I was reading David Opderbeck’s blog yesterday and learned that Focus on the Family is getting ready to roll out something called the “Truth Project”.  Overall, I think that this will be a valuable tool in the marketplace of Evangelical ideas, but it looks like they are going to blow a great opportunity to present a scientific worldview that doesn’t put special revelation and natural revelation in competition with one another.  Instead of reframing the debate in terms of the usefullness and limitations of both scientific knowledge (that which can be deduced from studying the created order) and of revealed truth (God’s Word to us), they will attempt to tear down the same scientific straw-man that evangelicals have been creating for centuries. 

Let’s review the basics: The methodology of science is inherently naturalistic by definition.  That simply means that the methodology of science is limited to material investigations based on the uniformity of nature, and is therefore not equipped to address immaterial questions of ultimate cause or purpose.  IMPORTANT NOTE: this is not a philosophical statement about the existence or non-existence of a personal God who created the universe from nothing and continuously sustains it by his hand of providence!  Yet, many Christians seem to take offense at this definition of science.  On the surface, this reaction is understandable.  But it is completely unwarranted because the “atheistic premise” of the scientific method is absolutely necessary to ensure that scientific questions about the material world receive coherent scientific answers consistent with the patterns of material behavior found in the created order. 

Now obviously, spiritual questions that transcend material cause-and-effect will need to be handled differently.  But fortunately for us, God has penetrated physical space and time to reveal something of Himself to mankind - truth incarnate.  The infinite, eternal and unchanging Truth was packaged in a specific language for a specific people living in a specific time and delivered to us through human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  And the purspose of this special revelation was not necessarily to elaborate on those things which can be deduced from the study of nature, but so we - as finite creatures - are not left with only our limited powers of physical observation to learn about our creator, our fall from grace, and the means provided by our creator by which we can be redeemed.

Armed with this simple idea, let’s look at how the “Truth Project” treats the relationship between science and faith…

Science, “the systematic study of the natural world,” brings to light innumerable evidences of Intelligent Design.

No problem here with the definition of science, but the rest of the sentence completely ignores it.  The ability to detect “design” - that is, the transcendent action of an intelligent creator - clearly falls outside the naturalistic scope of scientific inquiry.  How could the “systematic study of the natural world” ever reveal something that is supernatural?  We have other ways of investigating supernatural realities, like philosophy and theology - not science!  Unfortunately, trying to force science to answer these types of questions marginalizes these other ways of knowing and perpeturates the modern lie that all truth must be communicated strictly in scientific terms. 

Moreover, Intelligent Design theorists can’t even agree on the objective criteria that qualifies as design vs. what would simply be considered a natural arrangement.  The most popular criteria is “irreducible complexity” - but in practice, this usually translates into “If we can figure out how this thing came to be via the known laws of nature, then it is clearly natural, but if we can’t, then it must be evidence of design.”  This is nothing more than the tired old “god-of-the-gaps” approach to the study of creation.  As mature Christians who understand that God created all things and sustains the universe by His hand of providence, it is a given that God is the transcendent intelligence behind all of creation.  This is a foundational truth accepted by faith.  As such, it is not contingent on our ability to detect God’s hand via a scientific investigation. 

The Bible tells us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from God’s providential hand.  Ultimately, the amazing patterns of snowflakes, sand dunes or crystals are just as much a manifestation of God’s intelligence as a strand of DNA or the bacterial flagellum.  Paul tells us in Romans that all of creation declares God’s glory, not just the things that science has yet to explain!  There will always be those things that exceed our ability to describe them in scientific terms, but all this proves is our ignorance.  To expect science to reveal transcendent truth, such as who created and governes the cosmos is absurd.  This misguided expectation actually gives science powers that it doesn’t inherently have.  And once Christians give science the ability to confirm or falsify the identity of a supernatural creator, we shouldn’t be surprised when the secular world wields science as a club against against our faith.

But Darwinian theory transforms science from the honest investigation of nature into a vehicle for propagating a godless philosophy.

Darwinian theory does no such thing, unless we also want to level the same charge at other scientific diciplines, like medicine or meteorology.  The fact is, any “honest investigation of nature” must proceed according to the atheistic premise mentioned earlier.  Not because there is no God, but because science only deals with that which can be observed, measured, and repeated.  Science is simply not equipped to address spiritual realities, only material cause and effect.  So the practice of any science (including biology) intentionally excludes the providential governance of the creator. 

Let’s put this in terms that everybody can understand: If your medical doctor told you that the reason you were sick is because you have been taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, you would probably not consider this an appropriate answer to your question.  Not because he is right or wrong (perhaps you really do have spiritual issues), but simply because you still want to know if there is anything PHYSICALLY wrong with you.  Obviously you need take care of your spiritual issues, but you would still want to get a “godless” answer from a “godless” doctor.  That is to say, an answer that seeks to explain your condition in terms of your physical well-being, apart from your spiritual health.  So would you then accuse your doctor of practicing “godless” medicine for giving you an answer that “leaves God out of the piture”?  Of course not!  When science (or medicine) is done correctly, the religious philosophy of the one doing it is irrelavent.  Proper diagnosis and treatment are based on material cause and effect, and thus are completely independent of one’s philosophical worldview.  This is true for any scientific discipline so to make this charge against evolution is intellecutally dishonest - not what you would expect from something called the “Truth Project”.

A careful examination of molecular biology and the fossil record demonstrates that evolution is not a “proven fact.”

The statement is entirely misleading.  While it is true that evolution is not proven fact, this has nothing to do with a careful examination of molecular biology or the fossil record.  The reason that evolution is not a proven fact is because nothing in science is a proven fact.  Since science is not able to make absolute claims about reality, it can only construct working models of creation that attempt to fit the data as it appears.  Moreover, our limited ability to observe the cosmos ensures that we will never have the complete picture.  This might be a difficult concept for Christians to understand, but science is a community activity based on reasonable consensus - not absolute and immutable truth.  The better that a scientific model fits the available data, the more consensus it will have in the scientific community, and it will thus be treated as a “fact” until another model is proposed that explains the data better. 

So obviously, evolution is not a proven fact since it is only a tentative working model of biology that tries to explain the evidence.  But understand this: the evidence for common descent over 3.8 billion years (continuous creation) outweighs the evidence for a single act of special creation some 6,000 years ago by a longshot!  This contest isn’t even close.  But if we properly understand that the purpose of scientific inquiry is not to provide mankind with an ultimate ontological description of reality (ie: the meaning and purpose of life), then we should not fear a naturalitic working model of creation that merely attempts to explain the data as we currently know it. 

The reaction of modern evangelicals to the theory of common descent is no different than the reaction of medieval Christians who were deeply offended by the claim that the earth was not at the center of the universe and was just another heavenly body.  Not only did the heliocentric theory challenge man’s unique relationship to his creator by removing him from the center of creation, it also elevated hell (which was considered to be at the center of the earth) up into the heavenly realm - completely upsetting the order of nature.  Or as John Calvin preached in a sermon: “perverting the order of nature.”  While nobody today seems too upset by this rearrangment of the cosmos, medieval Christians were clearly confused about the difference between physical and spiritual realities.  They wrongly assumed that any physical model of the cosmos should reinforce the theological truth that man is the most important aspect of God’s creation, and that heaven and hell are two different realms.  

What this medieval controversy shows us is that our special relationship to God, and the relationship between heaven and hell, are not in any way contingent on the material properties or arrangement of the cosmos.  Likewise, our special relationship to our creator is not in any way contingent on our physical place in the evolutionary tree of life - regardless of whether the theory is true or false.  We bear God’s image despite what the current model of the solar system is, or despite what the scientific consensus on evolution happens to be.  So we shouldn’t look to the study of nature to always confirm what we know to be true form theology, and neither should we always have a knee-jerk reaction to a scientific theory that seems contrary to Christian orthodoxy.  Again, the purpose of scientific investigation is not to confirm or falsify Christian theology, but to provide a working model of creation that makes sense of the known data.  If evolution is false, then let us challenge the science of it with data that doesn’t fit the model.  To attack evolution as a godless theory is not only dishonest, but it undermines God’s providential governance of creation as the epistemological foundation of all the natural sciences. 

Meanwhile, history shows that ideas, including Darwinism as a social philosophy, have definite consequences – consequences that can turn ugly when God is left out of the picture.

I can’t really argue with this since Darwinian social theory is clearly an abuse of science.  But I wonder if any discussion about American institutional slavery, the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, Islamic terrorism or the assination of abortion doctors will be included in this part?  Probably not.  But the fact that ideas can and do have ugly consequences doesn’t just apply to Darwinism.  Any idea can be taken to extremes, and we Christians are just as guilty.  Those atheists who take the scientific model of common descent and push it beyond the naturalistic boundaries of honest science are just as guity of abusing science as those Christians who look to science to confirm revealed truth.  If we can all just agree that science should be left in its naturalistic box, then social darwinists would have nothing to talk about.

I’m sure that I will probably agree with 90% of the Truth Project.  But if these few sentences are any indication of how they plan to approach the study of nature, I’m afraid that an opportunity to redefine the debate will have been wasted. 

GJG

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 31st, 2007 at 10:52 am and is filed under Random Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.