of origins, and of course this is quite understandable. After all, not only is man incurably curious, but his view of origins will inevitably impact upon the way he lives, upon his view of the human condition and upon his understanding of man's ultimate destiny. In light of the far-reaching consequences of one's view of origins, it is not surprising that discussions of this topic are often governed by presuppositions and characterised by passion and prejudice. My under-standing of light waves is unlikely to influence the way I feel about genocide, homosexuality and pre-marital sex, but my belief about man's origin may touch every aspect of my life.

Now clearly the existence of the universe is either due to the operation of purely natural, mindless processes or it's existence is not due to purely natural, mindless processes. (The only two possibilities). It is equally clear that if the universe exists as the result of purely natural mindless processes, its existence must be due to some kind of evolutionary process. This is the case because purely natural mindless processes are demonstrably incapable of explaining a universe which has never existed in some form other than its present fully-formed, orderly state. Only by invoking non-natural processes can we hope to explain the existence of a fully-formed universe which has not resulted from a gradual increase in orderliness. As Henry Morris and Gary E. Parker put it in their What Is Creation Science?:

"The fact is...that there are only two possible models of origins, evolution or creation. The Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianist, Taoist, and many other cosmogonies are based on evolution; the Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, and Christian cosmogonies are based on creation. Either the space/mass/time universe is eternal, self-existent, and self-contained, or it is not. If it is then evolution is the true explanation of its various components. If it is not, then it must have been created by a Creator."

Now regardless of our decision on this matter one thing is clear - since neither evolution nor creation is observable, and since we are not able to demonstrate in the laboratory that either has taken place in the past, it is not possible to prove our case scientifically. The evolutionist is not able to observe life emerging from non-life today, and clearly if the Big Bang did occur it happened once in the distant past. For his part the creationist has to acknowledge that creation by divine fiat is also a unique event which cannot be repeated in the laboratory. In a word, because of the very nature of the case, it is just not possible to prove scientifically that either concept of origins is correct. However this does not mean that science has nothing to say on the subject of origins. Morris and Parker say:

"Both evolution and creation are properly called scientific models, since they can both be used to explain and predict scientific facts. The one which does the best job of this is probably the better scientific model, though that does not prove it to be true...What we need to do, therefore, is to define the two basic models in broad, general terms, and then to compare their effectiveness in explaining and predicting various types of scientific data...that model which, in its general form, does the best job of explaining the data, without having to be...modified and particularized, is the best model."

Thus for example the evolution and creation models in their primary forms make quite different predictions about (for example) the fossil record, mutations and vestigial organs, and clearly science can make a real contribution to the origins debate by testing each model against the facts in nature. Too, as Moreland points out, in recent years some scientists have made a distinction between "empirical" and "historical" science which is helpful in the debate:

"Roughly, empirical science is a nonhistorical, empirical approach to the world that focuses on repeatable, regularly recurring events or patterns in nature...By contrast, historical science is historical in nature and focuses on past singularities that are not repeatable (including the origin of the universe, first life, various kinds of life)."

In view of the fact that observation and repeatability play no part in the origins debate, would it not seem that the interests of honest inquiry would best be served by free unhindered discussion of both the creation model and the evolution model? Would it not seem eminently reasonable to present both models to students in the classroom for examination and comparison, and to permit proponents of both to engage in vigorous, open debate in peer reviewed journals? Well, this may seem like a very reasonable and profitable approach to some, but for many in the scientific community this suggestion amounts to heresy. In fact for a number of years now an enormous amount of time, energy and effort has been devoted to convincing scientists, teachers and the public at large that unless the creation model is kept out of the classroom and mainstream science, the sky will fall in upon us all and civilization as we know it will come to an end. How do we explain this extraordinary situation?

Redefining Science

C.S. Lewis once illustrated a particular point by explaining that the word "gentleman" did not have the meaning in his day that it had once had, and it is important for us to realise that many in the scientific community today have embraced a definition of "science" which would have startled Faraday, Mendel et al. A contributor to Moreland's book, Stephen C. Meyer, wrote an article entitled The Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent in which he quoted science writer Raymond Grizzle who says approvingly:

"All modern science, not just biological evolutionary theory, by definition excludes God...There is no rule book that spells this out and indeed it has been argued that it is an arbitrary restriction. Furthermore, this has become the case only in the last 100 years or so."

So Grizzle and many of his contemporaries have adopted a view of science which departs markedly from that held by Faraday and Mendel et al. Meyer also quotes Nancy Murphy a philosopher and Fuller Seminary professor as follows:

"Science qua science seeks naturalistic explanations for all natural processes... anyone who attributes the characteristics of living things to a creative intelligence has by definition stepped into the arena of either metaphysics or theology."

So there you have it. Many are now committed to a definition of science which rules out the very possibility of ascribing the characteristics of a living organism to a Creator!

Unfortunately this view of science cannot be dismissed as an aberration. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision of a federal judge that a Louisiana law requiring balanced treatment for "creation-science" amounted to an "establishment of religion." In a book entitled Darwin on Trial, which made a significant contribution to the evolution-creation debate, law professor Phillip E. Johnson discusses the Supreme Court ruling at some length. Johnson tells us that Supreme Court Judge William Overton specified "five essential characteristics of science," the first two of which were:

"1) It is guided by natural law;

2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law."

Of course since "creation-science" is not "explanatory by reference to natural law" it cannot meet these criteria, but Johnson insists that such a definition of "science" reveals a commitment to a philosophical doctrine known as naturalism. He explains:

"Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from 'outside.' Naturalism does not explicitly deny the mere existence of God, but it does deny that a supernatural being could in any way influence natural events...Scientific naturalism makes the same point by starting with the assumption that science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge..."

A key expression here is "starting with the assumption." You see the conviction that blind, undirected processes can turn an amoeba into a man is not grounded upon observation but is derived from the unproven assumption that these are the only processes at work in the universe. No one has proved this in the laboratory and it is not a testable hypothesis; it is philosophy and Johnson adds:

"It is easy to see why scientific naturalism is an attractive philosophy for scientists. It gives science a virtual monopoly on the production of knowledge, and it assures scientists that no important questions are in principle beyond scientific investigation."

Obviously this is not a flattering suggestion and we would not expect those committed to scientific naturalism to agree. Many would explain their opposition to creationism on the grounds that it hinders scientific inquiry, and in this context many warn that creationism leads to the so-called "god of the gaps" approach to scientific investigation, an approach which makes fruitful investigation impossible. This god of the gaps argument is touched upon by Michael J. Behe in an excellent book which discusses the implications of modern biochemistry for Darwinism:

"Behind... (the rule that science must proceed upon the naturalistic assumption) are vague images of Vikings attributing thunder and lightening to the work of the gods, and of witch doctors trying to drive out evil spirits from sick people. Closer to modern science are memories of Isaac Newton himself proposing that God occasionally intervened to stabilize the solar system. The anxiety is that if the supernatural were allowed as an explanation, then there would be no stopping it - it would be invoked frequently to explain many things that in reality have natural explanations". (Darwins Black Box)

Now, one obvious response to this argument is that (despite lapses like Newton's) many of the greatest breakthroughs in modern science have been achieved by those who did not possess a commitment to naturalism yet who refused to invoke supernatural explanations when the going got tough. For example as a Dominican priest, Dietrich von Freiberg (c.1250 -1310) undoubtably believed that God set the rainbow in the sky, (Gen 9:13) but this did not stop him using testable models to establish the geometry of refraction in raindrops. In his Scientists Dan Graves records the following prayer of James Clark Maxwell (1831 - 1879) the founder of modern physics:

"Teach us to study the works of Thy hands that we may subdue the earth to our use and strengthen our reason for Thy service."

Maxwell relied upon equations rather than angels to explain the workings of physics. Behe says "it seems to me that the fear of the supernatural popping up everywhere in science is vastly overblown" and the history of modern science is certainly on his side, replete as it is with the examples of scientists of faith who refused to invoke the divine when confronted with intractable problems. Clearly then the belief in a supernatural origin of the universe has not, in the vast majority of cases, discouraged investigation of secondary causes, and belief in a God capable of working miracles has not typically led men of science to abandon the test tube and invoke divine intervention when seeking to unravel the secrets of biology, chemistry and physics.

But let's turn the question on its head. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument that, as a matter of fact, the universe is not the product of blind chance. In such an event, evolution of some kind need not be the only possible explanation for the universe. Now under such circumstances a commitment to scientific naturalism would not simply be at odds with the facts, but in addition it could actually hinder science. For example information specialist Werner Gitt formulates the following theorem in his In the Beginning was Information:

"Theorem 1. The fundamental quality information is a non-material (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information."

Elsewhere Gitt says:

"DNA molecules contain the highest known packing density of information. This exceedingly brilliant storage method reaches the limit of the physically possible, namely down to the level of single molecules."

Now clearly if this is true all attempts to explain the origin of DNA in terms of purely naturalistic processes are doomed to failure. If the above is correct, scientific naturalism becomes a straitjacket upon science, because by attempting to explain the origin of biological information without reference to intelligence, will and creativity, scientific naturalism rules out the only possible explanation for the existence of such information. The very existence of biological information is held to constitute proof that natural processes have produced biological information, and this being the case it is a foregone conclusion that gaps in our knowledge about how this happened are attributed to insufficient information about the natural processes. Like a man looking for a lost coin in the wrong place, the scientist committed to naturalistic presuppositions in a created universe is doomed to failure and science is the loser.

Demarcation Arguments

It is one thing to simply affirm that one model of origins is compatible with scientific investigation and another is not, and quite another thing to come up with a definition of science to prove it. In his essay Meyer tells us that "biologists have employed so-called demarcation arguments to separate a scientific approach to origins (descent [i.e. evolution-Rex]) from an allegedly nonscientific approach (design)." Meyer goes on to point out that historically attempts to establish a set of criteria to distinguish "true science" from "pseudoscience" have failed. He sums up:

"Thus, as Martin Eger has summarized,'demarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them any more. The may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world.'

If (such) philosophers of science ...are correct, a stalemate exists in our analysis of design and descent. Neither can automatically qualify as science; neither can be necessarily disqualified either. The a prior methodological merit of design and descent are indistinguishable if no agreed criteria exist by which to judge their merits."

Meyer goes on to tell us that despite this general failure of demarcation arguments, they still enjoy wide currency in the scientific and "popular world," especially among many who firmly oppose creationism. He cites (among others) examples of attempts to disqualify creationism as a valid scientific model which have been based upon the dictum (repeated by judge Overton [see above]) that scientific theories must explain by natural law. Meyer quite reasonably points out that such reasoning would also exclude all descriptive laws from the realm of science. Clearly many laws "describe regularities but do not explain why the regular events they describe occur." (He cites by way of example Newton's statement concerning the law of gravitation: "I offer no explanations"). Moreover it is obvious that many explanations of particular events (e.g. the unique height of the Himalayan mountains ) involve a consideration of a "unique or distinctive set of past circumstances" rather than the utilization of laws." Much more could be said about attempts to redefine science so as to eliminate the very possibility of "creation science" but the bottom line is that such attempts invariably prove to be self defeating because they end up disqualifying, not merely creationism but also the theory of evolution.

Evolution as a Paradigm

In 1962 Thomas S. Kuhn produced a work entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which was destined to revolutionize the philosophy of science. According to The Oxford Companion To Philosophy, among other things Kuhn argues that scientists work within and against the background of an unquestioned theory or set of beliefs, something he characterizes as a 'paradigm.' Sometimes however a paradigm seems to come unstuck, and it is necessary that a new one be provided. What makes Kuhn's position stimulating and controversial is the central claim that there can be no strictly logical reason for the change of a paradigm. As in political revolutions, partisans argue in a circular fashion from within their own camps.

Notice in particular Kuhn's speaking of "an unquestioned theory or set of beliefs" and of "partisans ...(arguing) in a circular fashion" and keep in mind that he is speaking of the scientific community. In his The Nature of Science, Edwin Hung has the following:

"Science must operate in some kind of conceptual or theoretical framework. Kuhn calls these frameworks paradigms. A conceptual framework, loosely speaking, consists of a set of concepts and hypotheses. Once a scientist adopts such a framework these concepts and hypotheses will form a mental set in her mind so that she can only perceive and understand in terms of these concepts. She lives within her framework rather like a person wearing glasses. If the glasses happen to be red in colour, then to the wearer everything is red and she behaves accordingly. In this sense, the framework shapes the world for the scientist and dictates her practices."

While intense commitment to the paradigm produces success in "normal" science it also produces problems. One problem is that scientists simply do not "see" disconfirming evidence. Anomalies are frequently ignored and scientists simply do not perceive what (the paradigm tells them) ought not be there. Ingrained ideas become knowledge filters through which the evidence must pass. Now without accepting all that Kuhn says, a number of critical thinkers have pointed out that this concept of the paradigm helps to explain a great deal about the current widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution. For example in his Evolution in Crisis molecular biologist Michael Denton insists that "the failure to simulate Darwinian evolution in artificial systems increasingly approaches a formal logical disproof of Darwinian claims" and then adds:

"Yet no matter how convincing such disproofs might appear, no matter how contradictory and unreal much of the Darwinian framework might now seem to anyone not committed to its defence, as philosophers of science Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyeraband have pointed out, it is impossible to falsify theories by reference to the facts or indeed by any sort of rational or empirical argument. The history of science amply testifies to what Kuhn has termed the "priority of the paradigm" and provides many fascinating examples of the extraordinary lengths to which members of the scientific community will go to defend a theory just as long as it holds sufficient intrinsic appeal."

Evolution provides another fascinating example of commitment to an impoverished theory as Denton explains elsewhere:

"To the sceptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"

Perhaps all this helps us to understand just why it is that opposition to the creation model is characterized by such zeal. Creationism challenges the theory which pervades virtually all fields of science and which determines the framework within which almost all disciplines operate. To many today the very idea of special creation is unthinkable; but more than this, it is quite dangerous. Listen again to Behe:

"Richard Dawkins has written that anyone who denies evolution is either 'ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked - but I'd rather not consider that.)' It isn't a big step from calling someone wicked to taking forceful measures to put an end to their wickedness."

John Maddox, the editor of Nature has written in his journal that "it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science." In his recent book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, philosopher Daniel Dennett compares religious believers - 90% of the population (in the U.S. [Rex]) - to wild animals who may have to be caged, and he says that parents should be prevented (presumably by coercion) from misinforming their children about the truth of evolution, which is so evident to him. This is not a recipe for domestic tranquillity.

Concluding Comments

Far from hindering the scientific enterprise, belief in the Bible has encouraged the development of those investigative methods upon which science depends. Unfortunately however many are unable to distinguish science from scientism, and many are unable to recognise that science is not grounded upon naturalism and does not compel belief in the general theory of evolution. Our task is clear - we simply must make the effort to understand something of the times in which we live and equip ourselves to defend the faith, not against science but against philosophy masquerading as science.

Home|Contents