Science &
Faith
Home
Topics
About
Science & Faith
Apologetics
Archeolog
& Ant
Astronomy &
Cosmology
Bible
& Science
Creation & Evolut
Education
Environment
Ethics
Historical
Studies
Mathematics
Origin of
Life
Philosophy
Physical
Science
Psychology
&
Neur
Science
&
Technology
Ministry
Teaching & Research
Worldview
Whole-Person
Education
Youth Page
Publications
JASA/PSCF
Articles
Book
Reviews
ASA/CSCA
Newsletter
Recommended
Books
________________________
Biographies
Biblical
Interpretation Creation
and
Providence Doctrine
of Scripture
Introduction
The Nature and Practice of Science
About
Science And Faith
An entry-level approach to
science-Christianity Studies
"The
fear of the Lord is the
beginning of Wisdom." Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 1:7
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1
"Upholding the Universe by His Word of Power" Hebrews 1:3
"Let no man think upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or the book of God's works, divinity or philosophy: but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware ... that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together. (Sir Francis Bacon, 1605)
Christians
believe that their
faith touches all of life – including the study of nature and the use
of the
natural world for human welfare. Discussions about God and nature have
taken
place with varying degrees of intensity since the time of the early
church. For the most part, Christians
have felt
that faith and science should live in harmony when each is
properly
understood.
However, as science
gained a deeper understanding of the natural world and became more
important in
daily life, it opened many new possibilities for interaction and
potential conflict
with Christian beliefs. The
American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) was
established in 1941 to support
Christian students who found that they were unable to effectively
respond to challenging questions posed by college and university
faculty with little sympathy for the
Christian faith. Over the years the ASA purpose has
broadened to
include all Christians and anyone interested in the issues that are
addressed.
We seek to make the resources of this web site useful for
those who are
looking for answers to specific concerns or who may be turning to the
field for
the first time. If you want to dig deeper, there is plenty of material
to further your understanding.
The rise of science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was accompanied by a diminishing influence of the Church and the Bible in western society and the turn to a secular society where government, education and medicine are for the most part independent of church structures and beliefs. Scholars continue to debate the fine points of how this has played out in Europe and North America. As time passed Americans have seen science-religion questions become fodder for the media in such events as the Tennessee Scopes trial (1928) and the recent Dover PA School Board legal episode (2005). As the US inched toward the 2008 presidential election these topics became part of the debates.
Today, some American Christians feel endangered by the results of scientific study and the philosophical conclusions that some non-Christians have drawn. Others include negativism toward science as part of a political package in the culture wars. However, many Christians regard science as a gift from God that can be of enormous value to the human condition and are working to use science in a God-honoring way in medicine, agriculture and innumerable other areas.
This
introduction will first offer some
basic considerations that are important when considering particular
issues.
Also, as many questions have roots in the
past
it is important to take
into account these earlier responses before we jump into the present
.
In examining science-faith issues, we must appreciate the fact that different people may come to different conclusions when faced with the same evidence and that the evidence (or the way that we assess the evidence) may change over time. As one digs, what may appear clear on the surface becomes more complex and sometimes unsolvable based on the information at hand. Humility and reserving judgment are valuable virtues.
Christians believe that God has revealed himself in nature as well as in the written word (sometimes called the "Two Books" concept). The ASA seeks to do justice to both sources of revelation. While it is important to carefully evaluate faith-science issues, we should also recognize that our redemption is not affected by our decisions in this arena. Most importantly, the fact that Christians disagree should not destroy the fellowship that we have in Christ.
Perhaps, it
would be much easier to function as
though modern science and the Bible had nothing to do with each other
except in
matters involving morals and ethics, but that would ignore what
historian Colin
Russell describes as
This material is offered to students of all ages to help you to become informed, make decisions and strengthen your faith.
Whether
you are new to the subject or an
"old hand" finding this page for the first time it is important that
you develop a grasp of the nature and use of both Scripture
and science before plunging into the issues that capture our mind today.
Our understanding of scripture is key to building a Christian world view that takes revelation in nature and scripture seriously. Yet we must recognize the struggle that this has been for Christians since the time of the early church fathers. Shades of difference in interpretive views and the cultural surroundings of local churches may set the stage for confrontation that builds walls also " ministries" staunchly dedicated to defending a particular view against all odds. We ask that you consider what may be new, and perhaps, conflicting ideas, before drawing your own conclusions.
You may
remember the song, The
B-I-B-L-E, from the Church nursery class or in your home. The
words go...
"The
B-I-B-L-E; yes that's the book for me.
I stand alone on the Word of God.
The B-I-B-L-E."
The
doctrine of Scripture is
vitally important; for it is through the instrumentality of the Word
(preached
and read) that God saves us and causes us to grow in the
grace that is in
Christ Jesus. Only through the Scriptures do we have the knowledge of
God in
Jesus Christ. While we claim that scripture is the final authority, the
problem
remains of making that affirmation a living reality through
sound
interpretation and consistent application
to life's situations – which
include the challenge of science. How we value the Bible and questions
of biblical
interpretation have continued to cause divisions among the people of
God who
seek to relate scientific advances and the Bible. Some thinkers feel that
the Bible has no
relation at all to the day-to-day work of the scientist. Others believe
that
scripture has much to say about particular details of interest to
scientists and
insist that the biblical picture holds priority when the two sources of
information appear
to conflict. Others
feel that the
picture is more complex and emphasize the need to carefully examine the
points
of disagreement and withhold
judgment until better
information is
available.
The Gutenberg Bible at
the
Ransom Center
Volume 1, Old Testament, Book of Judges, pages 114 verso and 115 recto
We
will start with the assumption that
the Bible and science have some overlapping interests. The Bible speaks
of
beginning, scientists are interested in how the universe came to be;
the Bible speaks of ethics,
scientists need principles to guide their practices, and so on.
Today one may find different attitudes toward scripture: for some the Bible is the actual Word of God; others, claim the Bible contains the word of God; while other see the Bible as a wide-ranging human document that is one among many similar ancient documents..
The "(strict) literalist" view maintains that the meaning of Scripture is obvious and needs no interpretation. On the other hand, the "critical" (sometimes called "historical") view maintains that a scientific study of languages, culture, history, archaeology, etc. is necessary to overcome the vast distance in time and culture between the present and the actual Bible events. While the latter approach may seem reasonable, evangelicals have been wary or negative toward critical methods of reading the Bible.
It is noteworthy that "literalists" of the reformation period recognized the use of literary devices such as poetry, parables, similes and metaphors by the biblical writers as well the need for literary methods as tools for understanding the deeper meanings of scripture.
Some have charged that biblical criticism originated with anti-Christian writers who valued reason and logic over faith and revelation whose goal was to discredit and ridicule the Bible and Christianity. Their analysis techniques were picked up by some liberal theologians and initially used to explain away and discount biblical accounts of prophecy, miracles, personal demons, etc. However, current evangelical theologians effectively use literary methods of analysis such as the framework interpretation in understanding scripture related to the natural world.
Biblical
Hermeneutics:
"relates to the subject of how one is to understand Holy Scripture. By
definition, this is a theological
act, i.e. part of the discussion of a faith-community
Evangelical theologians are actively engaged in studying the influence of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE)Documents on the early Old Testament , as well as the literary form in which early Genesis is written. Time will tell whether these conclusions will join earlier interpretations that have challenged Christians seeking to blend scientific accounts of the past with the biblical record.
Nothing is more highly debated is ASA circles as the way that the early chapters of of Genesis relate to the history and character of the world as we know it. Historically, this has resulted in two styles of approach. Concordism is the hermeneutical belief that scripture and science are in agreement. The first takes the Bible in a more or less literal - chronological fashion and seeks to fit the science of the day to fit that reading of the Bible.1 Many evangelicals hold a concordist position. This approach is found today in scientific creationism and various apologetic ministries. One value seen in this strategy is that proving that modern science aligns with the Bible provides powerful evidence for the inspiration of scripture and support for Christian apologetics and evangelism. A second tradition views the Bible and science as providing two kinds of information: the Bible provides a picture of the Creator, purpose and plan for creation while science offers details and concepts that are refined and transformed as more information is received. The pages of PSCF reflect the variety of strategies of relating scripture and nature.2
We often hear the cry that the Word of God always gives in to the word of science. Yet we forget that there have often been good reasons for this. Christians of an earlier time and some today have been all too willing to espouse fanciful unfounded descriptions of nature in an attempt to save favored models of biblical interpretation.
References
1One
may hold a concordist position on
historical narratives as found in
Gen. 1-3 even though the chronology of the story is
figurative. It is the
actual characters and the events which are historical in a concordist
sense. See
Kline
2
The recent letters of Seeley and Godfrey,
Blodgett,
Hill,
Mcintyre,
Godfrey,
and earlier Kline,
are just the tip of the iceberg of debate.
Recent Biblical Hermeneutics Studies
Books
Peter Enns, Inspiration
and Incarnation:
Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, 2005
Grand Rapids MI:
Baker Academic, Paperback.
C. John Collins, Genesis
1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, And Theological Commentary
318 pp.,
ISBN: 0875526195, 2006, P & R Publishing, Paperback,
(List $17.99,
CBD $14.99).
W. Robert Godfrey,
God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1.
144
pages. ISBN: 087552799X, 2003,
P & R Publishing,
Paperback. (List:$10.99, CBD: $8.99)
Lee
Irons & Meredith Kline,
in "The Genesis Debate," ed. David Hagopian, 2001
Crux Press,
Paperback.
James McKeown, Genesis The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary, 398 pp., 
ISBN-10: 0802827055, 2008, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
John Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary,
2001
Articles
Richard H. Bube,
"Towards
A
Christian View Of Science," JASA
23:(March 1971): 1-4.
Peter Enns, “Preliminary Observations on an Incarnational Model of Scripture,” Calvin Theological Journal 42 (2007), pp. 219-236.
Meredith Kline,
"Space
and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,"
PSCF
48:(March 1996): 2-15.
Clark
H. Pinnock, "The
Ongoing Struggle Over Biblical Inerrancy,"
JASA 31 (June 1979): 69-74.
Paul H. Seely, "The
First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context,"
PSCF 49 (June 1997): 85-95.
Walter R. Thorson, "Hermeneutics
for Reading the Book of Nature,"
55 PSCF (June
2003): 99-101.
Two
fundamental planks in a
Christian world view are the Doctrines of Creation
and
Creation
A report
from the ASA Commission on Creation (2000)
offers a General
Statement on 
Creation which it was felt to reflect the general
thinking of the ASA
community and several more statements representing narrower
views on the
details of creation. One might think that biblical and
scientific scholars
could have gotten together and forged a definitive statement on origins
rather
than a grocery list but the issues are too complex to achieve accord.
at this
time. We can agree on the who and perhaps the when
but the how is speculative. We
see patterns in nature and marvel at
its detailed interworkings, harmony, and beauty as those created in the
image of
God but the details elude us.
c. 1275-1300. Creation
"As the pinnacle of God's creative activity, humans stand responsible for their stewardship of fellow creatures and the earth. Indeed, a helpful corrective which has emerged in contemporary theology is the recognition that the cosmos is neither "mere nature" nor "our world," but is most properly "God's creation." Humans are granted a high degree of delegated agency within God's creation, but it remains fundamentally God's alone. This affirmation underlines the tremendous charge of stewardship to humankind by the Creator."
"Creation is not a brute fact without meaning. It derives its meaning from the divine character and will. As the theater of God's redemptive activity, creation is not static, but is moving toward the goal established by the Creator before the foundation of the universe. Creation, like the humans within it, has a future." (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Getting it Right from the Beginning )
Creation in the Creeds and Confessions
Apostles' Creed. (roots in apostolic times) I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth
Baptist Confession of Faith
(1689)
In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit,
1
for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, 2
wisdom,
and goodness, to create
or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or
invisible, in the
space of six days, and all very good. 3
1 John 1:2,3;
Heb. 1:2; Job 26:13, 2 Rom.
1:20, 3 Col.
1:16; Gen. 1:31
Belgic Confession. (1619) We believe that the Father, deeming it good, created heaven and earth and all other creatures from nothing by the Word--that is to say, by the Son. God has given all creatures their being, form, appearance, and their various functions for serving their Creator. Even now God also sustains and governs them all, by his eternal divine providence, and by infinite divine power, that they may serve humanity, in order that humanity may serve God.
Nicene Creed. (381) I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
THE
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
(1646) I. It
pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of
the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning,
to
create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether
visible or
invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good. II.
After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male
and female,
with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge,
righteousness, and
true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in
their
hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of
transgressing,
being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto
change.
Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not
to eat of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were
happy in
their communion with God, and had dominion over the
creatures.
Providence
Providence involves the question of Gods relation to the World; it is the most comprehensive and difficult in the compass either of theology or of philosophy. The World, meaning thereby the universe of created beings, includes the world of matter and the world of mind. The doctrine of providence concerns, first, the relation of God to the external or material universe; and secondly, his relation to the world of mind, or to his rational creatures.
Providence in the Creeds and Confessions
Belgic Confession (1619) We believe that the same God, after He had created all things, did not forsake them or give them up to fortune or chance, but that He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment; nevertheless, God neither is the Author of nor can be charged with the sins which are committed. For His power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he orders and executes His work in the most excellent and just manner, even then when devils and wicked men act unjustly. And as to what He does surpassing human understanding, we will not curiously inquire into farther than our capacity will admit of, but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgments of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are pupils of Christ, to learn only those things which He has revealed to us in His Word, without transgressing these limits.
This doctrine affords us unspeakable consolation, since we are taught thereby that nothing can befall us by chance, but by the direction of our most gracious and heavenly Father; who watches over us with a paternal care, keeping all creatures so under His power that “not a hair of our head (for they are all numbered), nor a sparrow can fall to the ground without the will of our Father,” in whom we do entirely trust; being persuaded that He so restrains the devil and all our enemies that without His will and permission they cannot hurt us.
And therefore, we reject that damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God regards nothing but leaves all things to chance.
London
Confession of Baptist Faith 1689
I. God the good creator of all
things, in His infinite power and wisdom, doth uphold, direct, dispose,
and govern all His creatures and
things, 1] from the greatest even to the least,[ 2] by His most wise
and holy providence, to the end for which they were created, according
unto His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel
of His own will; to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power,
justice, infinite goodness, and
mercy. [3]
1. Heb. 1:3; Job 38:11; Isa. 46:10-11; Psa.
135:6, 2. Matt.
10:29-31, 3. Eph. 1:11.
II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of
God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and
infallibly; [4] so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or
without His
providence; [ 5] yet by the same providence He ordereth them to fall
out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily,
freely, or
contingently. [6] 4. Acts 2:23, 5. Prov.
16:33,
6. Gen. 8:22
III. God, in His ordinary providence maketh use of means ,
[7] yet is free to work
without, [8] above, [9] and against them [10] at His
pleasure. 7. Acts 27:31, 44; Isa. 55:10-11, 8. Hosea
1:7, 9. Rom. 4:19-21,
10. Dan. 3:27
Westminister
Confession of Faith (1646)
God the
great Creator of all things doth
uphold,[ a] direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and
things, [b] from the greatest even to the
least, [c] by His most wise and holy providence,[ d] according to His
infallible
foreknowledge, [
The Nature and Practice of Science
Ask a scientist friend to define science and you will be surprised by the response. What seems easy to explain and obvious to anyone takes many twists and turns when one is active in scientific research or engages in "philosophical analysis" about how science works.
Here are a few definitions:
- Science is: 1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy. Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology
- Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts. a lecture series at the University of South Alabama
- Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena. Science is about gaining a deeper and often useful understanding of the world. Multicultural History of Science page at Vanderbilt University.
- Science
alone of all the
subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in
the
infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . .
.As a
matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the
belief in
the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize win
ning physicist, in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out - To do science is to search for repeated patterns, not simply to accumulate facts. Robert H. MacArthur, Geographical Ecology
- Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt. Richard Feynman
- The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view. . . . A true scientist is bored by knowledge; it is the assault on ignorance that motivates him - the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. The forest is more interesting than the clearing. Matt Ridley, 1999 Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters, p. 271.
- There
is no
philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological
signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest. Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist, quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought
The
stumbling way in which even the ablest
of the scientists in every generation have had to fight through
thickets of
erroneous observations, misleading generalizations
Regardless of the diverse ways that scientists describe their task and the ways this plays out in their own experience, it is clear that science is both understanding and doing - making sense of nature and making "better things for better living" as the former du Pont slogan proclaimed. The interweaving of medical research to discover the mechanism of a disease and the search for a cure illustrate the complexity of doing science.
Many of us take our ideas about the nature of science from Francis Bacon - who lived four centuries ago. For Bacon, science is the objective pursuit of reliable knowledge. Although one might "know" something through authority, faith, or intuition, scientific method is distinct in that it must be possible for other investigators to ascertain the truth of scientific theories. It is founded on objective observation, the formulation of hypotheses that fit the data and predict other possibilities, repeatable experiments that can fail as well as succeed, and analysis and review by the scientific community. Baconian science rests ultimately on pure, objective dispassionately collected observational data followed by the application of special logical procedures to those data in order to produce scientific theories. This set of stringent procedures constituted the 'scientific method.' - something you learned by 8th grade.
This view of science achieved dominance, becoming practically the official conception by the early 20th century, and still underlies many popular ideas about science. But however attractive its promises, Baconian inductivism is in fact irreparably defective, disintegrating at nearly every point when examined by philosophers. Among its many problems are these: (a) There simply is no form of logic by which theories, laws, and the like can be inferred from empirical data; and (b) Empirical procedures cannot confer certainty upon any scientific theory.
The following summary of an article by Philosopher of Science, Del Ratzsch sets forth the current situation:
The only way to test proposed theories or hypotheses was to deduce experimental or other observational predictions from the theory or hypothesis (hence the term hypothetico-deductivism), then see whether or not the predictions matched observed reality, thereby confirming or contradicting the theory. Hypothetico-deductivists believed that although theories could not be proved true, they could at least be empirically confirmed.
Not everyone agreed, A number of people (claiming to follow Karl Popper) concluded for technical, logical reasons that theories could not even be confirmed, much less proved. But in their view, science could at least prove specific theories to be false by uncovering empirical data contrary to predictions of those theories. Unfortunately, even this modest claim turned out to be too strong.
Historically, it was almost universally believed that perception was neutral, in the sense that genuinely honest and careful observation was unaffected by beliefs, presupposition, philosophical preferences, or similar factors. This neutrality guaranteed the objectivity and utter trustworthiness of empirical data, which constituted the secure foundation of science. But that perceived neutrality came under attack in the mid-20th century. Thomas Khun, for example, argued that perception itself was an active--not a passive--process, deeply colored by the broader conceptual matrices, or paradigms, to which one had prior allegiances.
Thus, this view not only destroyed the allegedly rigid, logical structure of science, but also threatened the pure objectivity of its foundation. Furthermore, paradigms influenced not only perception, but also theory evaluation and acceptance, conceptual resources, normative judgments within science, and a host of other consequential matters. And, according to Kuhn, paradigms were partially defined by, among other things, metaphysical commitments and values. Thus, non-empirical, human-suffused perspectives had seeped into the no-longer-inviolable scientific method at all levels, from empirical bedrock to theoretical pinnacle. One consequence of underdetermination was that no amount of (even pure) empirical data could point to just one theory among competitors.
Thus, if one adopted a realist stance toward theories, claiming that some specific scientific theory was actually true, rather than merely a useful model, the selection of that specific theory had to involve (at least implicitly) factors beyond just the empirical. Kuhn's own list of operative non-empirical principles was relatively tame--simplicity, fruitfulness, measurability, accuracy, and the like. But some postmodernists went much further, claiming, for instance, that the very heart of science contained political agendas, social biases, dominance hierarchies, gender prejudices, and so on. But what can no longer be denied is that a science with utter objectivity, absolute logical rigidity, and purely empirical foundations is not an attainable ideal. Most contemporary mainline commentators argue that despite the unavoidable dependence of science upon resources other than just empirical data and reason, scientific results can still claim significant rational justification and epistemic legitimacy.
Rigor, objectivity, and warrant may be less than absolute, even less than many fervently hope, but science can still get at theoretical truth. A tempered realism still seems defensible. Realist claims are plausible only if we have grounds for confidence in the human perceptual and cognitive structures that, inescapably, function within science.
[Editorial Comment)] Beyond that, the principle of underdetermination of theory by data indicates that science requires a conceptual environment extended beyond the merely empirical. Historically, that indispensable confidence and conceptual richness were drawn from religious principals. Some current historians argue that without the broader Christian conceptual matrix, modern science might never have arisen. Ideally, a worldview should be a unified, integrated whole. But for much of the 20th century, many people thought that religion and science were simply irrelevant to each other. At worst, religion was seen as fighting a rearguard action against the seemingly inexorable advance of a science destined to conceptually engulf everything it touched. Science is now recognized as (1) at least partially embedded in a wider conceptual context and (2) unavoidable drawing resources from that wider context. 'Science' can thus be locked into place within a number of different worldviews, with advocates of each claiming that it confirms their particular view. There are many who insist on some version of methodological naturalism--that whatever the ultimate metaphysical reality, genuine science as science must (either definitionally or practically be completely detached from everything other than the purely natural. But rigid cases for such prohibitions are increasingly difficult to construct, and even some secular thinkers now admit that there are no compelling reasons why Christian thought cannot contribute to a legitimate conceptual context for science. Thus, it seems that empirical data and science is pretty much an imaginary idea. What we are really dealing with is interpretations of data and science within philosophical foundations. These can include Ontological Naturalism, Methodological Naturalism, and even Creationism (typically Young Earth Creationism). Old Earth Creationism apparently finds its foundation in Methodological Naturalism.--JWH
See: J. Andrew Kirk, The Future of Reason, Science and Faith: Following Modernity and Post-Modernity (2007)
A view from the ASA Listserve:
Perhaps natural science is distinguished from other fields of knowledge in that natural scientists attempt to
explain why things happen via causes that operate consistently, can be manipulated (i.e. selectively
combined with other causes), and measured.
Experiments in the natural sciences test understandings of how causes operate by combining causes (perhaps in a novel way), predicting outcomes, measuring actual outcomes, comparing the actual with the predicted, modifying the understandings to match actual outcomes, combining causes in a new way and predicting new outcomes, etc.
Scientific explanations of past events can be fully scientific, if the explanations employ causes that can be
tested. Reproducing the historical event is not absolutely necessary, as long as the causes can be tested.
Under this definition, the humanities (art, history, theology, literature, languages, philosophy) would differ
from the natural sciences in that the humanities' explanations invoke personal agents who act freely and
possibly inconsistently and who might not be manipulatable or even measurable. Note, however, that
certain humanities explanations are quite objective and rational. In fact, I personally think that mathematics
is closer to philosophy than it is to natural science, though both natural sciences and social sciences are
very dependent upon mathematical tools.
Under this definition, explanations in the social sciences (economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology)
blend natural science explanations and humanities explanations.
Natural science encounters limits not only when dealing with free personal agents, but also when dealing
with any (even impersonal) entities that behave inconsistently (unpredictable, random, chance, etc. events).
However, if by combining a sufficient number of such events a consistent pattern emerges, then the
explanation of that pattern is still scientific (e.g., gas laws, radioactive decay, diffraction of photons passing
through parallel slits, etc. ). Of course, below or beyond the aforementioned limit, questions and answers
would go beyond science (e.g., are quantum events caused or uncaused?). Metaphysics is distinct from
natural science. By the way, I share Poe and Mytyk's preference for wanting natural science to be "
metaphysically neutral" (see the Sept. 2007 issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith), whether
or not one thinks the term "methodological naturalism" works in practice (Poe and Mytyk think it does not).
Natural science also encounters practical limits when the complexity and subtlety of the causes exceeds our ability to measure and integrate them (e.g. meteorology, evolution). Thus it may be impossible to reproduce, even theoretically, past weather events or past evolutionary trajectories. But notice that meteorology and biological evolution are still natural sciences, because their identified underlying causes (though unrealistically oversimplified when only a few are isolated and manipulated) do appear to operate consistently, can be manipulated, and be measured.-- Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.Jitse M. van der Meer, "The Struggle Between Christian Theism, Metaphysical Naturalism And Relativism,: How To Proceed In Science? Pascal Centre, Redeemer College Ancaster, Ontario Canada 1995. A thesis arguing that Christians are mistaken in their belief that material reality can be understood without reference to non-material created causes, such as mind, or to non-material uncreated causes, such as God.
Conclusion:
One of the enjoyable aspects of relating science and Christianity is the ever-changing challenge of new discoveries. Environmental questions, medical advances, astronomy, neuroscience, the social sciences offer new challenges for reflection. None of us can be an expert on everything, but we can cultivate ways of thinking and attitudes that allow us to be a productive part of the discussions .
"There is a clear analogy between the limitations on the scientist and those on the theologian. The scientist must submit his mind to the data of experiment, the theologian must submit his to the data of revelation. The word “data” means “the things that are given.” Both the religious person and the scientist accept givens. The givens may perplex. They may seem difficult to bring into harmony with each other or with what is known on other grounds. They may throw all our theories into confusion. But accepting the data must come before progress in understanding. That is why the words of St. Augustine apply, in a way, to the scientist as much as to the theologian: credo ut intelligam, “I believe in order that I may understand.”
"So we see in science something akin to religious faith. The scientist has confidence in the intelligibility of the world. He has questions about nature. And he expects—no, more than expects, he is absolutely convinced—that these questions have intelligible answers. The fact that he must seek those answers proves that they are not in sight. The fact that he continues to seek them in spite of all difficulties testifies to his unconquerable conviction that those answers, although not presently in sight, do in fact exist. Truly, the scientist too walks by faith and not by sight." Stephen F. Barr
We close this page with several useful articles and materials on science and a number of short autobiographies of ASA members.
The Nature
of Science
A
short
primer on the practice of science
Science
for All Americans: Book about Science Literacy By Project 2061 - American
Association for the
Advancement of Science. A Short volume covering the
basics of
science.
World Science
a useful source of
science news
Mark Strand, "Transcultural
Issues in Science," PSCF (March
2003) 41.
Gregg Easterbrook, The
New
Convergence 2002. Times
are a' changing! A view from the outside.
Jonathan Sacks, "Power
& Responsibility:
Biographies and Autobiographies
Arie Leegwater, 'Giving and Receiving': Charles A. Coulson's Witness as a Christian Scientist. Audio a presentation at the ASA/CIS Edinburgh Meeting, 2007
Colin Russell, Science and Faith in the Life of Michael Faraday • Audio MP3. A Faraday Institute Lecture, 28/2/2006.
Sujit Sivasundaram, William Carey and the Serampore College: Science and Religion in 19th Century India • Audio MP3. A Faraday Institute Lecture, 28/11/2006.
We welcome your comments Jack Haas: haas.john@comcast.net ________________________________________________________
Top Last entry: 05/12/2008