In the study of Ancient Man, Creation vs
Evolution, or any other controversial scientific or historical topic,
terminology can be confusing and misleading. As we have mentioned before,
presuppositions can also make these discussions unclear and hard to follow.
In this 3-part series, we will discuss
Naturalism and Biblical Creation, contrasting their beliefs, biases, and
interpretations of evidence. This will make our position clear and defend the
foundation of our point of view.
Defining the Terms
Naturalism: The belief that everything that currently exists came about
in a completely natural way with no influence of a higher power.
- This model includes the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang. Both of which explain how the slow changing process from chemical compounds to small organisms eventually led to everything that exists today, including humans.
Image Credit: Answers in Genesis |
Biblical Creation: The belief that God created everything in six
literal days[1]
as we read from the Bible, God’s perfect and infallible Word.
- God created everything according to their kinds, fully formed, and basically[2] as they are today. Thus according to the Bible, there are approximately 6,000 years of history.
Science:
“Characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts.”[3]
The National Science Teachers Association
continues to define science as “limited to naturalistic methods and
explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the
production of scientific knowledge”(emphasis added). Another similar
definition comes from the Science Council: “science is the pursuit of knowledge
and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic
methodology based on evidence.”[4]
What is Science, really?
As Biblical Creationists, we agree with this
definition of science…to a point. Notice how their very definition removes God.
It is true, we cannot prove the existence of God by using science, but we
cannot disprove God using science either, although many try to do one or the
other. Science is a God-designed naturalistic way for mankind to understand the
rest of His creation. So though we cannot use science as a testing ground for
God, our very use of science demands His existence. The very laws of the
natural world, the consistency and order that science depends upon, were
designed and put in place by God; by using them, all scientists are confirming
His existence.
We are Biased
It is often said that it is unfair or
unscientific to start with the Bible (and for that matter any other religious
document) when interpreting scientific evidence. You too may struggle with this
question: Is it acceptable and/or correct to start with the Bible when
approaching science?
Now think here. As we state in The Genius of
Ancient Man (chapter 2), as Christians, we are biased. We believe that the
Bible is God’s perfect and infallible Word; that is it absolute Truth. We
believe that in the Bible, God records the true history of the world. Therefore
we can use the historical Biblical record to understand the world as it
functions around us. This understanding influences how we practice science in
that world as well. As it turns out, science confirms what the Bible says!
Do we impede scientific progress by our
Biblical assumptions, interpretations and theories? On the contrary, these are
key elements to science. Biblical creationists strengthen and encourage the
progress of science because they desire to better understand God, especially
through the works He has created. Christians aim to glorify God and reflect His
character with their work, therefore we expect their scientific methods and
discoveries to be accurate, credible and valuable.
They are Biased Too!
Naturalists (evolutionists) are biased too.
They start with their “unwritten” belief statements (presuppositions) and in
all practicality have said that they can and have proven (to some extent) that
God is not needed in history; they reject the supernatural (in their very
definition of science). They claim to be objective all the while standing on
assumptions of naturalism. They have beliefs and motives, just like we do, but
many refuse to admit such.
Image Credit: Answers in Genesis |
The Bible says that everyone knows there is a
God and is therefore “without excuse” (Rom 1:18-25). Non-believers are willingly
rejecting God believing they are not accountable to anyone. Darwinian
anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith explains it in this way: “Evolution is unproved
and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation
which is unthinkable.”[5]
Interpretation, Viewpoints, and Occam’s Razor
Now if you believe (have faith) that the
evidence seems to point in obvious favor towards long ages and evolution, hold
on. Evidence, once collected, must be interpreted according to the scientific
and historical context. The interpretation differs depending on a person’s
presuppositional beliefs . The issue is the interpretation of the evidence, not
the evidence itself.[6]
Remember Occam’s Razor, which states that one
should go with the simplest and most logical, most consistent explanation
instead of a more complicated idea.[7]
As you look at different hypotheses about a piece of evidence, ask yourself the
question: Which seems to be more consistent and logical?
Operational Science vs. Origins Science
Now you might also be saying that data and
results are conclusive, and yes, in some experiments, the interpretation
(subjectivity) is less evident, but it is still there. We could even split
science into two categories: “operational” science and “origins” science.
Operational science or observational
science refers to current observations and experiments so it is the least
likely to be influenced by bias. Yet experiments are still set up by a
(subjective) observer (with their own presuppositions and assumptions) with a
goal for the experiment.
Origins science or historical science is
based more on assumptions, speculation and plausible calculations. For example,
we don’t know what the atmosphere was like 5000 years ago, because we cannot
test it, but we can test how it changes now and extrapolate back to that time.
However a lot can happen over 5000 years so there are a lot of assumptions that
have to be made to make those calculations.
Assumptions and Conclusions Based on Bias and
Subjectivity
It seems to be a common myth that once
scientists find a piece of evidence they can then easily determine the truth
behind that evidence. It might amaze you that scientists, especially in origins
science, can have very different views drawn from the same evidence.
Here is an example quoted from National
Geographic: “‘You know what they say,’ says Bill Iseminger, an archaeologist
who has worked at Cahokia for 40 years. ‘Put three archaeologists in a room and
you get five opinions.’”[8] Similarly,
in a documentary entitled “Ice Age Civilizations”, two different researchers
present opposite conclusions based on the same evidences.[9]
http://astralsociety.net/evolution-vs-creation-the-debate-part-1/ |
This is the difficult nature of origins
science.
The Fallible or The Infallible?
Overall, science should be an objective
process, but it is designed, carried through, and interpreted by subjective,
fallible humans.[10]
When scientists and researchers fail us it is encouraging to turn to God’s word
with the knowledge that what is written is completely accurate and infallible
even where it concerns controversial scientific subjects. Remember, the One who
created “science” knows how it works and His word has priority. Let’s remember
where our starting point is.
[1] Terry
Mortenson, “6 Literal Days,” Answers
Magazine, February 24, 2010, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/six-literal-days.
[2] Georgia
Purdom, “Variety Within Created Kinds,” Answers
Magazine, February 24, 2010, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/variety-within-kinds.
[3] “About NSTA:
Official Positions,” adopted July 2000, accessed March 16, 2011,
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx.
[4] “What is
Science?” The Science Council, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www.sciencecouncil.org/content/what-science.
[5] “The Quote
Mine Project,” The TalkOrigins Archive, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81.
[6] Roger
Patterson, “Chapter 1: What Is Science?” Evolution
Exposed: Biology, February 22, 2007, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science.
[7] “Occam’s
razor,” Merriam-Webster, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam's%20razor.
[9] “Ice Age Civilizations,” Global Science
Productions, directed by Dr. Elliott Haimoff, released May 15, 2006.
[10] Patterson,
“Chapter 1: What Is Science?”
No comments:
Post a Comment