Saturday, May 22, 2010

Essential Tools for the Creationist - Part 3

[this is a continuation from Part 2]

Finally, an additional tool that can be beneficial for the creationist when used consistently is to...

3) Clearly and fully understand the definition of terms that are being used.

The creationist need understand that there are often differences between the Scriptural definition of words and words that are used in science or in colloquial speech. One example is the word "truth."

There is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the criteria for determining a “truth” are different. Scientific truth is, to a large extent, based on repeatable observation, whereas in theology, truth is centered on the certainty of God's promises to us in Christ rather than what we observe and feel. The Christian is certain of God's truths in Scripture not because of his own abilities of perception and observation, but through faith worked by the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 2:5-13; John 8:31-32) Scripture is, therefore, the basis of absolute certainty.

An interesting side note and illustrative for our purposes of pointing out the importance of distinctions and definitions is the much publicized court case concerning Intelligent Design (ID) (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005). In that case, the question before the U.S. District Court was not "Is Intelligent Design true?" Rather, the question was "Is Intelligent Design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID meet the criteria that science has defined for itself?"8

Second, there is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the permanence of truth in the scientific realm is viewed differently than in the theological realm. In the Bible, we are assured that our God is unchanging (James 1:17) and that His words of truth are permanent (John 17:17; Matthew 24:3).

On the other hand, in science there is no such thing as a "final truth" as the National Academy of Sciences points out when they define scientific fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." 9 And also, "…the statements of science should never be accepted as "final truth." Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science.” 10

The University of California Museum of Paleontology also explains that, "science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it." "In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives." 11

They also note that "science is always a work in progress, and its conclusions are always tentative." This means that scientific conclusions are "not tentative in the sense that they are temporary until the real answer comes along. Scientific conclusions are well founded in their factual content and thinking and are tentative only in the sense that all ideas are open to scrutiny. In science, the tentativeness of ideas such as the nature of atoms, cells, stars or the history of the Earth refers to the willingness of scientists to modify their ideas as new evidence appears." 12

It is important that the Christian neither overestimate nor underestimate this tentativeness. When you board a flight in Chicago bound for L.A., you are fairly certain that you will arrive at your destination on time and intact. This is due to a certain level of understanding about aerodynamics, metallurgy, structural forces, electronics and software. If you undergo a medical procedure, it is often the case that the medical professionals have a fair grasp on the risks and benefits involved based upon a certain level of understanding about biochemistry, cellular biology and metabolic pathways.

I would not be employed as an engineer if science were not, to a large degree, reliable. On the other hand, it is the tentativeness in science due to incomplete knowledge, the uncertainty caused by how much one does not know and the misinterpretation of correlation instead of causation, that makes an engineer constantly concerned about potential product field failures and recalls. It is not necessarily what you know that catches you unaware, it is what you don't know - and you never know what you don't know.

Scientific knowledge is often perceived by people who do not work directly in scientific fields, as an impenetrable monolith of certainty. Rather, and more realistically, I have often represented scientific knowledge as a ball of varying porosity since the known and unknown are intermixed and outside of the ball there are an unknown amount of unknowns. There will always be some unknown variables, the existence of these are why scientists and engineers continue to be employed, and even an unknown number of scientific questions that have never been posed because not enough is known to ask those questions. In fact, if all the unknowns were to be answered, science would cease to exist since science thrives at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.

The primary reason why there is no "final truth" in science and why science is considered tentative is because science, by its very nature and definition, will always consist of an incomplete body of knowledge.

This even applies to so-called "creation science," that is, scientific evidence used to support Biblical creationism, and Christians would do well to remember to give appropriate qualifiers when presenting scientific evidence in creation models. Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the reader keeps this incomplete and tentative nature of scientific conclusions in their proper context - especially when applied to creation science issues. If this is not understood, it is my experience that our sinful nature (Romans 7:18-23; Galatians 5:17) will begin to substitute such scientific evidence in favor of creation in place of faith in God's Word and promise, and, if scientific evidence, which was incomplete in the first place, is later falsified, despair will prevail.

It is because science is incomplete that it should always be a necessary goal of any confessional Lutheran creation model to lead the Christian into the following mindset: If there is scientific evidence in favor of creation and it correlates well with the Scriptural account, that's great! And if such evidence is later falsified, that's OK, too, because in the end, it really doesn't matter -- the promises of God in Christ are certain.


8 "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." p 64; "To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." p89 (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005)
9 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition” (National Academy of Sciences, 1999): 3.
10 "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science” (National Academy of Sciences, 1998): 30.
11 Misconceptions about science.” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
12 Characteristics of Science” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.