Can worldviews influence science?
Recognize and Minimize
In my opinion, we should recognize that
science is influenced by cultural-personal factors (which include
religious worldviews
and much more) and — in an effort to maximize the
effectiveness of science in a search for truth — we should
try to minimize the biasing influence
of these factors. We should want scientific theories to be
evaluated by thinking that is unbiased and logical. We should
pursue this noble goal, using it as an aiming point and taking actions
that will move us closer to it, while humbly recognizing that we
haven't yet achieved it and never will.
Examples of Influences
If a person is influenced by young-earth theology (claiming
that "if the Bible is true, the earth is young") there will be a tendency to
evaluate young-earth theories more favorably than is warranted by scientific
evidence and logic. If a person is influenced by anti-evolution theology
(claiming that "if the Bible is true, evolution is false") there will be a tendency
to evaluate evolutionary theories unfavorably. But an evaluation of evolution
that is too favorable can occur due to naturalistic influences. And if
a person is influenced by the scientific community (by professional practicalities,
group pressures, and conventional modes of thinking) there will be a tendency
to evaluate the conventional theories (old earth and evolution) favorably.
But even if an individual or group has
a motivation to be biased, this does not mean their conclusion is biased (since
the evidence may actually lead to the conclusion they prefer) or is wrong (since
reality may actually be the way they hope it is).
Theistic
Science is
not Open Science
theistic
science is based on the principle that "Christians
ought to consult all they know or have reason to believe when forming
and testing hypotheses, when explaining things in science, and when
evaluating the plausibility of various scientific hypotheses. Among
the things they should consult are propositions of theology. (J.P.
Moreland & John Mark Reynolds; page 19 in Three Views of Creation, 2000)" Alvin
Plantinga describes the rationality of adopting this approach: "a
Christian academic and scientific community ought to pursue science
in its own way, starting from and taking for granted what we know as
Christians." In theistic science, a theistic worldview
is used as a metaphysical foundation for doing science. But theistic
science is not a single way of thinking, since it can lead to different
theological propositions about God, nature, and science.
open
science is open to different perspectives. In contrast
with the current monopoly of naturalistic science (and education) that
allows only one perspective, I'm advocating an open science that allows
a variety of perspectives (including naturalism, intelligent design,
and different types of theistic science) and is open-minded toward
a range of scientific conclusions. Open Science and Closed Science
one type of closed science: Currently,
most scientific inquiry is closed by methodological
naturalism (MN),
a proposal to restrict the freedom of scientists by requiring that
they include only natural causes in their scientific theories.
The difference between science that is open and closed is
the difference in responding to a question: Has the
history of the universe included both natural and non-natural causes? In
an open science (liberated from MN) this question
can be evaluated based on scientific evidence and logic. In a closed
science (restricted by MN) the process of science is irrelevant, since
the inevitable conclusion — no matter what is being studied, or what is
the evidence — is that "it happened by natural process."
In open science, a scientist begins with
an MN-assumption, but does not insist on ending with an MN-conclusion
unless this is justified by the evidence. An open scientist replaces rigid-MN (in
which a naturalistic conclusion is required) with testable-MN that
treats the assumption of MN as an assumption, as a theory to be tested
rather than a conclusion to be accepted.
Avoiding the possibility of
Unavoidable Error
Is MN the best way to do science
and search for truth? Maybe not. It depends on what actually
happened in history. Imagine two possible worlds: one has a history
of nature with all events caused by natural process, while the other
has a history that includes both natural and non-natural events. When
we ask, "Which type of world do we live in?", we hope our
science will help us, not hinder us, in our search for truth. But
in one of the two possible worlds, a closed science (restricted by
MN) must inevitably reach the wrong conclusion. By contrast,
in either world a non-MN science will allow, although it cannot guarantee,
reaching a correct conclusion.
Imagine that we're beginning our
search for truth with a logically justifiable attitude of humility,
by refusing to decide that we already know — with certainty,
beyond any doubt — what kind of world we live in. If we
don't know whether history has been all-natural, our best scientific
strategy for finding truth is an open science, with scientists humbly
asking a question instead of arrogantly assuming an answer.
MN and the Process of Science
How does MN affect the process
of science? The circular logic of MN converts a naturalistic assumption
into a naturalistic conclusion by declaring that — when we ask, "Has
the history of the universe included both natural and non-natural events?" — the
only acceptable answer is "no" because with MN the automatic
conclusion must be that "it happened by natural process." In reaching
this conclusion the process of science is irrelevant, yet the conclusion
is considered scientific. Thus, MN provides a way to bypass
the process of science and then claim the
authority of science.
If some non-natural events did occur
during history, MN will force scientists to reach some false conclusions. And
MN decreases the quality of critical thinking about naturalistic theories,
which are unfalsifiable (since they're protected by MN) when they're
being compared with non-naturalistic theories.
What is a design theory?
If you receive a radio signal — 2,
3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17,... — and you think "this long string
of prime numbers probably was not produced by undirected
natural process," you are proposing a theory of intelligent
design.
To explain the origin of a feature (an object, system,...)
during the history of nature, the two possibilities are nondesign (with
production by undirected natural process) and design (with
production by design-directed action that converts
an agent's unobservable "design idea" into a designed feature we can observe).
How can we distinguish between nondesign
and design? With proper definitions, nondesign and design are mutually
exclusive (it was either one or the other) so non-design is supported if the
production of a feature by undirected natural process seems plausible; and
if this does not seem plausible, design is supported.
There are several types of design, due
to differences in agency, detectability, and timing. A designed feature
can be produced by a natural agent (using natural action) or a supernatural
agent (using natural or supernatural action), and the action can be detectable
or natural-appearing. { If design-action is not detectable, the scientifically
justifiable conclusion (that there was no design) will be a "false negative" because
there really was design. } For a supernatural agent, the design-action
can occur during history, or at the beginning of history in a design
of nature so the feature will eventually be produced by undirected natural
process and there will be no need for special action during history.
In this page, a design
theory is defined as a theory proposing that a particular feature
was produced by empirically detectable design-directed
action during history.
A basic design theory is not a creation
theory. It does not claim that, based on scientific analysis, we
can distinguish between non-creation (by a
natural agent) and creation (by a supernatural
agent), it just claims "design-directed action did occur." Although
a design theory does not propose that a miracle has occurred, it does acknowledge
this as a possibility. But this possibility is denied by MN.
Scientific
Objectivity: What is it?
Here are two ways to think about objectivity in science:
• One way to define objectivity,
based
on the premise that objectivity and flexibility are
related, is to ask: "How strongly does a scientist hope that a theory evaluation
will result in a particular conclusion?" or "Would a scientist be open-minded
and willing to change views (if this is supported by the evidence and logic)
and accept another theory?"
• Another definition is based
on the premise that a conclusion would be more objective if it was produced
by pure
scientific logic, if cultural-personal factors exerted no influence
during the process of evaluation. Just as Newton tried to imagine the
characteristics of idealized motion without friction,
we can try to imagine the characteristics of an idealized
evaluation without cultural-personal influences, with only scientific
logic.
Bias and Falsity
Even if scientists (as individuals or in a group) are motivated
to be biased in a particular way, this does not mean that the
process of scientific evaluation, or the conclusion reached,
must be biased, or that the conclusion will be false.
I'll define an unbiased
conclusion as one that matches the conclusion of an "idealized
evaluation" when we ask, "If there was an objectively neutral evaluation
of the evidence, based on logic rather than desires, what would be the conclusion?" There
are two ways that biased scientists could reach an unbiased conclusion. • process: Perhaps
the scientists can overcome their tendency toward bias, and can make an objective
evaluation. • conclusion: Or a person (or group) may
strongly hope the evidence will point to a certain conclusion, and they are
incapable of making an objective evaluation, but the reality is that an objectively
neutral evaluation of the evidence actually does point to the desired conclusion,
so the scientist's bias (during the process of evaluation) makes no difference
in the conclusion.
What about falsity? Perhaps the
evidence "points
to the desired conclusion" because it is true, because "the
way they hope the world is" corresponds to "the way the world really
is," so bias does not indicate falsity.
Therefore, we cannot say "If scientists
have a motivation to be biased, their conclusion will be biased and will be
wrong," since a biased motivation can lead to four types of conclusions: biased
and wrong, biased yet true, unbiased yet wrong, unbiased and true.
Naturalism and the Origin of
Life
For judging the depth of commitment
to a naturalistic universe without miracles, it is fascinating to see
how the origin of life is handled by scientists who study it, authors
who explain it, organizations of scientists and educators, and the
media. During the past five decades, scientists have learned
that what is required for life seems to
be much greater than what is possible by natural
process, and a natural origin of carbon-based life seems implausible.
But in a typical treatment,
a textbook will admit that we don't yet know how life became alive,
but will imply that life did originate by natural process, instead
of being humble about naturalism. Why? Is this confidence in
natural process based on scientific evidence or naturalistic methodology?
All current theories for a
natural origin of carbon-based life seem highly implausible. Is
it rational for scientists to consider the possibility that life
on earth did not originate by undirected natural process, but was
the result of design-directed action? The certainty of "proof" is
impossible because we can never propose and test all possibilities
for non-design. But we could develop a logically justified
confidence that our search has been thorough yet futile, and no
promising approaches remain unexplored.
Can design be proved?
A design theory does not claim that non-design is impossible,
it only claims that design seems more probable, based on scientific evidence
and logic. This type of probability-based conclusion is consistent with
the logic of science in which proof is always impossible,
even though scientists can develop a logically justified
confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory. In science, a high
level of confidence (not proof) is the goal when scientists evaluate a theory
to determine whether it is worthy of acceptance.
If a design theory claims only to be "more
probable" or to warrant "a high level of confidence" this is the
standard by which it should be judged. It seems unreasonable for critics
of design to demand — along with radical postmodern critics who challenge
the credibility of all science — that if scientists cannot claim the certainty
of proof, they should claim nothing.
Why isn't God more obvious? Why
is there any evidence — like
a formative history with a general increase of biocomplexity and biodiversity,
with features that give an appearance of common descent, and long delays
(e.g., 3 billion years from the first life to the Cambrian Explosion)
between major biostructural innovations — that might lead some
rational people to propose "atheistic evolution" as an explanation? {three
possible answers}
Accepting Authority in Physics
and Biology
We accept the claims of physicists
about their theories of motion. By analogy, should we also accept
(in science and education) the claims of biologists about their theories
of evolution? Maybe not. Why?
First, for some aspects of evolutionary
theory (but not for basic theories of motion) there are scientific
reasons for critical thinking and caution. For scientific reasons,
some scientists disagree with other scientists. In science the
majority is usually correct, but not always.
Second, there are reasons to suspect
that cultural-personal factors are influencing the evaluations of evolution
within biology, so there are reasons for listening carefully to critics
of the "consensus conclusions" about naturalistic evolution. There
are two types of cultural-personal influence: in biology an uncritical
acceptance of evolution offers professional advantages (in getting publications,
funding, employment,...) for individuals; and for the community,
the accepted theory must be a naturalistic theory because this is required
by methodological naturalism. In education, there are similar pressures
to accept all aspects of evolutionary theory without critical questions.
Should we allow the question?
What happened when Michael Behe, a biochemist who is a proponent
of design, submitted papers to science journals questioning the sufficiency of
naturalistic evolution? Some editors were interested, but groups were intolerant. One
editorial board concluded its rejection letter, "Our
journal... believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena
of life are possible and inevitable."
In an open-minded free science, the
response would be different. Behe's thought-provoking questions would
be welcomed as a constructive challenge, an opportunity to gain a more complete
understanding of evolution at the molecular level. The journals (and
their editors) would be eager to communicate new ideas, to host invigorating
debates between critics of a theory and its loyal defenders. In a community
of scientists who are exploring freely, thinking flexibly, and dedicated
to finding truth, Behe's tough questions would be used as a stimulus for
critical analysis, creative thinking, and productive action.
But a decision to allow
questions can be a "bad career move" for a journal
editor (an
example) because the absence of design in scientific journals is
the
basis
of
an argument
(an
example from NCSE) that theories of design are not scientific — because
they're
not being proposed in science journals — so
they
should not be allowed
in the science classes of public schools. This argument produces
a strong
pressure
to
avoid breaking the "design barrier" by acknowledging
the scientific legitimacy of design questions, such as those Behe asks about
irreducible complexity, by allowing them in your journal.
Should we ask the question? In
the near future, scientists will disagree about the plausibility of
design, but conflicts are common in science, and can be productive. It
might be difficult to confidently answer the question, "Was
design-directed action involved in producing this feature?" But
it should be easy to decide, "Should we ask the question?" A
curious, open-minded community will say "YES, we want our science
to be flexible and open to inquiry, not rigid and closed by dogmatism. / Critical
Thinking in Closed Science
What difference would it
make?
Although design might significantly
affect philosophy of science, it
would have little impact on the overall productivity
of science, because most areas of science are not affected
by claims for design. But in several historical areas — including
origins of the universe, first life, and complex life — scientific
evidence-and-logic shows that design deserves to be accepted,
not as the only possible explanation, but as a potentially plausible
explanation that is worthy of serious consideration and further
development. The potential of design theories to make valuable
scientific contributions should be recognized and welcomed.
If scientists like Behe were allowed to ask questions, and
design perspectives were permitted in science, most scientists in the affected
areas would continue their non-design research — probably with renewed
vigor because they are responding to a challenge — when they hear a claim
that "maybe a non-design explanation doesn't exist." Proponents
of design want to supplement non-design research, not replace it. They
want non-design research to continue so we can learn more, so we can more accurately
evaluate the merits of non-design and design, because the goal is to find truth.
|
|
Can science influence worldviews?
A
page about the
compatibility of science and religion asks, "If you
learn and use science, will this weaken your faith?", and
examines relationships between science and religion, natural process,
miracles, and scientism. In the next four sections (through Science
and Scientism) are
excerpts:
Science and Religion (at
war?)
Painting a picture of "warfare" between science
and religion is colorful and dramatic, and is appealing for many people, but
is oversimplistic and inaccurate. It does not accurately describe what
really happened, and is rejected by modern historians such as David Lindberg
and Ronald Numbers, who say: "The encounter between
Christianity and science... is a complex and diverse interaction that defies
reduction to simple 'conflict' or 'harmony' ...[and] the interaction varied with
time, place, and person."
Science and Natural Process
In a Christian worldview, "natural" does
not mean "without God" because God designed and created natural
process, continually sustains its operation,... and can guide it so
one natural result occurs instead of another natural result. In
the Bible, the actions of God are usually natural-appearing and occasionally
miraculous-appearing. Because natural process is the way God
usually works, it is important for daily living and for science.
Science
and Miracles (Part 1)
Does scientific logic indicate
that rational people should reject Biblical reports of miracles? No. Why? First,
science does not claim that miracles are impossible. ... Second, miracles
are compatible with the logical methods of science [because]... to
do science effectively we need a world that is usually natural, but
it
doesn't
have to be always natural. ... Christians can believe that science
is a reliable source of knowledge about the world, and that miracles
did occur in the Bible, do occur now, and might have occurred in the
formative history of nature. ..... [to be continued in Part
2]
Science and Scientism
We cannot compare scripture with science, but we can compare theology (a
fallible human interpretation of scripture) with science (a
fallible human interpretation of nature) while trying
to search for truth. In theology, the main goal is to understand spiritual
realities. In science, the main goal is to understand physical
realities. But the main goals aren't the only goals, and our theories
about spiritual and physical realities are interactive: theology affects science
and our views of physical reality, while science affects theology and our views
of spiritual reality. ...
As explained earlier [in the full page],
Bible-based theology makes two major claims about physical reality. ... These
theological beliefs are compatible with science (so
they are not unscientific), but cannot
be derived from science (so they are nonscientific).
...
In principle, science can reach no scientific
conclusions about the ultimate source of natural process. And scientists
should be humble about their naturalistic theories, and should remain open
to the possibility of miracles. But in practice our views of reality
can be influenced by our perceptions of science and by the personal views
of scientists. ...
These claims about theology are
not scientific conclusions, but they can exert an unhealthy spiritual
influence on people who don't understand the difference between what
science can and cannot logically conclude about theology. Confusion
occurs when we don't distinguish between science (our
investigations of physical reality using observations, imagination, and
logic) and scientism, which is "an
exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science...
to provide a comprehensive unified picture of the meaning of the cosmos." Science
has earned our trust because it has been useful for understanding many
aspects of physical reality and for developing technology. But
when this trust is extended into areas where it is not justified, science
becomes scientism, and this can lead us to wrong conclusions. ...
As explained below, "there
are two rational ways to view historical science and miracles." ... Each
approach to science is rational and is compatible with Christian
theism. But either approach, when combined with scientism,
can lead to a rejection of theism. ... But each of these
negative results [for faith] is caused by scientism, not science. When
a Christian rejects scientism, but embraces science, the result
can be stronger faith. When science is used wisely, to
help us answer only appropriate questions, we learn more about
God's creation, and this gives us more reasons to glorify God.
The Errors of Mystical
Physics
Here is a source of influence that isn't related
to the
usual origins questions: Since 1975,
many
popular "mystical physics" books have claimed that Quantum Physics lends scientific
support to a pantheistic worldview of New Age beliefs about "creating your own
reality." These claims are based on speculations that are rejected by most
scientists.
And here are two pages I've written
about this topic: A non-mathematical Introduction
to Quantum Physics will help you understand how — at the level
of quantum effects — YES, things are very strange. But
in Common Sense Quantum Physics my scientific
arguments against "mystical physics" explain why — at the level
of everyday life — NO, things are not as strange
as some people say they are. { In addition, The
Joy of Science is illustrated in letters between two prominent scientists
who were pioneers in developing quantum physics. } Excerpts from
these three pages (and others) are in a page about The
Worldview-Neutrality of Quantum Science (and the Worldview-Implications
of Quantum Interpretations).
Science and Miracles (Part
2)
As explained earlier,
"Christians can believe that science
is a reliable source of knowledge about the world, and that miracles
did occur... and do occur." There are two rational
ways to view historical science and miracles. Among
scientists and philosophers who are Christians, some support
one approach and some think the other is better.
In one approach, a scientific
explanation cannot propose any miraculous-appearing supernatural
action in the current operation of nature or in the formative
history of nature. This methodological
naturalism (MN) is the
usual "working assumption" in science. Because
scientists who adopt MN are eliminating one possibility,
logic requires that they should also adopt MN-Humility by
recognizing that a non-naturalistic theory might be correct,
so with MN they are making if-then claims: when they
accept a naturalistic theory, they are claiming that if a
feature (an object, organism, system, event,...) was produced
by natural process, then this is how it occurred. But
the "if" is an assumption, adopted while doing
science, so there is a possibility of miracles even though
MN-science isn't considering and evaluating this possibility. Christians
can view MN-Science as one aspect
of an open search that considers
all possibilities without imposing restrictions on theorizing.
In another approach, proponents of open
science claim that — based on a scientific evaluation of evidence,
using the logical methods of historical science — scientists can recognize
the occurrence of design. Scientists could conclude that undirected
natural process was not sufficient to produce a particular observed feature,
that instead design-action was used to convert a design-idea into the reality
of a designed feature. Since design-action can be either natural (as
in making a bird nest or the faces on Mount Rushmore) or supernatural (as
in Biblical miracles), a theory of design does not propose that a miracle
has occurred, but does acknowledge this as a possibility. In open science,
a scientist begins with an MN-assumption, but does not insist on ending with
an MN-conclusion unless this is justified by the evidence. An open-thinking
scientist replaces rigid-MN (which requires
a naturalistic conclusion) with testable-MN by
treating MN as a theory that can be tested, not a conclusion that must be
accepted.
With either approach, Christians
can view science as a valuable resource that should be respected as an "expert
witness" in our search for truth, but should not be the "judge
and jury" when we're defining the way the world is, what is and
isn't real, what can and cannot happen.
Two Limits for Science
As described above, MN is
a proposed limit for what can claim to be science, while MN-Humility is
a limit for what MN-Science can claim to explain.
A Change
of Mind
In 1998, I was willing to support
either of two approaches: an open
search (with a combination of MN plus MN-Humility, using a closed
MN-Science as one part of an open search for truth) or an open
science (treating naturalism as a theory to be tested, not a conclusion
to be accepted in science). Two years later, I concluded that it
was more rational to reject rigid-MN, mainly because I had become convinced
that — in a search for truth about nature — open science is
better science, because we should let scientists
use the entire process of science (including a logical evaluation
of all competitive theories) when they are determining
the conclusions of science. Otherwise,
evaluative bias will occur because scholars who advocate an open search will
have a strong tendency to reduce their cognitive
dissonance (as
individuals and as a community) by claiming, in the non-science phase of
the open search, that "we would have reached the same conclusion in
a testable-MN open science" instead of admitting that "maybe
the rigid-MN closed science we're advocating is wrong."
Another reason to reject rigid-MN
is the rarity and futility of humility.
The Futility of Humility
In principle, an open search
(with MN-Science
plus MN-Humility) is logically acceptable. In practice, usually
the result is not satisfactory because even when MN-Humility is acknowledged
(which is rare) it is not effective. Why?
Think about what happens
when a "non-scientific" design theory and a "scientific" non-design
theory both claim to describe the same event, such as the origin
of life. Due to the cultural authority of science, the
nonscientific theory is not respected because most people assume
that, for a theory about nature, "not scientific" means "probably
not true." Instead, the scientific theory is assumed
to be more plausible, even if the scientific evidence does
not support it. And in a classroom where "only science
is taught," only the naturalistic non-design theory is
taught, and it is taught as "the conclusion of science."
Methodology can influence Philosophy
In principle, methodology
and worldview-philosophy can be independent. In practice,
they are interactive and each influences the other.
In principle, an open
search (conducted with MN-humility) can prevent the naturalistic
methodology of MN-science from influencing our philosophical
worldviews of "the way the
world is, what is and isn't real, what can and cannot happen."
In practice, methodology often
influences our thinking because naturalistic assumptions automatically
become naturalistic conclusions about "the way the world is
according to science," and many people are influenced by science.
Is methodological naturalism
theologically acceptable?
Is a naturalistic science compatible with Christianity? Yes. By
defining terms carefully — by distinguishing between methodology and philosophy,
and between naturalism and naturism — we see that Methodological Naturalism
is not Philosophical Naturism:
According to a non-theistic religious philosophy of naturism,
nature is all that exists, with no God and no divine action, so everything that
happens is caused by matter/energy in natural operation. This philosophical naturism differs
from methodological naturalism in
two ways. First, philosophical is not methodological; a theist can
adopt a naturalistic methodology (for the purpose
of doing science) but not a naturalistic philosophy (about
the way the world really is). Second, naturism is not naturalism; theists
believe that natural process is designed, created, and sustained by God, and
possibly is guided by God, so even though naturalism means "it
all happened naturally" this does not mean "it all happened without
God," which is the claim of naturism.
This section is from a page about Age
of the Universe (why it does and doesn't matter):
Can a young-earth view be dangerous
to faith?
Some prominent creationists
claim that their young-earth interpretation of the Bible
is necessary to provide a solid historical and theological
foundation for Christianity. They claim that "if the
Bible is true, the earth is young" which is equivalent to
stating that "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not
true." This is unfortunate because:
A) The link isn't justified. There
are valid reasons, based on careful linguistic and theological reasoning,
for adopting old-earth interpretations of Genesis. Although a belief
that "God created everything" is essential, belief in a young earth is
not. A young-earth theory should never be elevated into a fundamental
doctrine like the resurrection of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:14,
Paul correctly links The Resurrection with The Gospel: "If
Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." But
there should be no link with a young earth, because the
full gospel of Jesus — including his deity, virgin birth and
sinless human life, substitutionary atonement on the cross, death and resurrection,
ascension into heaven, and second coming — is
fully compatible with an old earth.
B) If a person who thinks the Bible
requires a young earth examines the scientific evidence and concludes "the
earth is old," another conclusion may be that "if the Bible is wrong about
the earth's age, maybe it's also wrong about the rest," and faith is weakened
or abandoned. * Therefore, Christians
should not encourage (and should not accept) any implication — whether
it is made by fellow Christians who want to strengthen the Gospel, or by
non-Christians who want to discredit the Gospel — that "if the earth
is not young, the Bible is not true." {* Later
in this page, you can read about the personal experiences of a few of the
many people who have struggled with this dilemma. }
And the following sections are from a page about Theistic
Evolution and Theology that explains why, even though I don't
think "totally
natural evolution" is the way it happened, I think this view
should be carefully considered, and evolutionary creationists (who
think natural evolution was God's method of creation) should be
treated with respect as fellow Christians:
Naturalistic Theories and Interpretations
In most fields of science — ranging
from physiology (re: the chemistry and physics of life) to embryology
(re: development from egg to adult) and meteorology (re: development
of wind and weather, rain and snow) — there are no theological
criticisms of scientists who accept naturalistic theories. A
theory of evolutionary creation just extends
this general acceptance into another area. .....
Scientifically, theistic
evolution agrees with neo-Darwinism; theologically, it is a theory
of divine creation. The conventional nontheistic
interpretation of
neo-Darwinism assumes that biological evolution was driven by only chance
and selection, and was not guided by God. { an example: NABT
and "unsupervised evolution" Theology } But theistic
evolution can
disagree with this extra-scientific claim of mainstream neo-Darwinism
by proposing, not just a designing of natural process by
God, but also a guiding of natural process by
God.
Religious Implications
Advocates of theistic evolution
(TE) span a wide range of theology, from generic deism to theistic
Christianity. If a person's aesthetic preference (that an "elegant
God" would not interfere with nature) becomes theological belief
(that God does not interfere with nature), it will be easier for this
person to let their worldview drift from theism into deism,
with a passive God who is not theistically active (who doesn't perform
miracles and doesn't even guide the flow of natural events) in formative
history, in biblical salvation history, or in our everyday lives. This
isn't a necessary result of TE, especially when its proponents emphasize
the actions of God (both natural and miraculous) in salvation history,
but sometimes these actions are not emphasized. .....
Theistic evolution can be associated
with theology that, in other ways, is either strong or weak. A
person with weak theistic beliefs will probably adopt TE, but this
is not logically equivalent to a claim that a person who adopts TE
has weak theistic beliefs. Similarly, an atheist must believe
in naturalistic evolution, so "if atheism then evolution" is true,
but a reversed claim ("if evolution then atheism") is not true because
some evolutionists are not atheists. { To
clearly understand this important principle of logic, think about why
the true statement "all
dogs are animals" cannot be reversed into a claim that "all
animals are dogs" which is false because some animals are not
dogs. } Therefore, guilt by association — implying that
since atheists are evolutionists, evolutionists must be atheists — is
not logical and is not true.
Or we can ask, "In society, what
are the effects (psychological, sociological, ethical, spiritual,...) of
a widespread belief in evolution? In what ways does it affect the ideas
and actions of individuals and societies?" ... { This complex
topic is very important, but it will not be discussed here. }
|