:Reasonable Force

Responding to my previous post, a friend and brother named Keith made the following comment:

I have a kind of dualistic approach toward cosmology. I believe in the whole hog literal six days and such, but I also don’t think the physical evidence we have right now points to it. I think if scientists follow the evidence where it most naturally (naturalistically?) leads, I have faith that science will eventually self-correct itself to correspond to scripture. I believe scientists really are trying to find the truth, and the smartest scientist Christians that I know firmly believe in evolution and an old Earth, so I don’t think evolution can be explained away by saying that scientists want to corrupt the world’s youth or whatever.

My response to that grew a bit lengthy so I decided to post most of it as a new post.

I’ve spoken about the self-correcting aspect of science before, and how examples can readily be found in which the peer-review process acts to stifle views that run contra to the prevailing paradigm. But, of course, science involves a constant process of investigation and discovery and it does indeed correct itself frequently. The limitation on that mechanism, however, is that scientists can only correct within the bounds of what they believe is reasonable.

I would agree with Keith that it is unreasonable to presume that naturalistic scientists are engaged in a conspiracy of willful deception in an attempt to convert all of our children to secular humanism. To the extent that such conversion attempts are underway it is not with the intent to deceive, but out of a desire to enlighten. There’s no malicious intent because they truly believe what they teach. And, like Keith, I believe the vast majority of them truly want to understand the hows and whys of their areas of study.

Of course, when we say that most of them are “trying to find the truth” we must speak on two levels. If they are unregenerate then they may be trying to ascertain the truth of the physical world while having subconsciously rejected the Truth, personified in Christ, who created all things and holds all things together. They are therefore crippled in their perception and their reasoning. They are able to recognize patterns that lead to a formalization of physical laws, but they are unable to make that leap from the law to the lawgiver.

Evolution is demonstrative of how scientific observation without the undergirding of well-founded faith can lead to conclusions that are simply bizarre. One sees various species and notes similarities between them. One also notes that, within species, variations are formed in response to environmental pressures. One can only make the colossal leap from these observations to the idea of macroevolution apart from the theological foundation of Creation of distinct types of creatures by a personal, purposeful God.

The modern scientist would view that as an example of science freeing itself from the constraints of an outmoded belief system in order to follow the evidence where it leads.

The orthodox theologian, on the other hand, views it as science going badly astray by tearing itself away from a necessary mooring to reality.

What, then, of all the really smart Christian scientists (not to be confused with Christian Scientists) who also hold to evolutionary theory and an old earth? Well, I’ve addressed in my last post how I think the earth itself might be old, possibly allowing for some ancient geological ages. Unfortunately, that doesn’t do anything to bring Genesis in line with the consensus views on biology, astonomy, or a host of other disciplines. Quite simply, I think the foundations upon which these Christians obtained their scientific education were faulty. I think they’ve allowed views which were shaped by men with presuppositions of naturalism to supplant their trust and faith in the Bible.

One of the most difficult truths I’ve had to come to grips with is that, for virtually any position, you can find very intelligent people who subscribe to it. Theology is rife with examples, certainly, of men of equivalent intellect staking out diametrically opposed positions and defending them from Scripture with equal persuasiveness. Similarly, while many are in the camp Keith describes above, there are highly intelligent Christian scientists who reject the predominant views on evolution and, though undoubtedly fewer, ancient ages.

The institution of science can correct itself, but only within the philosophical boundaries imposed by the individuals who guide it. As regards the individuals who practice science, some have had, or will have, their eyes opened by the beauty of the design that they perceive. Some already know the Designer. For them, science can be a pursuit of truth that ultimately will indeed align harmoniously with correctly interpreted Scripture. Others will only ever see a purposeless universe careening inevitably toward a meaningless end because anything else would force them to deal with a God they prefer, at some level, to avoid. The trick for the former is knowing when their assumptions have been shaped by the unbelief of the latter.

4 Comments