Science and Education #2
What Are the Natural Sciences?
Before we can even discuss the Natural Sciences and how they should or shouldn’t be taught in Christian schools, we must first understand what the natural sciences are and what distinguishes them from the pseudo-sciences.
The following list is a mix both science and pseudo-science. Why is only one traditionally taught in the science classroom while the other is not?
- Astrophysics or… Astrology?
- Telecommunications or… Mental Telepathy?
- Meteorology or… Shamanism?
- Biology or… Palm Reading?
- Medicine or… Dianetics?
- Chemistry or… Alchemy?
It should be clear that true sciences only consider material (or natural) cause, while the pseudo-sciences appeal to a mix of both natural and supernatural causality.
Why do the natural sciences tend to make evangelical Christians nervous? Quite simply, naturalism is sometimes difficult to distinguish between materialism in practice – but there are very important distinctions between the two.
Naturalism only says that supernatural causality will not be considered in practice. Supernatural causality is not absolutely discounted, but it is rather left out of the equation simply for the sake of utility. Believe it or not, this the way most Christians live their lives from day to day. For example, if I can’t find my car keys, I never even consider the possibility that they could have been spirited away by an angel. That does not mean I reject the existence of spirits and angels, but that assumption (even if absolutely true) can’t help me find my keys. To use scientific terminology: the “spirited away” hypothesis is not a testable model. To admit that the best way to find stuff is to look for stuff is not a philosophical declaration that nothing exists beyond the material world — but rather a practical concession to everyday cause and effect.
Materialism, on the other hand, is a worldview philosophy that claims nothing exists beyond the physical realm. While materialism might be identical in the laboratory to naturalism, the differences couldn’t be more significant. One can be either a theist or a materialist and still approach the study of nature without respect to supernatural influence.
Consequently, a Biblical Worldview does not reject naturalism as a method of scientific inquiry. In fact, naturalisim can be seen as a subset of God’s providence. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it like this:
Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure. (Chapter V)
So if the will of God includes both ordinary and special providence, then scientific naturalism is the rigorous and systematic study of God’s ordinary providence only. Acts of special providence, or those things that God chooses to accomplish by fiat, do not submit themselves to scientific inquiry since they are contrary to the created order by definition.
In conclusion: naturalistic explanations of ordinary phenomena do not threaten God’s involvement with creation. If Jesus turns water in wine by fiat, then God gets the glory. If a farmer plants a vineyard, waters it, cultivates it, picks the grapes and ferments them in a barrel over many years — well, God still gets the glory for that!
In our next post, we will look at how God’s ordinary providence includes both primary (ultimate) and secondary (proximate) causes. Also, if you have other good examples of science contrasted with pseudoscience, I’d love to hear them.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:27 am
Thank you for this post. It is this inability to distinguish between naturalism and materialism that leads many Christians to falsely identify evolution with atheism. You have successfully shown, with simplicity and clarity, why a Christian must reject I.D. because it stifles scientific inquiry. It is so obvious, even to the most ardent I.D. proponents, that God has devised elegant natural mechanisms that account for so much of what we observe. Does it not greatly please the Creator when his children set out to discover the possible natural causes that resulted in the marvelous e. coli flagellum? And when we do finally piece that baffling puzzle together, will it not greatly enhance our awe of his creative genius?!?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Good post, Gordon. I concur.
I would also add that (as you have pointed out before) Christians are really only (or primarily) made nervous by naturalism in the biological sciences. Medicine, meteorology, physics and the like don’t really scare evangelical Christians, even though they assume naturalism just the same as evolutionary biology.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Thanks Cliff. I deal with ID very directly later in the series. Stay tuned for that!
AMW - You are one step ahead of me! My next topic deals with those very issues.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
If Jesus turns water in wine by fiat, then God gets the glory. If a farmer plants a vineyard, waters it, cultivates it, picks the grapes and ferments them in a barrel over many years — well, God still gets the glory for that!
Amen, and amen!