The Christian Perspective On Science

Our popular culture considers Christians to be unscientific. My earliest indoctrination in to this principle was in late elementary school, or early middle school, when we watched "Inherit the Wind". The movie, based on a play of the same title, completely mischaracterizes the Scopes trial and leaves the distinct impression that Christians derive their science from the Bible and that the reputable scientists (read this as evolutionists) are the honest, rational, impartial people. It took me many years, but I now know that this movie is not anywhere near an honest depiction of the Scopes trial, the causes, the motive, the facts, the participants, or the outcome.

My guess is that most readers of this blog are in the same boat. If you have been in the public school system then you probably hold this misconception.

In fact, I've met a few Christians that do derive their science from the Bible. To be clear, I believe the Bible is true and that it's far more than truth described by men. I agree with the Christian doctrine that the Scriptures are inspired by God such that they are the direct revelation of God, without error in the original text. Knowing that Christianity is true, then there really is nothing wrong with placing this Scriptural knowledge above scientific knowledge. In fact, there is not a whole lot of overlap, hence very little opportunity for discongruity.

But it's very important to note that Christianity's historical view of science is that science itself is simply the process of discovering the truth about the world which was created by God. If Christianity is true (and correct about the inerrancy of Scripture) there is no possibility of a disagreement between Scripture and science.

I'll come right out and say that if there really were a disagreement between the two then there would be a real problem for Christianity.

So what about the disagreements? Well, I think that all disagreements are only apparent ones, not real ones. We humans are very prone to mistakes ("To err is human"). When there is a problem between the two, the right answer is that one of the two is being misinterpreted. Consider young-earth creationism. Even as far back as Augustine in the 3rd century, Biblical scholars have been unable to say with certainty how long the 7 creation days of Genesis really were. Add to that the overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is old and I'll go on record as saying that the young-earth creationists are wrong. That's not to say that Scripture is wrong, only that a particular meaning has been inferred from the actual words and that this inferred meaning goes farther than the text actually mandates.

History is also full of examples where science was misinterpreted too. To think that this has ended today because science has reached some sort of pinnacle would be naive.

One thing that needs to be said though is that I can't blame a Christian that decides to side with Scripture in an apparent disagreement. There are many great minds that consider direct revelation from God to be more reliable than knowledge gained by human endeavor. I can certainly sympathize with this in principle. And for most of us, the technical details of the forefront of scientific endeavor are beyond our comprehension. I'm not inclined the take someone's word for it when I know (from experience, if not tacit admission) that they make interpretive leaps based on an underlying philosophy that is antithetical to the Christian perspective.

In conclusion, the Christian perspective is not at all one that is unscientific. Science, in principle, is given very high regard because this is demanded by our philosophy, and is actually taught by Scripture (a point I make in the article I linked to above).
And giving science it's proper respect does not mean putting aside our faith to do science and then putting away our science to do faith.

What's Wrong with Intelligent Design?

Any time a Christian tries to talk publicly about the science of the origin or development of life they get shot down with the assertion that it's patently unscientific to even consider a non-material force (God). "Science only postulates and tests physical processes", they say.

In a nutshell, they are saying that the very definition of science is that endeavor that follows the rules set forth by the philosophy of science known as methodological naturalism. You see, many people claim that such theories (theories that include a ‘creator’) can not, in principle, be considered scientific because they invoke special divine action as part of their explanatory framework. Many scientists consider a scientific theory of creation to be “self-contradictory nonsense”. The argument goes like this...true science is delineated from ‘pseudo’-science by certain necessary features. These features are:

• Falsifiability
• Observability
• Repeatability
• Law-like explanation
• Predictive ability

These are the types of charges usually leveled against the scientific theory of Intelligent Design (ID). Many Christians agree with this assessment too. Over and over again, from Christians and non-Christians alike I hear the claim that ID is not science and can never be considered a scientific theory because it’s not falsifiable, and/or not repeatable. How can science proceed if it postulates miraculous, one-time interventions in the physical world? Well, this is methodological naturalism speaking. Who controls the whole of scientific endeavor and gets to define the ‘right’ philosophy of science? Is methodological naturalism really the best (or even a suitable) rule book for science? This process of creating a set of rules for distinguishing science from non-science is called ‘demarcation’.

Let me quote one of the foremost philosophers of science:

As the philosopher of science Larry Laudan has shown, such contradictions have plagued the demarcation enterprise from its inception. As a result, most contemporary philosophers of science regard the question 'what distinguishes science from non-science' as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific, but whether a theory is true, or warranted by the evidence. As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science'. . .they do only emotive work for us." As Martin Eger has summarized, "[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world." Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D. Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith: The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 46, no. 1

The ‘demarcation enterprise’ speaks of the attempt to create criteria that separate real science from ‘pseudo’-science. Notice that the philosophers are saying exactly what makes sense to the average person; namely that the real issue is “whether a theory is true or warranted by the evidence”.

Interestingly, Meyer goes on to explain exactly what problem this demarcation approach introduces. You see, if true science is defined by any of the criteria I mentioned before, then well established scientific theories must be thrown out as rubbish alongside the theory of ID! Here’s an example:

Consider, for example, falsifiability. As Imre Lakatos has shown some of the most powerful scientific theories have been constructed by those who stubbornly refused to reject their theories in the face of anomalous data. On the basis of his theory of Universal Gravitation, Newton, for example, made a number of predictions about the position of planets that did not materialize. Nevertheless, rather than rejecting the notion of universal gravitation he refined his auxiliary assumptions (e.g. the assumption that planets are perfectly spherical and influenced only by gravitational force) and left his core theory in place. As Lakatos has shown, the explanatory flexibility of Newton's theory in the face of apparently disconfirming evidence turned out to be one of its greatest strengths. Such flexibility was emphatically not a token of "non-scientific status" as the Popperian model would suggest.

Many examples of this sort are available. For instance, any critique leveled against ID can be leveled against evolution. Is evolutionary theory falsifiable? No! Just look at all of the anomalous evidence that is perpetually overlooked. What about predictive ability? I’ll grant that the theory of evolution has generated a few simple predictions (the same predictions that design theory makes), but it has failed many more such as the expected gradation in the fossil record, or the inverted taxonomy tree from the Cambrian, or junk DNA. So if we follow the rules of the methodological naturalists we’d have to do away with the theory of evolution just to be fair!

Really, the problem is often that people are lumping origin of life science in to the wrong basket. It’s really a case of historical science. The historical sciences are different from other sciences. Consider forensics---think CSI. By definition they are investigating events that include the action of an outside agent (usually the murderer). These events are also not repeatable, nor are they observable. In fact, is there any predictive ability involved in postulating a cause of death to be murder? This is the nature of historical events. So shall we call the geeks in the crime lab unscientific religious nuts? Of course not. They are using the physical evidence to arrive at the best conclusion. This is what ID is doing. Nothing more and nothing less.

At this point I have to point out that ID does not ever attempt to use science to talk about God. ID is finished at postulating only what is warranted by the evidence and applying logic. Would it really be analogous to teaching religion to teach ID? Not if it’s done right. Yes, there would be religious implications, but there are certainly religious implications in the theory of evolution too. I think it is proper to draw a direct analogy between the people who are religiously opposed to Intelligent Design theory today and those that were religiously opposed to the teaching of evolution 60 years ago. If you oppose the mention of ID in schools, then you are a hypocrite. At least that’s my take on it. The Scopes trial won school boards and teachers the right to teach dissenting scientific opinions.

Observations on the ID debate in Dover

Check out the above linked article. I'd like to make some observations about the article itself and the views expressed in it.
Here is the opening paragraph:

The Dover school board showed a clear bias against teaching Darwinian evolution before it voted to require students to be exposed to “intelligent design” in science class, a former board member testified Tuesday.

By placing the "a former board member testified Tuesday" at the end of the statement it starts by placing the statement in the mind of the reader as a solid conclusion rather than as an assertion by a witness in the trial. If that statement had preceeded the paragraph it would have helped to cement in the minds of the readers that it was simply a witness's testimony.

This witness (and others on that side of the debate) are asserting that the Dover school board members have a bias against evolution. What's interesting to note is that this form of argumentation commits a logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy. The fact is that the personal beliefs of the school board members on this issue should not be in dispute at all. Rather the issue of the school board's decision should rest on the basis of their justifications for doing so and not at all on their motivation for doing so.

The statement says Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps,” and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

The fact is that the theory of evolution is NOT A FACT and does have inexplicable gaps. This can be proven via the scientific evidence. It is this issue that the court case should revolve around. The court should require the school board to substantiate this fact. When they succeed in this substantiation then the statement should be allowed to be read to students. In fact, parents shouldn't even be given the option to pull their kids out of the class during the reading of this statement...since it is scientifically true.
If all you've ever read on this controversy is the biased reporting in the media, then you need to read this to see exactly what it is that the Dover school board has enacted.

Eight families sued, saying that the policy promotes the Bible’s view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

First, if you read the Dover policy linked to above then you see that it's a mischaracterization to say that the policy "promotes the Bible's view of creation". What is also untrue is that teaching Christianity in schools would even be a violation of "the constitutional separation of church and state". How can I say this? First, the constitution does not guarantee what we understand to be "separation of church and state". We've come to understand, only through a biased mischaracterization of the facts, that "separation of church and state" means that the government must not be involved, in any way, with the idea of religion. That's patently false. In addition, the establishment clause and the first amendment ONLY say that the institutions of the government and the church may not be organizationally intertwined.

In a separate development Tuesday, two freelance newspaper reporters who covered the school board in June 2004 both invoked their First Amendment rights
and declined to provide a deposition to lawyers for the school district.

Lawyers for the school district have questioned the accuracy of articles in which the reporters wrote that board members discussed creationism during public meetings. Patrick Gillen, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, said the defense would ask U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III on Wednesday to issue a contempt citation.

This is interesting in that it seems not only has reporting on this issue been biased, but actual facts have been fabricated. We should see some legal consequences in this example.

Miller also backed off a statement in a 1995 biology textbook he co-wrote that said evolution was “random and undirected.” Miller said he missed that reference by a co-author and that he did not believe evolution was random and undirected.

This is very interesting. You see Miller is being described as a "theistic evolutionist". I'll just mention here that in my opinion this is an oxymoron (read this). I'm sure he was chosen over other prominent atheistic evolutionists because his supposed belief in a god somehow makes him a more credible witness for the plaintiffs in this case (again giving homage to the genetic fallacy). But having read Kenneth Miller, I can say that when he "backed off" the statement in the 1995 biology textbook that he was simply playing a semantic game. You see, Miller simply defines natural selection as something non-random...a form of 'direction'. So while I will say that mutations are random and therefore evolution is mindless and undirected, Miller would say that natural selection, by 'picking' the most survivable organisms, is a 'directed' process.

On Monday, Miller said the policy undermines scientific education by wrongly raising doubts about evolutionary theory. “It’s the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process,” he said.

Notice that Miller here has equated a scientific critique of a certain theory (evoltion) with driving a wedge between students and science. How disingenuous! Nowhere do I see, in the Dover policy, that an anti-scientifc appeal is being made. The school board doesn't substantiate the statement that there are "inexplicable gaps" in evolution, but I'll bet that if they took the time to lengthen the statement to actually include detailed data in defense of that statement the evolutionists would be even more irate! You see, that statement (that there are inexplicable gaps) is absolutely, 100%, defensible via only the scientific process.
And finally:

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools must not balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism, on the grounds that such moves would represent state establishment of religion.

Hmm. Above, I think I established that even teaching creationism (if it were done) wouldn't in any way violate the constitution's establishment clause. I'm not familiar with the details of the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, but I have no doubt that to rule as they did they had to reinterpret the constitution in a way that no one had done for the first 200 years. Which brings us to the subject of judicial activism...but I won't go there.

Reading this, you can see that I have definite opinions in regard to evolution, intelligent design, and separation of church and state. However, those really aren't the issue in the Dover case. One small statement is questioning the 'fact' status of the theory of evolution (on good scientific grounds) and nothing more. ID is not being taught and certainly NOT creationism. Nor is the school advocating a religion. There is only one issue here: How scientifically sound is the theory of evolution?

Time after time I see this sort of mischaracterization of the facts included in the media's coverage of this issue. Next time you see an article like this, take the time to think about the reporting.

Snowball Events

I recently gave a presentation to the Hunstville chapter of Reasons to Believe. The title of my presentation was "A Snowball's Chance In Hell". It dealt with the evidence that there have been up to four global glaciations in Earth's past history. The most recent one being the period immediately preceeding the Cambrian explosion around 600mya.

I won't rehash all of the information here, as it was an hour long presentation. But suffice it to say that there is a plethora of evidence from a variety of scientific disciplines that very strongly establishes these snowball events.

The last one is the one that I'm most interested in. It is one of the handful of evidences against the theory of evolution (ToE) centering around the Cambrian. In summary, the conclusion of the multiple lines of evidence is that the entire world, even at the equator, was well below zero for at least one million years immediately preceeding the Cambrian. In fact, this snowball event is the event that separates the proterozoic from the cambrian epoch.

What this means is that the Cambrian explosion isn't just an artifact of poor fossilization of prior evolution. Rather all the Cambrian fauna are certainly showing up as quickly as the fossil evidence indicates (@ 3 million years at the longest).

Here is a quick rundown of the conditions during the snowball event:

• Average earth temp -40C for 1 million years (at least)
• No photosynthesis occurring in the oceans
• No oxygen in the oceans
• Iron levels in the oceans at toxic levels
• It all ended violently in a period of @ 100 years with the average temp ending up much higher than today and with carbon dioxide levels many times higher than today

So the big spoilers I see for evolution that stem only from the Cambrian explosion are these:

1. The 'explosion' happens too fast to be the result of evolution (mutation rates and population models prove this).
2. We cannot accept that evolution was happening somewhere, just not fossilized. (both the nature of the fossil record, and the snowball events preclude this).
3. The inverted cone of disparity. (to explain this is a post in itself)

Here are some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/snowballearth.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/snowballearth_transcript.shtml
http://www.eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html