Science and Education #4
What is Folk Science?
Evangelicals don’t normally dispute secular Scientific attempts to construct a logical framework to explain the various patterns observed in a particular set of data. For instance, atomic theory suggests a physical model of the atom that seems plausible. Nobody has actually seen a bunch of protons and neutrons packed inside a nucleus with electrons whirring about in their distant orbits, but this concept seems to work exceptionally well. In fact, not only can this model account for observed atomic behavior, but scientists can make predictions based on the idea and devise experiments to test those predictions. In short, the model creates a coherent discipline that can be used to guide further research — ultimately adding to the scientific body of knowledge.
When a scientific paradigm continues to bear out in the laboratory, our confidence in the utility and veracity of that model grows stronger. Over time, the scientific community will reach a consensus that the model is true – not in an absolute and immutable sense, but as something that is so obvious that it makes little sense to continue questioning it. NOTE: the model may or may not accurately resemble reality. If you think about it, that’s not really the point. Unless we have direct access to that reality, how would we know the differnece? It’s quite possible that even our most well-supported perceptions of a physical system, such as the structure of the atom, are woefully incomplete. Consider Classical Newtonian Physics prior to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. As we rounded the corner of the 20th century, many physicists were lamenting the fact that there was nothing left for future generations to discover! At that point in history, nothing in nature seemed to lie outside the reach of the known laws of physics.
Sometimes, however, a successful scientific model might suggest a theologically disturbing portrait of creation. We might be faced with a natural history that includes challenging concepts like death before sin, eons of cosmic and geologic time, or relatedness between different kinds of species. When this happens, questions of scientific utility (i.e: does the model work or not) become subject to theological and exegetical strong-arming. Alternative explanations are sometimes offered that might be less theologically offensive, but fail to explain the known data, guide onging research, or contribute to the scientific body of knowledge. At this point, pure scientific utility is not the objective. As we’ll see later, the people who engage in this sort of behavior usually aren’t faced with the responsibility of getting the science right, nor are they faced with the consequences of getting the science wrong. They are mostly interested in clinging to whatever portrait of creation best supports their belief system — regarless of the scientific merit. These resulting pseudo-scientific ideas have come to be known as “folk-science” — a term that has its roots in the Science Department of Calvin College.
“. . . a ‘folk-science’ is a set of beliefs about the natural world—beliefs that need not be derived from, or even consistent with, the natural sciences—beliefs whose primary function is to provide comfort and reassurance that the rest of one’s worldview is OK.” –Howard J. Van Till
Of course, Evangelical Christians are not the only one’s who can hijack science to argue for or against their worldview assumptions. Atheistic Scientists can have their own version of folk-science. In other words, they can twist the naturalistic methodology of science into something that supports their materialistic worldview philosophy. For instance:
“The Cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be.” –Carl Sagan
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” –Richard Dawkins
Whether these statements are true or false is not a scientific qeustion. These are metaphysical questions not solved by empirical analysis. However, Christians must appreciate the fact that in the laboratory, atheistic folk science is nearly identical to legitamate secular science. For instance, a medical doctor (mainstream secular science) will attempt to treat your illness according to a naturalistic premise. You might not ever know whether he is a theist or a non-theist, but regardless of his metaphysical commitments, he will still treat you as if chemistry and biology is all there is. To put it in the words of Sagan and Dawkins: he will treat you as if “the cosmos is all there is” and as if there is “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good”. If you want something beyond that, you can always find a witch-doctor (or a tele-evanglelist).
Now, Christian Schools don’t normally have problems with materialism in the science classroom. In fact, many parents send their kids to private Christians schools specifically to avoid this, but rather than work to correctly identify and address the philosophical abuses of naturalism, most Christian School Science Curriculum combats atheistic folk science with Christian folk science. In other words, they answer one abuse of science with another abuse of science. Thus, we have the “two-sciences” problem facing Christian Educators: mainstream secular science or Christian folk-science. Which do we teach our kids?
In our next post, we will look more closely at what distinguishes mainstream secular science from Christian folk-science.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Good observations, Gordon. I especially like the analogy of atomic theory. I always read your writings too late! I can think of several fruitless conversations in the past in which an appeal to the wide acceptance of the humble, totally unseen, atom, would have been quite useful!
May 5th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Can you imagine if the assumptions of atomic theory bumped up against Christian theology? There would be all kinds of pseudo-scientific assaults on this model!
In his book, Not a Chance, Presbyterian theologian R.C. Sproul (whom I normally appreciate), responded to the quantum model — which states that an electron will move from one state to another state without physically crossing the space between — by simply saying, “I doubt it really happens like that” and that the model was “pure foolishness” despite the loads of empirical evidence suggesting that’s what actually takes place.
Being cut from the same theological cloth as Sproul, I can’t imagine off the top of my head what could be so offense about quantum states, but I guess that portrait of reality is too queer for some to accept. However, he might be disappointed to learn that electrons deep inside the microchips of the very computer from which he wrote those words were “tunneling” accross insurmountable physical barriers by exchanging photons with the vacuum of empty of space! Spooky? Physics often is!
May 5th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Though far less connected to his theology than are you, I like Sproul too. However, I would suggest to you that we can draw some possible conclusions from the quantum model that are quite unfriendly to Sproul’s brand of Calvinism. I have been set to wondering if the inner workings of the atom ala quantum mechanics are not God’s way of saying to us at this time, “You see, I am not ‘controlling’ everything in the strict sovereign way some of you have imagined. Your actions, as part of a free self-determining creation, have great significance. You, human race, have an untold level of responsibility.” If Sproul sees the same theological implications in probability factors, uncertainty principles, and what we now think is the impossibility of prediction — let alone control — over subatomic reality, then he may be predisposed to reject all of this science.
A Newtonian world is much more favorable to Sproul than one filled with relativity and uncertainty. I know that these 20th century additions to physics are tentative and incomplete. I know that they do not absolutely preclude sovereign providence. But at this point, these late findings suggest to me that God has purposefully designed a universe in which he does not exercise determinative control.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Very good observations. It probably is the perceived “threat to a deterministic universe” that bothers Sproul about quantum mechanics. who does God think He is anyway — operating outside of the box that we finite creature have built for Him! The nerve…
I’m growing to see that quantum uncertainty and EC actually can spare Christians (especially Calvinistic Christians) from having to answer some of the tough questions of theodicity. While something might still ultimately be the consequence of ordinary providence (and therefore pre-ordained by a sovereign God - even if indirectly), contingency can still be built into the system at the lowest levels — thus introducing novelty and creativity, but at the necessary expense of pain and suffering. After all, not every quantum fluctuation will necessarily go “our way” by definition. We have to accept the good with the bad.
For every amazing thing in the created order that shows God’s handiwork, there is another awful thing that is perfectly designed to make our lives miserable.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Gordon, I got your book on Saturday and am enjoying it tremendously. Your brief discussion of the implications of chance on sovereignty have me thinking a lot the things you two are talking about here.
And Cliff, you have put into words my very thought processes on that matter.
Thanks, guys.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Thanks Steve,
My oun thoughts on chance and sovereignty have become somewhat more nuanced even in the two years since I wrote Part I of BTF. I now view God’s sovereignty more as the sum total of what we would call the laws of nature, but the system is driven by input that is highly contingent at the lowest levels. Having ordered the cosmos according to His foreknowledge, all the potential was there, no matter what the input, for the necessary complexity to arise and accomplish His decree. On this, I have been influenced somewhat by Colling (and Cliff, of course).
Then again, many of the Reformers held to a non-deterministic (non-fatalistic) type of Calvinism that they accepted as “paradox”. I think our understanding of how necessity and contingency interact at the lowest levels shows us that this paradox is not merely theological, but scientific as well. I haven’t read Polkinghorne yet, but I hear he deals with this.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I haven’t read a lot of Polkinghorne, but I did read Exploring Reality in which Polkinghorne makes his case of open theism. He is very much into the concept that the universe is self-determinative. I have his book on quantum physics and theology, but I have not yet read it.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I’m actually more comfortable accepting the inherent paradox between God’s sovereignty/foreknowledge and man’s free will/scientific uncertainty than I am accepting open theism.
On some things I would still rather plead ignornace than step outside the boundaries of my faith tradition (Reformed Presbyterian) in an attempt to integrate two seemingly difficult concepts. I’m already hanging onto Presbyterian “orthodoxy” by a thread with my acceptance of:
* The organic inspiration of Scripture
* Peadocommunion
* Nearly Full-Preterism
* Only 9/10 Commandments (I believe the Sabboth commandment was ceremonial and thus expired with the OT system, although I still try and observe a day of ‘non-dogmatic’ rest).
* Original sin not imputed via a material mechanism such as biological heredity (e.g. from Adam and Eve)
GJG
May 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Gordon,
I find it interesting what sort of bed fellows one runs with once you accept EC. Though I was pretty open minded before about different traditions, now, in search of fellow believers for support, I am pretty much willing to ignore any belief that I might have once found heretical in a fellow believer. And look at me now, chiming away with a “nearly” Full-Preterist (and you will need to take a moment to explain the nearly part). Indeed, it seems this webring of EC believers are dominated by the full-preterist types. And while I agree with you completely about the Sabbath, I am exactly 180 degrees opposite on the Peadocommunion (being that I am coming from a Calivinist Baptist stance and never understood infant baptistism much less infant communion). And of course, coming to accept common ancestry runs rampart over our traditional understanding of imputed sin and perhaps even the fall.
Alright: two questions. 1) What’s the organic inspiration of Scripture [Is this taking Enns to his logical conclusion about the Bible being written 100% by God by also 100% by man?]
and 2), why the “nearly” in nearly full-preterism.
Pete
May 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Well put. I’m right there with you, Gordon. The book’s discussion leaned too far toward determinism for my liking, but it got my wheels aturnin’ anyway. It is interesting that you and Cliff have both come to the same stance that I hold, for the time being anyway.
I’m also fascinated by your dissent from Presbyterian orthodoxy. I am, as even a quick glance at my blog would demonstrate, a proponent of both organic inspiration and full preterism, and I also share your belief that the Sabbath rest was fulfilled along with the rest of the ceremonial law. I have only recently become aware of the theology behind paedocommunion, and find it to be a perfectly valid ritual; of course, I’m from a Baptist background that practices open communion, so my theology of the Eucharist is probably not as developed as yours.
I do see original sin as more of a “material mechanism”. Right now I see original sin as the natural estrangement from God and His purposes that inexorably arises from the inherently selfish bent of nature (self-preservation) that condemns every human being once knowledge of the moral law has been recognized. This last is something I don’t think any of us are ready to be too dogmatic about right now, so I’m always seeking alternative understanding.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Pete,
The “nearly” is nothing more than this: last time I studied the issue, I couldn’t find any fault in the full-preterist argument, but I still wanted to identify myself with the puritan post-millenialism — so I just left it at that and never returned to the issue. In the last 3 years, I’ve focused mostly on science/faith issues and haven’t revisited preterism. But I’m curious in the book that Mike Beidler edited.
Steve,
Sorry that my site doesn’t let you preview your comments. I assumed that your final was “the one” and removed the first two attempts.
The book started simply as a chronicle of my own thought process (which is why it is somewhat disorganized in the early chapters). But as I came to realize things with more clarity over the year that I wrote it, I resisted the urge to go back an re-edit what I was genuinely feeling at the time I wrote. Obviously I had to make some adjusments to keep the flow coherent, but I tried to leave my initial impressions, even if slightly naieve and uniformed, in there.
My theory was that the reader, not having the same perspective in the earlier chapters as he would later in the book, would better connect with my original thoughts as they were. So what makes BTF unique is that in doing it that way, I was hopefully able to connect with readers up front who may have just entered the conversation at the exact point where I was, and ride with them to the end as they wrestle with increasing discomfort the way I did. Some have even concluded that I was a super-conservative anti-science fundie just from reading the preface on-line and had no interest in the book! To them I say, congratulations! You are not the target audience. BTF is written for theologically conservative Christians who are open to options besides YEC, but are not at all interested in straying outside the bounds of traditional orthodoxy. They might eventually, but it won’t be my fault :).
For folks who are already convinced of EC and want to learn more about it, they might be bored with BTF. But my hope is that they will recognize it as a good introduction to the subject for timid believers, and buy lots of copies for their friends! My biggest compliment was John Walton suggesting that his colleagues use it in Wheaton’s “Origins” course. He just wrote a very gracious review for the second printing.
As for theology, I love my Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) even though I probably could not hold office, because I enjoy being surrounded by thinking Christians who study the issues, even if we disagree in the end. Any my particular congregation just happens to be more tolerant than most about these things. I like to think they keep me in check, and I keep them uncomfortable — both of which are healthy!