Apologetics: The Basics
Session 9 – Darwin, Part 1
Note: the following presentation is essentially a statement on science as it applies to evolutionary theory and/or cosmology…the issues presented are rarely, if ever, a factor in other scientific fields of scientific study.
Christianity does not depend on whether Charles Darwin was right or wrong.
Nothing in the 4 Points Argument had anything to do with Charles Darwin
Christians should embrace science, not fear it or avoid it.
- For a Christian, science is the study of God’s creation
- Historically science was dominated by Christians
(Faraday, Maxwell, Boyle, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Newton, Bacon, etc., a VERY long list)
- Science is a noble endeavor and should be encouraged among believers
“By investigating God’s majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.” – Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project
“I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.” – James Tour
We need MORE Christians in the field of Science, not less
Then why is Science sometimes seen as an enemy of faith?
“The most basic characteristic of science is reliance upon naturalistic explanations.”
- National Academy of Science (NAS) statement to the Supreme Court
{NAS – Primary ruling body of the scientific community}
In other words…all causes must be natural causes…
2 THINGS…
1. ‘all causes must be natural causes’ is not a scientific statement
2. the statement does NOT say that God does not exist, it just says that God is not allowed to be a cause
“The Cosmos is all there is, all there was and all there ever will be.” – Carl Sagan
This is not a scientific statement, it is a statement of Carl Sagan’s theology.
“Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of scientific theory and religious belief.” – National Academy of Science (NAS) Resolution
So the OFFICIAL Scientific position on God as a possible cause…
- God may or may not exist, science takes no position
- (and, logically, if he DOES exist then he COULD BE a cause)
- But Science will never recognize God as a cause
What are the implications of this ‘scientific’ position if God actually IS a cause?
2 THINGS ABOUT THIS ‘OFFICIAL POSITION’
- When science philosophically eliminates possible explanations, science is prioritizing adherence to a certain ideological foundation over discovering truth
- If the real cause IS super-natural, no matter how much evidence there is to that effect, science will never be able to arrive at the correct answer…any evidence that points to the rejected answer must be ignored, or twisted in the direction of an answer that IS acceptable
An illustration of the issue
The Mysterious Case of
Sherlock Holmes
and the Left-handed Killer
“This adventure (exploring the cosmos) is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules:
test ideas by experiment and observation;
build on those ideas that pass the test;
follow the evidence wherever it leads;
and question everything.”
– Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Science used to be a search for causes, now it is a search for natural causes
- Science used to be ‘follow the evidence wherever it leads’, now it is ‘follow the evidence wherever it leads… unless you don’t like where it’s going…then you should ignore the evidence and attack it when necessary’
A more honest view of modern science…
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” – Richard Lewontin, geneticist
(Translation : Because we insist on naturalistic causes, we created a system that forces naturalistic explanations, whether they make sense or not. We are dedicated to naturalism and cannot allow God to be a cause.)
“This adventure (exploring the cosmos) is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules:
test ideas by experiment and observation;
build on those ideas that pass the test??;
follow the evidence wherever it leads??;
and question everything??.”
– Neil deGrasse Tyson
2 PRACTICAL EXAMPLES…
“[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” – Richard Dawkins
Example of a lawn mower and a toaster
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” – Francis Crick
Example of a duck
The irony of the issue as it relates to Intelligent Design
Note: The theory of Intelligent Design is NOT an argument for Christianity, or even God. It is not theological at all.
Intelligent Design is an argument that says the evidence tells us that life must
have been…designed by an intelligence. That’s all.
What that intelligence happens to be, is a SEPARATE discussion.
Complaints about Intelligent Design being a religious argument are intellectually dishonest
Contrary to popular claims, identifying intelligent causes is NOT contrary to modern science
- Paleontology
- Archaeology
- Forensics
- SETI
It’s only when the intelligence may have a religious connotation that science
artificially rules out the possibility of an intelligent cause.
A second charge against ID is that it somehow compromises science….as though all those brilliant scientists over the millenia who happened to be Christians were somehow unable to do science well.
“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” – Johannes Kepler
It is historically and logically ridiculous to think that science can only be effective by philosophically eliminating particular causes in the search for truth.
So what DO Christians make of the ‘Science versus Religion’ conflict?
For the Christian:
nature always = scripture; but sometimes…Science not = religion;
Science is mans interpretation of nature
Religion is mans interpretation of scripture
So when science is not = religion,
our challenge is to determine which interpretation has been blown
The real question is NOT Science versus Christianity… the real question is…
Science versus truth
and
Christianity versus truth
“Don’t oppose science with religion, oppose BAD science with BETTER science.” – Chuck Colson
“If you keep asking fact based questions and you keep getting faith based answers…of course you are going to step away from that version of religion.” – Andy Stanley
Summary
- Christians should embrace Science, not fear or avoid it
- Historically Science was dominated by Christians doing research to glorify their Creator
- “All causes must be natural causes” is NOT a scientific statement
- The position of Science is God may actually BE a cause, but science is not allowed to identify him as such
- This means modern science is unable to have an intellectually honest view of any effect for which God IS the cause
- Science today DOES recognize intelligent causes in certain fields
- If nature and Scripture are both given by God, we should expect them to always be in harmony
- When they are not in harmony we should see where we have blown our interpretation of one or the other, or both
- Christians should never oppose Science with religion
- The question should always be Science versus truth, and religion versus truth
Know what you believe,
know why you believe it