Private Christian Schools have a choice in how they teach the natural sciences.  It’s not an easy choice (fore reasons we’ll discuss in a later post), but they can present students with what I’ll call “mainstream secular science” (MSS) or they can teach what I referred to in my last post as ”Christian folk science” (CFS).  There are significant differences between the two. 

What characterizes mainstream secular science?  For starters, MSS is practiced in laboratories all over the world by both Christians and non-Christians, and is used by corporations who depend on results-oriented research to drive product development.  By contrast, CFS is primarily found in Christian bookstores and not-for-profit creationist “think-tanks” who are funded primarily by donations from believers who are dissatisfied with the assumptions/conclusions of MSS.  The obvious lack of government and corporate funding going to creation “science” organizations is not merely the result of a philosphical bias against Christianity.  As we’ll see later, many corporations (such as oil and gas exploration companies) have no particular axe to grind against Christians, and have even hired graduates from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).  Be assured, they care only about results, which translate into profits, and they would gladly fund research in Voo-Doo if it proved reliable in the field. 

MSS employs scientific paradigms that have been universally accepted by the scientific community.  These ideas have not merely been granted this status by default, but have earned it through years of proven reliablity.  They must be able to (1) sufficiently explain the available data, and to (2) create coherent scientific disciplines that guide further research and technological advancement.  Practical utility and reliable results are the sole drivers behind MSS.  Spiritual and theological concerns have little impact on the developments of these scientific disciplines. 

On the other hand, CFS is not primarily concerned with practical utility.  Quite often, the governing paradigm is determined beforehand, and the motivation behind the science is merely to show how the paradigm can be true given the right assumptions.  CFS requires that any scientific paradigm (1) upholds biblical inerrancy and supports traditional exegesis, and (2) provides believers with a theologically satisfying portrait of creation.  That’s really it.  The practical utility of CFS is of little importance to its adherents.  All one needs to do is follow the money to see why this is so.  Research and development involving MSS is funded by governments and corporations that demand (or at least expect to get) tangible results.  Some might blame the separation of church and state.  Fine.  But private companies are not bound by this unwritten rule.  They only care about their bottom line (results), not the separation of church and state.  If the ideas touted by organizations such as the Creation Research Society showed any promise of adding to the scientific body of knowledge, the potential for ground-breaking research and development would trump any metaphysical considerations.  As it turns out, you don’t find any of their money going to ICR, AiG, or the Discovery Institute.  Why not?

So who is paying their bills anyway?  Other Christians who are not really that concerned about adding to the scientific body of knowledge, but are rather seeking reassurance from scientists with PhDs that their belief system is ok.  In fact, most of the “scientists” publishing creationist literature are in fact non-scientists, or have no professional training in their chosen field of study.  Rarely are they practicing scientists who work in a legitimate laboratory or for a corporation that require, above all else, a faithful treatment of the available data.  They are not faced with the challenges of getting the science right, nor are they faced with the consequences of getting the science wrong.  They don’t have to presen their findings at international conferneces where other experts in the field can evaluate them.  They don’t have to publish their articles in peer-reviewed journals.  They simply need something that a mostly non-scientific audience can purchase in a Christian bookstore that portrays  their worldview assumptions as scientific.

In the next several posts, we’ll examine some examples of CFS in greater detail.

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.

Let us suppose that we are walking through the woods.  We are soaking in the wonders of creation and marveling at all that God hath made.  Suddenly, we stumble upon a pocket-watch in perfect working order.  Like those other things around us, this carefully crafted machine also appears to have been designed and assembled to accomplish a specified purpose — to tell time.  To use the language of ID: it is a complex collection of related parts intentionally assembled to perform a pre-determined task.  It is the quintessential example of specified complexity.

Now let us ask one my favorite questions: What do we know and how do we know it?  In other words, what can we learn via a scientific analysis or a forensic investigation, and what can we deduce purely from reason, logic and experience?  This is a very important question, but one that ID supporters rarely ask themselves. 

1.) We know that the machine is a pocket-watch.  This point is not even debatable.  It is a fact.  But how do we know this?  Was the conclusion reached through careful scientific analysis?  Or did we simply cross check the visual data with our entire mental database of known objects until a match was found?  In other words, if we had never seen nor heard of a pocket-watch, could we have possibly come to that conclusion via scientific analysis?  Probably not, unless the item had “this is a pocket-watch” engraved on the back. 

2.) We know that the pocket watch has a purpose (to tell time).  Again, this is a fact.  But how do we know this to be true?  Don’t misunderstand: a forensic study of the object would absolutely reveal that the watch can be used to tell time.  But how could a scientific analysis reveal whether or not this was the true intent of the designer?  Is there a laboratory test in which something changes from blue to red if our “designers intent” hypothesis is confirmed?  No!  The item might also perform exceptionally well as a paperweight.  How do we know that a paperweight was not the deisgner’s intent?  Just because an object performs a certain function does not mean it was specifically designed for that task.  For instance, the vibrations of a molecule at a certain temperature can keep time more accurately than a mechanical pocket-watch.  Does that mean that molecules were designed and assembled specifically for that purpose?  Maybe.  But there is way to test this hypothesis.  How do we know that the designer had in mind?  Now, in the case of the pocket-watch, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that telling time is the most efficient use of the existing complexity.  What fool can’t plainly see this?  A pocket-watch makes an entirely inefficient paperweight.  But my point is this: there is no scientific experiment that can distinguish whether a percieved intent was intentional or unintentional!  Why?  Because intent and purpose are immaterial concepts that lie beyond the empirical reach of the scientific method.  So, while a careful qualitative study of the object does properly lead us to the correct conclusion, it is not a scientifically testable claim that can be measured or quantified - no matter how true or reasonable it might be.

3.) We know that the pocket-watch was designed by an intelligent agent for its intended purpose.  No disagreements here.  But again, how did we reach this conclusion?  On the surface it seems entirely reasonable, but just because something is complex and happens to be put together in such a way that makes it efficient and effective does not necessarily mean that a conscious intelligence was involved.  Case in point: a hurricane is a very complex and efficient weapon of mass destruction.  There is nothing mankind can put together in less than a week that is capable of storing and releasing enough energy to completely level hundreds of miles of coastline in a few short hours.  Nothing.  But despite the incredibly complex mechanical and thermodynamic structure of the system, it is merely the consequence of a few very simple laws of nature acting on a complex set of variables that will occasionally all fall within the narrow range required to “self-organize” and “self-assemble” into a very efficient and effective machine.  A finely tuned machine of air and moisture that appears to have no other purpose than to redistribute enormous quantities of energy from the ocean to the coast. 

Now this is awkward.  If hurricanes appear to have all the specified complexity of a pocket-watch, why are they not also evidence of intelligent design?  The answer, from within a Christian worldview, is this: THEY ARE!  If God has indeed designed and built the entire cosmos according to His sovereign decree, then anything that is a consequence of the created order is also a consequence of His design.  This might lead to uncomfortable questions of theodicity (the goodness of God)  since hurricanes are sometimes referred to as a natural evil, but the conclusion is inescapable.  Now what does this all mean for the science of meteorology?  Absolutely nothing!  Again, science doesn’t concern itself with design, intent or purpose - one way or the other.  These are immaterial motives that conscious beings created in the image of God attach to things.  They are value judgements and are not therefore arrived at through empirical analysis.  Science only concerns itself with how things are ordered, not who ordered them, why they were ordered, or for what purpose they were ordered.  No matter important or true these teleological questions are to us, ultimately they are immaterial. 

Are there any cries from conservative Christians to stop teaching that the weather is merely the consequence of natural forces, and start teaching intelligent meteorology?  Do we need to insist that God is the intelligence behind the complexities of earth’s atmosphere, and reject naturalistic theories of temperature, pressure, and humidity?  What would happen to our already limited ability to predict the occurrence of tornadoes and hurricanes if we replaced meteorological science with intelligent meteorology?  How many lives would be unnecessarily lost by throwing in the meteorological towel and giving up on our ability to figure out nature’s complexities?  How would that profit us?  How does introducing intellgent design into the biological sciences profit us?

4.) We know that the pocket-watch was built and assembled in accordance with the design.  Now we are starting to employ the tools of science.  In fact, if we had a copy of the engineering drawings from the manufacturer, a careful analysis might confirm that the item was indeed built to spec.  And science can even shed light on the manufacturing processes.  Tool marks might indicate whether a metal part was cast, forged or machined.  Metallurgical analysis might indicate what materials and process were used.  The lubricants might also have certain chamical signatures that are traceable and provide evidence of how or when the watch was assembled.  By comparing our watch with other contemporary time pieces, we might see commonality of parts or design principles that group similar pieces together according to how or where they are made.  By comparing our watch with older time pieces, we might see how analogous parts change through time, that they become more efficiently designed as technology advances, and are sometimes adapted to perform other functions as more advanced features are added to the same basic plan.  We might even learn something about the evolution of pocket watch technology.  Oops - I said a bad word!  Forgive me. 

Does any of this sound familiar?  This is what science does.  This is all science does.  And this is what science also does with those things found in the created order; whether they be minerals, vegetables, or animals.  Questions about design or ultimate purpose, no matter how important, are simply beyond the epistemological limits of scientific inquiry.  There is a place for objective material investigations into how the universe is put together, how it works, and how it changes over time, and there is a place for metaphysical and philosophical speculation (hopefully informed by biblical exegesis) on the meaning and purpose of every created thing.  The challenge for Christians is to recognize what those proper places are for each of these activities, and to not inadvertently allow the role of science to extend beyond its naturalistic limitations.  Keep science in its naturalistic box where it is no threat to our faith!

By insisting that telelogical questions of purpose and design be treated as science, we are unintentionally inviting the scientific community to take a method of inquiry that is completely blind to spiritual realities, and use it to answer some of life’s most important metaphysical questions.  And when the answers given to us fall short of our spiritual expectations, as they inevitably will, we complain about unfair secular bias!  Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.  Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, do not be misled by the Intelligent Design movement!

-GJG

Unfortunately, the film will probably be very effective on my fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord. Not because it might be particularly well done (again, I can’t comment on this yet) or because Ben Stein has any clue what he’s talking about (I have heard him in an interview actually fault Darwin’s theory of evolution for not being able to explain where gravity comes from - huh?), but for no other reason than the embarrassing fact that Christians are woefully ignorant of the epistemological limits of science, and we have become too intellectually lazy to research simple facts about science for ourselves. This review is a perfect example.  Here is goes:

This sounds good on the surface, but what does it really mean?  Science and faith are in a battle…over what exactly?  Does this mean that the medical community is in a “battle” with supporters of Dianetics over the efficacy of ”faith healing” in treating diseases?  Does this mean that the astrological community is in a battle with NASA over the basic principles of astronomical science?  Does this mean that Shamanism is under attack by the meteorological sciences over the role of the gods in controlling the weather?  Do these science/faith battles also deserve our attention?  Should they be taught side-by-side in institutions of higher learning?  Ironically, most evangelicals will gladly side with the scientific community over the paranormal and mystical delusions of pseudo-science without hesitation.  But when this same naturalistic methodology is applied to a theologically sensitive question such as the age of the earth or the diversity of the species, Houston — we have a problem! 

But is the “battle” between science and Christian faith legitimate or contrived?  Honestly, I can’t think of one important question of Christian doctrine that can be settled or even informed by science.  In fact, when it comes to spiritual matters, science is quite helpless.  Scientific questions of material cause-and-effect are settled by collecting data and testing hypotheses. Questions of faith are settled by appeals to Scripture, tradition, and philosophy. Our faith tells us that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”- and our science only reveals the ordinary (material) means by which God accomplishes these amazing things. The methodology of Scientific inquiry simply has nothing to say about the ultimate cause of those ordinary patterns of God’s providence found in nature.  This is a very simple but important concept, entirely under-appreciated by most evangelicals. 

I can go along with this statement. But it has nothing to do with questions of a scientific nature. Science, by its very nature, is silent on questions of God and theology. If certain individuals are using (or abusing) science to argue against God as the creator and sustainer of the Cosmos, then we need to call those individuals to task for twisting the naturalistic methodology of scientific inquiry to promote a worldview of materialism. To draw a clumsy line between secular academia and mainstream America is lazy and ineffective.

Huh? This statement is so ridiculous I don’t even know how to characterize it other than a frontal assault on science — which has made all of our lives better by its rigorous investigations into the universe God created. I wonder how Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and evangelical Christian author, would feel about this statement. His leadership in cracking the human genetic code was probably one of the most significant scientific achievements of our generation, with implications for every aspect of the biological and medical sciences — and we have a self-professed conservative evangelical Christian leading the entire effort!  Why wasn’t Dr. Collins Expelled for his outspoken faith in Christ?  Were his accomplishments also in vain? An academic fraud? 

I find this hard to believe.  You don’t even have to leave your house to dialogue with the millions of thoughtful critics of intelligent design in the blogosphere, who can easily explain this to you in about two seconds. It goes something like this: If the conversation is taking place in the science classroom, then it should at least have something to with science. ID, on the other hand, has nothing to do with science. This doesn’t mean that ID is false.  But rather that it belongs to another category of knowledge called teleology – or the study of ultimate meaning, purpose, and design.  Believe it or not teleology is even more important than science.

Every Christian already knows that the entire cosmos reflects the wisdom and purpose of God. Why anyone would want to pay thousands of dollars per semester to learn something you can easily read in the Bible is beyond me.  In case anyone missed it, Paul says in Romans 1 that ALL of creation declares the handiwork of God. This is simply what we Christians believe, by faith. I also believe this is evident to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear – just as the Apostle says. BUT THIS IS NOT SCIENCE! In fact, it is an insult to the Creator of Heaven and Earth to even suggest such a thing!  

Here is why this debate is so frustrating.  Science is simply mankind’s tentative formulation of working models to explain only those data that subject themselves to our limited methods of empirical observation!  The fact that all things in nature are subject to God’s soverign design is a transcendent, immutable, and eternal truth, not subject to revision, refinement, or dismissal upon the discovery of new evidence! Why would we voluntarily downgrade an important teleological truth to the level of a tentative scientific theory?  Is it so we can feel like a part of the exclusive “science” club?  Does calling our beliefs “science” give them a measure academic merit greater than the “mere” level of faith?  Talk about selling our birthright for a bowl of cold soup!  Geez!

The most subtle lies are often mixed with truth. Yes, I agree that there is a “massive and overwhelming” case that all things have been ordered by an intelligent creator.  You don’t even have to leave your backyard to witness the majesty of creation.  But as soon as you sneak the word “scientific” into the sentence — you are either completely ignorant of the epistemological limits of scientific inquiry, or you are being completely dishonest simply to stir up controversy unnecessarily. Can somebody please explain to me how science, which thankfully concerns itself only with that which can be observed, measured, and quantified, can possibly comment one way or the other on supernatural activity accomplished by divine fiat? When God carries out His will (design) using ordinary (material) means, we can use the tools of science to help piece together the clues nature leave us, but how can science possibly comment on that which transcends the created order? These things are eternally hidden behind a veil of material causality and are hopelessly inaccessible to the methods of scientific inquiry.  The problem with ID arises when people insist that teleology should be taught as an alternate form of science!  This is absurd.

If you want to compete on the scientific playing field, you need to have a testable model that can be either falsified or confirmed through empirical analysis. That is what science does. That is all science does.  That is also why we don’t allow Astrology, Shamanism, Phrenology, Dianetics, Telekinetics or any other paranormal pseudo-science into the classroom. While there certainly is an anti-religious bias that exists in academia, THE REJECTION OF ID AS SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIAS! Those who keep insisting that it does are merely reacting and not thinking this through.

In the meantime, the public schools continue teaching their Darwinian drivel, and grown-up people continue to exit a life of such indoctrination with the perfectly coherent ability to see that the human reproductive system did not come from a cellular malfunction, and that the beauty of the world was not something to happen accidentally.

Again, the theory of Evolution does not concern itself at all with ultimate causes. The meaning of a word like “accidentally” depends on the context.  In a scientific context, it simply describes an unpredictable, or chance event - such as the casting of the lot.  But in a teleological context, ”accidentally” could in fact mean that there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos.  Thankfully, sir, Christians don’t have to view the natural sciences through the godless lens of materialism!  The Bible tells us that “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is of the Lord.”  How an intellectually-comfortable theist can feel threatened by something that science attributes to “chance” or “probability” is beyond me.  Those teleological questions are appropriately answered from one’s faith tradition or religious worldview.

This point is critical, so I will offer another example.  When a meteorologist gives you a forecast for tomorrow’s weather, he is not declaring that earth’s atmosphere is merely the result of impersonal forces, such as pressure and gravity, acting on local variations of temperature and humidity.  In other words, there is no implicit teleology one way or the other. Physical cause and effect is simply all that meteorological science can offer.  Now comes the interpretation of that data.  If you are materialist, you might assert that this process is indeed absent any ultimate cosmic purpose. If you are Christian who believes in a sovereign Creator, then you should already know that the science of meteorology is only concerned with the study of proximate causes, and that behind the ordinary patterns of providence that we call the “laws of nature” there is a sovereign God who determines whatsoever comes to pass.

Extending the analogy even further, Evolution is a scientific model that accounts for many facts observed in nature, such as: the genetic and morphological similarities and differences between species, the patterns of faunal sucession up through the geological column, and the distribution of species across the surface of the earth. It is a physical model of natural history that has endured over 150 years of challenges.  It is the only model that unites all of the biological sciences under a single comprehensive paradigm.  It has no rival.  It has no competition. But despite all of its success, Evolution - like any other scientific idea - says absolutely nothing about the ultimate purpose of creation.  There it is as helpless as meteorology.

If an atheist wants to argue that a scientific model based on the uniformity of nature is definitive proof that life has no purpose or meaning, then we need to address THAT problem directly. Attacking an entire field of well-established science for the transgressions of a vocal minority is either dishonest or lazy. In fact, many biologists in academia are evangelicals.  I have read many of their books, and they regularly point to the amazing natural history of earth’s biosphere as a testament to God’s good providence. Why are they not Expelled from their institutions? Because they clearly understand the difference between science and faith, and they don’t fall for the lie that ID is something that can compete at the academic level with science!

A single cell explosion created the world eco-system?  I could have some fun with this.  That’s almost as absurd as a single cell explosion“creating” an entire human being in only 9 months! Can you imagine such a thing happening all by itself? Don’t these worldly doctors believe in the miracle of life! Absurd! Don’t people know that God causes a fertilized egg to develop into a fully formed human - not science? Does the Bible not say that God accomplishes this amazing feat with knitting needles, by His own literal hand? Should we now start teaching “intelligent embryology” in schools everywhere? The godless and naturalistic science of secular embryology that permeates academia is proof of a conspiracy against Biblical truth!

Obviously, I’m being silly. But do you see how ridiculous and counter-productive these tactics really are?

Integrity? You mean like telling people that you’re making a documentary about X, getting them to say things that you can take out of context, and then actually making a documentary about Y? You mean that kind of integrity? Or what about mischaracterizing science and exploiting the public’s general lack of scientific literacy to take a cheap shot at academia? You mean that kind of integrity?

As Ben Stein’s movie so irrefutably points out, science is the one academic arena receiving a hall pass from such requirements.

Only somebody who has no first-hand knowledge of how science works could make such an uninformed statement. For all of its many faults and institutional imperfections, you will find no higher standards of academic integrity than in the scientific community. Nothing is assumed except that the universe is real and coherent, nothing is taken for granted except for the uniformity of nature. Fraud is not tolerated. Dishonesty is not tolerated. Deception is not tolerated.  Careers are ended over even a minor mishandling of data, or rushing to publish something without the proper checks and balances. Everything in science is checked and rechecked and checked again. Nothing gets published in a reputable journal unless it has been thoroughly vetted by other experts in the field. When mistakes are made, others in the community quickly find them and expose them. Even a careless accidental mistake can ruin your reputation and end your career forever.

And the entire process is completely transparent.  Nothing happens behind closed doors.  Anybody can participate as long as they agree to a few basic rules of professional conduct. And rule number one is this: when we do science, we only observe and comment on the material. For Christians, that simply translates into the rigorous and systematic study of God’s ordinary providence.  That’s it!  Everything else, no matter how true or theologically correct, falls outside of that circle. We can believe what we want both in the laboratory and out, but when it’s time to collect data, formulate hypotheses, and devise experiments to test these ideas, we need only consider material cause and effect. It’s really that simple.

Again, when people use science to promote their Godless worldview, we need to go after that. Not attack the entire scientific establishment.

I can’t figure out if this last statement is the result of outright dishonesty or intellectual laziness. It only takes a second to Google “Evolution” or “Darwinism” and see that the theory itself has nothing to do whatsoever with how life began.  Do people really think they’ve scored a point when Dawkins freely admits that he has no idea how life began?  That’s sad.  The truth is, biologists don’t really care how life began. There is no evidence one way or the other, and it has no bearing on the observed relationships between the species. Evolution only attempts to explain the similarities and differences between the species and the patterns observed by paleontologists. The actual (and in my opinion - dead end) study of how life may have began is properly called, “Abiogenesis” and is very controversial.

To fault Darwin for not having an answer to the origin of life is like faulting Newton for not being able to explain where gravity comes from. YOU CAN’T FAULT A THEORY FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING THAT IN NOT INCLUDED IN THE THEORY! The theory of evolution only deals with what happens next, just as Newton’s theories of motion assume gravity already exist.  This last statement clearly demonstrates the root of the problem with reviews like this. Americans in general, and Christians in particular, are so ignorant of basic scientific principles, that they will fall for anything that sounds scientific as long as seems to reinforce their worldview assumptions.

The main problem with the film, even though I have not yet seen it, is that rather than elevate the debate to where it needs to be, it only serves to muddy the waters and further divide people along “party” lines. Christians clearly need to address those clear instances where science crosses the naturalistic line and is incorrectly used to promote the worldview of atheism and materialism in the name of science.  But we can do this more effectively without attacking science!  If your doctor claimed that he is treating your physical illness with medicinal remedies because he doesn’t believe in God and the supernatural, would you then reject all of the medical sciences simply because of the necessary ”godless” presuppositions about physiology and anatomy?  After all, the medical sciences simply treat the human body as a mere collection of chemicals.  should we reject their conclusions because their methodology leaves God out of the picture?  OF COURSE NOT! Would you then make a film crying about the materialistic philosophy that permeates the medical sciences? OF COURSE NOT! Would you insist that prayer and faith healing be seen as a legitimate form of medical science, and that they be taught in medical school along side of germ theory? NO WAY!

No thinking Christian would respond to medical science in this way.  They would quickly recognize that the regular patterns of material behavior observed in nature are simply the consequence of God’s ordinary providence, and they do not suggest that the universe operates without any need for a creator who continually sustains and upholds it. To take the understanding that physical problems can be cured with a physical treatment and make the philosophical leap to atheism or materialism is just as irresponsible as suggesting that ID is an alternate form of science! AND THAT IS WHAT WE MUST BE ALWAYS READY AND WILLING TO CHALLENGE!

One final thought: when missionaries prepare to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ into hostile territory, they invest a lot of time and energy learning everything they can about the culture they will be trying to reach.  They learn their languages, their customs, their traditions, their myths, their legends; they try and understanding how they think and what motivates them.  Many times, these ambassadors for Christ will simply live with their target audience, work side by side with them, and serve them for quite a while before attempting to share the Gospel.  This allows them to understand how best to chose their evangelical battles, so that legitimate spiritual obstacles to the Gospel are effectively removed without completely going after their enitre culture.  Over time, after the power of Jesus Christ takes hold, many of the peripheral issues will work themselves out through the faithful study of God’s Word. 

Based on this, I can’t figure out why these same folks, who would go to such great lengths to reach a distant people for Chirst, are content to simply cast stones at the entire community of professional scientists for the transgressions of a vocal and obnoxious minority, all without spending even as much as 1 minmute to Google“evolution” or “common descent” in a good-faith effort to first understand what the theory actually says before going on the offense.  If the scientific community is a culture to be redeemed by the Gospel, we must do better than this.  Having a basic understanding of scientific concepts would enable Christians to target the specific abuses of the scientific establishment in such a way that stays true to both science and the Gospel.  Unfortunately, films like Expelled seem content just to capitalize and exploit this ignorance rather than work to instruct and inform.

I probably will not see the film. But if I ever do, I promise to conduct an actual review — rather than just a review of a review.

Even God’s ordinary providence, which manifests itself to us as the uniformity of nature, has both “ultimate” (primary) and “proximate” (secondary) causality.  These are not two competing answers to the same question, but rather two different answers to two different questions about the same event or phenomenon.  One answers the question of transcendent purpose (teleology) and the other answers the question of material causality (science).  Let’s look at some easy examples of this from Scripture:

Most Christians will agree that there is no inherent contradiction between these biblical and scientific accounts.  We use these same categories in our everyday speech without thinking twice about it.  If I make the statement that “President Roosevelt built the atomic bomb” that does not mean he literally assembled it himself.  But it does mean that he was the responsible agent that caused it.  Likewise, if I say that “President Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan” that does not mean he literally pulled the lever or flew the Enola Gay.  But he gave the order, and those bound to follow his command made it so.  When Scripture speaks of God’s mighty acts in creation, we should not assume that such effects lacked material causality — just because the bible does not mention them.

The struggle that many Christians have with the natural sciences is that they fail to adust their spiritual expectations when asking questions about the cosmos.  Quite frankly, if you ask a scientific question, you should expect to get a scientific answer.  That is, an answer based only material causality.  If science does not yet have such an answer, as is often the case, then we should be satisfied with a non-answer.  But to answer simply that “God did it” not only trivializes the profound, but it unnecessarily blurs the line between ultimate and proximate causes.

Many Christians also have difficulty thinking of truth as tentative.  We want all truth to be ultimate truth handed down from on high, but science never pretends to offer this kind of absolutism.  Science is useful specifically because of its flexibility to adapt and adjust itself to man’s ever-increasing ability to gather knowledge about the created order.  The working models provided by the scientific method only attempt to explain the available data, as it is known at the time, with as few unfounded assumptions as possible.  As soon as new data are discovered that don’t fit the existing paradigm, the scientific community begins to make the appropriate adjustments.

There are many examples of this.  Consider the geocentric model of the middle ages.  With all of its many epicycles operating like a Rube-Goldberg machine, this model could clumsily but accurately predict most astronomical phenomena and it provided a fairly logical explanation of the observed motions of the known heavenly bodies as perceived from the reference frame of Earth.  In summary, geocentricism was as “true” as anything else known during the middle ages.  It sufficiently explained the data as it was known at the time.  But when Galileo turned his telescope towards the heavens in 1610, he began to collect new data that challenged the old model.  What was once a sufficient explanation of observed astronomical phenomena would forever and after fall woefully short.  Over the next two hundred years, heliocentricism would replace geocentricism as the new scientific paradigm for understanding our solar system.  Even so, none of our haggling over the technical details changed the fact that “by the Word of the Lord the heavens were made” (Psalm 33:6).

In the table I provided above, few Christians have a problem with the explanations given in the “How it was done” column.  The only exception I can think of are those few believers who think treating physical ailments with modern medicine is a betrayal of our faith in God’s ability to heal us.  What’s interesting is that even though Gravitation doesn’t yet have a discernable material mechanism, few Christians feel the need to blur the line between teleology and science by arguing for theistic or intelligent gravity.  Even though the Scripture says that “not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from your Father” - most Christians are perfectly ok with whatever material mechanism will eventually be discovered to cause the observed effects of gravitation. 

The reason for this is simple: there is nothing particularly theologically or exegetically unsettling about gravity working through a material mechanism (ordinary means or proximate causes).  But such indifference to science isn’t always the case.  Sometimes the cosmos doesn’t behave as we think it should, and the scientific model that is best able to explain the available data set is not the quite the one we would have chosen (if it were up to us).  Since many Christians are uncomfortable with any cognitive dissonance between our study of Nature and our study of God’s Word, we tend to reject any scientific consensus that paints a theologically challenging portrait of creation and replace with an ad-hoc scientific model that is more theologically acceptable. 

This might make us feel better about what we believe, and it might allow Christian educators to avoid difficult questions in the classroom, but this is not science.  Once we turn science into dogma, it loses it’s ability to adjust, react and correct itself to keep pace with our increasing ability to gather data; and instead becomes conscripted into the service of Christian apologetics.  Rather than treat the natural science as means to humbly learn about the infinite wonders of God’s creation in all of its peculiarities, we instead use them as a tools to reinforce our worldview assumptions.  Welcome to the world of Christian “folk” science.

In our next post, we’ll look more closely at what is Christian “folk” science and how it differs from mainstream secular science.

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.

Conflict Inevitable but not Necessary

Image Source: http://www.christianmind.org/illus/conflict.htm

One thing that Christian Educators must realize is that until the consummation of all things, there WILL be conflicts between science and theology.  This is not to say that God, being the author of all knowledge, contradicts Himself.  We can assume that Special Revelation and General Revelation are always in perfect agreement and there is therefore no necessaryconflict between science and theology.  However, since mankind does not possess the ability to properly interpret and apply these two sources of truth, we must learn to tolerate a certain amount of disagreement between our systematic study of nature (science) and our systematic study of the Scriptures (theology).  We must recognize that the systems we construct for ourselves, whether they be theological or scientific, are simply fallen mans’ limited attempt to make sense of the data as we perceive it at the time. 

Sola Scriptura, the cry of the Reformation, is often abused by evangelicals.  Christians can not understand and apply the Scriptures apart from general revelation.  Quite simply, the world is our context for understanding and applying the Word, and the Word tells us how we should then relate to the world.  And since our ability to observe and perceive the world (ie: collect scientific data) increases along with the advance of technology, our context for understanding and and applying the Word is continually shifting.  A couple of examples from History:

Psalm 93:1 “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” had an entirely different meaning to Christians prior to the 17th century than it does to us today.  Not because the timeless Scriptures changed their meaning, but because our understanding of the universe changed from earth-centered to sun-centered.  If you have any doubt about this, just see any biblical commentary on Psalm 93:1 written prior to Galileo.  Over the next 200 years, our exegesis gradually shifted so as not to constradict the overwhelming evidence that earth both rotates and revolves. 

Psalm 119:11 “I have hidden your Word in my heart.” had an entirely different meaning to God’s people prior to the 4th century than it does to us today.  Not because the timeless Scriptures have changed their meaning, but because our understanding of human anatomy and physiology has changed.  The heart is not longer the organ of thought, memory, and intelligence as was once believed.  So biblical references to the “heart” have taken on a metaphorical significance even through they were written litterally according to ancient science.  Consequently, our defense of God’s Word need not hinge on whether or not “heart” really means “heart” or whether modern science is conspiring against biblical truth because physiology is clearly not the focus of the text. 

There are numerous examples of this.  In every case, the shifting of our scientific worldview – initiated by the faithful study of God’s creation (not new exegetical insights) — caused a perceived conflict between science and theology.  And once a scientific paradigm is accepted by general scientific consensus, Christians have a responsibility to rethink how the Scriptures are understood and applied, lest we place unnecessary stumbling blocks between science and the Gospel.

In our next post, we will answer the question, “What are the Natural Sciences and how do we know when we’re doing science?”

Very few children educated in Christian Schools go on to become practicing scientists. A small number might go into technical fields, but very few ever find themselves on the cutting edge of a scientific field. Interestingly, many of the evangelical scientists that you hear about were raised with little effective religious instruction or were persuaded by the Gospel later in life—after they had already become successful in their respective fields.

I get a lot questions about school science curricula from people who recognize the extent of the problem, but the challenge we face can’t be solved simply by changing our textbooks (although that would probably be step in the right direction). What Christians need is a completely new paradigm for approaching the study of nature that treats science, not as a set of natural laws or mathematical relationships that must either be accepted or rejected as immutable truth, but rather an ongoing process of observation, synthesis, discovery and re-synthesis that best accounts for the data available to each generation.

Science does not (or can not) exist simply to confirm our worldview assumptions, nor can it be expected to support every traditional interpretation of Scripture. How could something as tentative and as dynamic as our scientific methodology possibly bear this apologetical burden without sacrificing the very qualities that make it indispensable to our technological progress? But on the other hand, how can science educators effectively respond to the uncomfortable questions that will inevitably arise when an honest treatment of nature’s data paints a portrait of creation that is theologically unsettling? Should we abandon the science used in laboratories all over the world in favor of a “science” that can only be found in Christian bookstores—just to avoid difficult questions that teachers are unprepared to answer?

As our ability to observe the world around continues to increase, the scientific consensus will continue to shift. This will happen whether Evangelicals are part of the process or not. But if we fail to teach our children how to correctly apply the only paradigms capable of integrating the observable data as it we understand it today (even those paradigms that seem contrary to our Christian worldview), we are effectively denying them access to the very community of professionals responsible for ensuring that this process called science continues to work.

And what will become of those students with natural giftings and inclinations toward the study of nature? Will we drive them to apostasy by forcing upon them false ultimatums?  Or we will reduce them to whining outsiders who mistakenly blame their victimization on institutional religious bias—throwing stones at the hard-fought accomplishments of others while offering nothing constructive of their own.  Our children deserve better!

This series will probably span many weeks as I try to keep each post short succinct. This series will also have its own category called “Christian Education” in case some readers want to read through the series without the in-between off-topic posts. After I have the opportunity to present the lecture a few times, I plan to have a DVD professionally made that can be used for teacher workshops, home school co-ops, etc…

As always, I heartily invite reader comments to help shape the final version of the lecture. Thanks!

-GJG

Dr. Walton’s commentary on Genesis is one of the more insightful, precisely because it unpacks the text as the original Ancient Near-Eastern audience would have understood it.  Once we familiarize ourselves with the world in which the Hebrews lived, we are able to see Genesis in its native context, apart from any modern scientific bias.  If we are consistent in our handling the text, we will find God accommodating His revelation to the finite perceptions of the world in which the Hebrews found themselves.  Why?  So that mankind has a familiar context from which we can connect with Him.  How else could the infinite and eternal God be understood by such finite creatures as ourselves?

I find it interesting that in Contact, when Ellie (played by Jodi Foster) finally connects with the alien race, they do not reveal themselves as they truly are.  Without a familiar context, such an encounter would be meaningless.  Because they are so far above us in both physical and mental faculties, it would have been too much of a shock to come face-to-face with these god-like beings.  So the alien that appears to Ellie literally “puts on flesh” and takes the form of her deceased father, and the setting of their encounter resembles that of a beach in Pensacola (a strong memory from Ellie’s childhood). 

Obviously, Dr. Sagan understood the principle of accommodation: the necessity of highly advanced beings to “humble” themselves and become “one of us” in order to facilitate the possibility of connecting with us on a personal level (alien incarnation?).  Why is this important?  Well, Dr. Sagan was raised in a Jewish household and was very familiar with the portrait of creation painted by the biblical authors.  But rather than allow Yahweh the same artistic liscense as his hypothetical alien race, Sagan takes God to task for not laying down a more technically correct picture of the cosmos.  His biographer, Anne Druyan, recently wrote:

“How was it, [Sagan] wondered, that the eternal and omniscient Creator described in the Bible could confidently assert so many fundamental misconceptions about Creation?  Why would the God of the Scriptures be far less knowledgeable about nature than are we, newcomers, who have only just begun to study the universe?  He could not bring himself to overlook the Bible’s formulation of a flat, six-thousand-year-old Earth… This newly acquired vision made the God who created the World seem hopelessly local and dated, bound to transparently human misperceptions and conceits of the past.”

Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, edited by Ann Druyan (New York, NY; Penguin, 2006), pg. x.

What made Dr. Sagan overlook the obvious need for an eternal, omniscient and omnipresent God to accommodate Himself to us in the same way that his own alien species used a familiar context to connect with Ellie?  Perhaps he was influenced by creationist organizations like ICR and AiG who also reject this method of biblical inspiration and insist that God only speaks to us in literal matter-of-fact terms?  On this hermeneutic, Carl Sagan and Ken Ham would find themselves in agreement.