Evolution Exposed, Exposed. Chapter 1: What is Science?

Last week I introduced this series of posts taking a look at AiG’s Evolution Exposed series of classroom reference material for the young earth creationist.   I do not intend to argue for or against young earth creationism, but rather take a critical look at some of the philosophies and claims that those of us who hold to the authority of Scripture may be tempted to endorse.   As a parent, I want to be able to answer my kids’ questions without deterring them from science as well as respond appropriately to those who may want to teach them differently.

This week we are looking at Chapter 1: What is Science and once again will be using the online guide (yes - because I’m too cheap to go out and get the real material).

What is Science?   A proper view of science is foundational to the debate raised by Evolution Exposed and a great lead-in to any discussion on the merits of science.  Unfortunately, despite the chapter title, an opportunity to properly ground the target audience in the philosophy of science from a God honoring perspective is missed.   From the opening paragraph, Chapter 1 sets up its defense of creation science by attacking mainstream science.  According to the authors, science, at least to the ‘outspoken part of the scientific community’, is the ‘systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe by allowing only naturalistic or materialistic explanations and causes” and by this thinking, in effect rules out God.  We also learn that mainstream science has been ‘hijacked’ by those holding a materialistic worldview.  We read that it is based on faulty presuppositions and works out of a bias against God.   I want to use these three claims to frame our discussion here. 

Science allows only naturalistic or materialistic explanations and causes:  I have no problem with this statement.  Science is only reasonable when it includes naturalistic explanations.  Corn fields are abundant here in Indiana.  If you were to observe a particularly high yielding field one midsummer evening you’d likely conclude that the owner had used a particularly robust seed, or maybe has been able to maintain just the right amount of moisture and combination of nutrients in the ground.  You would come to these conclusions despite the fact that you did not observe the seed going into the ground.  You would not, however, conclude that the crop appeared healthy because it was planted by gnomes and fertilized by unicorns.   Naturalism in science is not a bad thing.  We depend on it every day.  We take the laws of nature for granted.  We get on a plane without wondering whether or not it'll get off the ground this time.  We tune in the weather forecast to plan our travel.  Most likely, when you consult your doctor, you are going to want recommendations based on collective wisdom of how the body works, not Voodoo.  A distinction here between naturalism and materialism though should be made.  Naturalism, as a mode of science, does not eliminate the possibility for miracles or a metaphysical cause, but rather is just unable to seek those causes.   Materialism, on the other hand as properly described, claims that physical matter is all that there is and is adequate to explain all reality.  This is a major tenet of humanism and though it may spring out of naturalism, it is not a necessary product of it.  

Mainstream science has been hijacked by materialists:  This attitude assumes a few things.  for one, it assumes that the underlying method of science has changed at some point in time.  It also assumes that an unspecified group of individuals have succeeded in blinding the masses (what's your favorite conspiracy theory?).  I would argue that science has always sought naturalistic explanations.  Granted, in the absence of naturalistic explanations, many philosophical explanations have been and continue to be proposed.  As the understanding of our world grows, explanations fall by the wayside and are replaced with new ones.  Yes, it is true that many of the ‘founders of science’ gave testament to the Glory of God.  Are we to argue that mainstream science today does not also give testament to the Glory of God.  I suspect that if they were alive today, many of the God fearing scientists of the 18^th and 19^th century would have a solid foothold in the mainstream science that supposedly has been hijacked by materialists.  I’m not arguing that there doesn’t exist within the academics and industries of science a certain population of loud mouthed materialists, but I have a hard time believing a grand heist has occurred.  Science is what it is.  There are voices on every side, but it continues to move forward.

Science is based on presuppositions:   “I tend not to believe people.  People lie.  The evidence doesn’t lie.”  This quote is from one of favorite TV characters, Gil Grissom from the original CSI (and no, CSI will never be as good without him).  Not one to be fooled by emotion or social persuasion, he religiously followed the evidence.  Unfortunately, this statement misses an important element in the practice of science, the human element.  The data may never lie, but our ability to rightly deduce truth from it may sometimes be skewed.  Assumptions, presumptions, biases, presuppositions, call them what you want, they are all factors affecting interpretation and need to be considered.  The point here that needs to be made is not that the same data can be interpreted differently as illustrated by a few cartoons.  This is obvious and is proofed by the mere fact that we're even discussing this.  The student of science must realize, however, that the fact that different interpretations of the same data may lead to vastly different conclusions is not testament to the equal validity of those conclusions.  Presuppositions play a role and their presence cannot be overstated, but between presuppositions and conclusions are interpretations, and not all interpretations are created equal.  Just as any good theologian will argue that there are both proper and improper methods of Biblical interpretation, a good scientist will recognize that there is a proper way and an improper way to handle the available data.  Even though these methods of interpretation are not always clear cut, evidenced by the diversity of opinions in both the science and religious fields, a consensus on certain ‘truths’ can usually be made.   The whole point of the chapter is dissuade trust in the majority held conclusions.

This post is already too long, so let me leave you with these two quotes from Chapter 1 to spur discussion:

“Evolution is the prevailing paradigm, and most scientists have stopped questioning the underlying assumptions that the theory is based on.”   Do you agree?  If so what would cause scientists to stop questioning certain underlying assumptions?   At what point does the availability of evidence warrant the end of such questioning?

‘Creationists develop theories too, in light of biblical truth, but they are not widely accepted by the scientific community.’   Why not?  Is this good science or bad bias?

Unfortunately, without an effort to build a definition of science within a positive framework of creation, I see this chapter as potentially discouraging to a student inclined to pursue his Creator through the study of science.   Fundamental Christians do not need to pass on fear or distrust to their children and would do well not to behave as conspiracy theorists.   Critical analysis of the claims of science and its underlying assumptions should always be encouraged.   But a proper view of science also understands that science is always critical of itself.  Bad theories will eventually be exposed and discarded by mainstream science.  Natural selection is at work even in academia.  If scientific answers really are in Genesis, I’ve got to believe that mainstream science will eventually get on board.   But that’s just me.  What do you think?