Friday, June 22, 2012

Science and Scripture

    As we saw in our last blog post, Galileo thought that in the natural sciences it was a mistake to begin with passages of Scripture. Science, he said, must proceed by "sensible experiments and necessary demonstrations." And for the most part we would certainly agree. The strength and beauty of science is its ability to get at the objective facts, and it is able to do so precisely because it uses a careful methodology based on observation and experiment. The results are indeed spectacular and have benefitted us all.

    But does that mean that the Scriptures have nothing at all to say to science? Most scientists, and certainly Tildeb commenting on this blog, would emphatically say "yes"! But we need to be careful here for several reasons.

    First of all, divine revelation forms the philosophical basis for science. It tells the scientist that there is a real, external world to study. Moreover, revelation tells the scientist that there is a rational order to the universe – nature follows certain patterns and laws, and it does so precisely because it was created by an intelligent Supreme Being. Science, of course, is able to discover these laws of nature on its own – the ancient Greeks, in fact, did so, without the aid of revelation. Bur revelation provides the underlying rationale, the reason why. Greek philosophers struggled with the problem of the one and the many, but never successfully resolved it, and the reason is that there is no solution apart from a personal, infinite God.

    Moreover, Scripture provides the ethical mandate for science and technology. Man was created in God's image, he is not just an animal, and was told to "subdue" the earth (Gen. 1:26,28). We are to engage in the responsible development of the earth's resources. Technology is not necessarily bad – it can be beneficial if used properly.

    But Tildeb says "religious consideration directly impedes good science." But what is "good science"? It may be helpful here to make a distinction between practical or experimental science on the one hand and theoretical science on the other. Experimental science uses the scientific method of observation and experiment to uncover the facts of nature, and the results are clearly beneficial. But cosmology is another matter altogether. Here we are in the realm of theoretical science, which is far more speculative.

    Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the theory of evolution. It purports to tell us what happened hundreds of millions of years ago. But there were no human observers hundreds of millions of years ago. Evolution, if it ever really happened at all, has never been directly observed. All that the evolutionist has to go by is the physical evidence, and the physical evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Absent a means of testing the hypothesis, the hypothesis remains incapable of proof. The evolutionist is essentially engaging in philosophical speculation under the guise of "science." In some cases the perceived clash between science and Scripture is the result of faulty science.

    Some scientists have asserted that an appeal to a supernatural first cause is a "science-stopper." Revelation, it is claimed, would provide an absolute explanation for reality, and that, in turn, would bring scientific investigation to an end. "Hogwash!" we say. Scripture does provide us with an ultimate explanation of reality, but that hardly stands in the way science investigating the particulars. That is, unless the only aim of science is to provide an ultimate explanation of reality! But by settling the issue of the ultimate origin and purpose of reality, Scripture leaves science perfectly free to investigate the particulars. God is omniscient, and as the scientist investigates the creation he is confronted with a reality vastly more complicated than his feeble mind can grasp. A thousand scientists can devote their entire careers to the study of nature, and will never exhaust what there is to discover.

    Galileo was right – up to a point. Since God is the Author of both Scripture and nature, both are forms of revelation. When both are interpreted correctly, they do not conflict with each other. It is quite proper for the scientist to use the inductive method to study nature. But in the end Scripture, being an explicit verbal revelation from God Himself, must control our interpretation of all of reality. Science itself will collapse without it. (If you don't believe me, Tildeb, just ask your Post-Modernist colleagues in the Liberal Arts departments. They are atheists, too, you know.)

    If science would confine itself to the observable facts of nature there would be no conflict between science and Christianity.

10 comments:

  1. The strength and beauty of science is its ability to get at the objective facts, and it is able to do so precisely because it uses a careful methodology based on observation and experiment. The results are indeed spectacular and have benefitted us all.

    So far, so good.

    First of all, divine revelation forms the philosophical basis for science.

    Not according to science.

    ...it does so precisely because it was created by an intelligent Supreme Being.

    Again, silly nonsense. "Supreme Being"?
    (Good job you used capital letters to avoid confusion.)

    Bur revelation provides the underlying rationale, the reason why.

    Why?
    Why what?

    ...and the reason is that there is no solution apart from a personal, infinite God.

    Why did that child get sick?

    "Oh well, the reason is that there is no solution apart from a personal, infinite God."

    Not terribly helpful.

    Moreover, Scripture provides the ethical mandate for science and technology.

    Where in the bible is science and technology even mentioned?

    It may be helpful here to make a distinction between practical or experimental science on the one hand and theoretical science on the other.

    Instant fail. "Theoretical science"?
    Theories are vital to science.

    Experimental science uses the scientific method of observation and experiment to uncover the facts of nature, and the results are clearly beneficial. But cosmology is another matter altogether. Here we are in the realm of theoretical science, which is far more speculative.

    And so NASA vanishes. And Galileo. And Copernicus. And...

    Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the theory of evolution. It purports to tell us what happened hundreds of millions of years ago.

    Nope. Not just the past. It purports to tell us what happens today.
    Antibiotics? Hello?
    The internet is not your friend.

    But there were no human observers hundreds of millions of years ago.

    So?

    Evolution, if it ever really happened at all, has never been directly observed.

    Three problems here.
    1) Why are you using the past tense?
    2) Yes it has been.
    3) Science does a lot of things without direct observation. Have you ever watched CSI? The forensic pathologist hardly ever catches the serial killer red-handed. The scientist almost always shows up at the scene of the crime after the fact.

    All that the evolutionist

    Fail. The word you need here is scientist.

    ...has to go by is the physical evidence, and the physical evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation.

    No. Modern biology is quite solid. Read the scientific literature for yourself.

    Absent a means of testing the hypothesis, the hypothesis remains incapable of proof.

    Fail. Science does not deal in "proof". You are thinking of either whiskey or mathematics.

    The evolutionist...

    Fail. The word you need here is "scientist".
    Say it with me slowly..
    S.C.I.E.N.T.I.S.T.

    ... is essentially engaging in philosophical speculation under the guise of "science."

    Remember your Ninth Commandment.
    The internet is not your friend.

    In some cases the perceived clash between science and Scripture is the result of faulty science.

    Such as?

    "Hogwash!" we say. Scripture does provide us with an ultimate explanation of reality...

    Making stuff up seldom explains anything.

    ...Scripture leaves science perfectly free to investigate the particulars.

    Demonstrate it.
    Talk is cheap.
    Start with the big, round holes on the moon.
    What caused them?

    God is omniscient...

    Ah, the gift that keeps on giving>
    Vishnu is omniscient.
    Odin is omniscient.
    Baal is omniscient.
    Yoda is omniscient.

    (shrug)

    If science would confine itself to the observable facts of nature there would be no conflict between science and Christianity.

    Oil? Hello?
    HIV?
    Launching a satellite?
    Cell phones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was having trouble separating my hand from my face with so many facepalms happening one sentence after another, so thank you, Cedric, for your comment.

      This post is a keeper to show just how fast and far one leaves the rails of reality when one dedicates one's self to the goals and aims of the lancet fluke of the religious meme called evangelical belief. And note the admission: "But in the end Scripture, being an explicit verbal revelation from God Himself, must control our interpretation of all of reality." Right there we see that belief is the arbiter of reality, which is a guaranteed method to fool one's self utterly. A fine example of Res ipsa loquitur.

      Delete
    2. LOL! Sweet delusional crap, what are you smoking?

      Delete
    3. The point is this: if the Bible really is what it says it is, a revelation from God, then it is authoritative because it comes from someone who is in a position to know things that we do not, such as the reason and purpose of things, precisely the kinds of questions science cannot answer, unless you argue that reality has no meaning and purpose, which is, of course, the logical corollary of atheistic materialism.
      Are we committing intellectual suicide by yielding to authority in knowledge? Does the professor have the right to tell the student what is true? Of course he does, because he knows more than the student.

      Delete
    4. The point is this: if the Bible really is what it says it is

      "If" is a very big word.
      Huge, really.

      "The point is this: if the Koran really is what it says it is, a revelation from Allah, then it is authoritative because it comes from someone who is in a position to know things that we do not, such as the reason and purpose of things, precisely the kinds of questions science cannot answer, unless you argue that reality has no meaning and purpose, which is, of course, the logical corollary of atheistic materialism."

      Delete
  2. "The strength and beauty of science is its ability to get at the objective facts. But in the end Scripture, being an explicit verbal revelation from God Himself, must control our interpretation of all of reality. It is able to do so precisely because it uses a careful methodology based on observation and experiment. But in the end Scripture, being an explicit verbal revelation from God Himself, must control our interpretation of all of reality. The results are indeed spectacular and have benefitted us all. But in the end Scripture, being an explicit verbal revelation from God Himself, must control our interpretation of all of reality.
    But...but...but Scripture leaves science perfectly free to investigate the particulars.

    Little known fact:
    When fundies are hired at fundy "universities" or creationist institutions they have to sign statements that no matter what they do in terms of research or work, the bible is always right.

    Here's a sample:

    Section 4: General

    The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

    Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
    The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
    The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
    The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.

    The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Cedric, how did you find out about the statement of faith for Answers in Genesis? Did you apply for a job there? Boy, you really are a snake in the grass!
      Actually, as you will see, I will demonstrate later this week that the gap theory does have a basis in Scripture.
      Would an Intelligent Design advocate be able to get tenure at a leading secular university?

      Delete
    2. So Cedric, how did you find out about the statement of faith for Answers in Genesis? Did you apply for a job there? Boy, you really are a snake in the grass!

      There's this thing called...the Internet.
      You can google this kind of stuff in ten seconds flat.
      Honest.
      AIG has a website and everything.

      (...facepalm...)

      Would an Intelligent Design advocate be able to get tenure at a leading secular university?

      What is Intelligent Design?
      Surely that's just creationism in a cheap tuxedo, right?

      Delete
  3. The point is this: if the Bible really is what it says it is, a revelation from God, then it is authoritative because it comes from someone who is in a position to know things that we do not, such as the reason and purpose of things, precisely the kinds of questions science cannot answer, unless you argue that reality has no meaning and purpose, which is, of course, the logical corollary of atheistic materialism. (Bob Wheeler in a comment above).

    I'd like to add some perspective to that. I'm a mathematician and computer scientists. Presumably, what I teach in class is authoritative because it comes from somebody (namely me) in a position to know.

    Some of my students take me as an authority. And others don't. The students who take me as an authority, typically get grades of C or D (or worse). Those who don't take me as an authority are usually among the A and B students. They do better, precisely because they do not rely on authority, but instead take responsibility to find out and understand for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Point well taken. Some of my former professors can probably tell you that I did not automatically believe everything they said, either. The truth be told, I was probably more of a jerk than I would like to admit, although I usually did A's and B's in most courses I took. I would like to think that questions are a sign that the student is thinking, and it makes the class more interesting.
    The analogy isn't quite perfect, of course. The Bible mostly purports to tell us things that science can't tell us at all, eg. does God exist, is there a real difference between right and wrong, is there life after death, what is the meaning and purpose of life? It provides the philosophical perspective on our life and work.
    The only reason that there is a conflict between science and Christianity is because some scientists insist that the empirical method is the only way of arriving at truth, which will almost necessarily limit us to a materialistic world view. And then, of course, there is the problem of evolution. There are theistic evolutionists, but from the standpoint of biblical interpretation I think they're stretching it a bit. But I also think that science is stretching it here a bit, too. It is one thing to draw a conclusion from something that you can observe first hand, it is another thing to reconstruct events in the distant past on the basis of the fragmentary physical evidence we have available to us today. The actual truth is liable to be much more complicated than we imagine.

    ReplyDelete