The Background

The first comment on Part 3 of this series is a question from Marie that is good enough to warrant a brief departure from the alleged rebuttals of creationism that we are considering. Marie asks:

"Doesn’t ‘creationism’ and/or ‘Intelligent Design’ - stop all scientific inquiry? To simply state ‘God did it’ seems the antithesis of science."

My response in the comments section, in part, was:

"As to the answer to your question, the short form is, no, creationism/intelligent design does NOT stop all scientific inquiry. That assertion is based on a false premise which ignores philosophy, history, and theology all in one grand arrogance."

And Marie graciously responds in part with the statement that "At this time I see no justification for - philosophy, history, and/or theology - having any bearing on science."

And Mr. England concurs with this sentiment regarding history and theology, but regales us with several points on and a good link to the philosophy of science, some of which are quite correct. I hope the following will show that all three do, indeed, have a direct bearing on science in general and the creation/evolution debate in particular.

In the Scientific American article under consideration, Mr. Rennie writes in his summary at the end:

‘Creation science’ is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism – it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.

By the terms of his second sentence, his first sentence is correct. The problem is that modern science is not the only expression of science. His second sentence is in error at its foundation because it is not an assertion of scientific fact but a declaration of a materialistic, naturalistic agenda rather than a tenet deducible by the experimental method, a philosophical assumption from outside science about how to do science. While it may be a central tenet of modern science guided by agendas, worldviews, or philosophies external from the scientific endeavor itself, it is not an inherent characteristic of scientific discipline in general. What he is trying to do is define science in a way that excludes theism a priori so his worldview may reign supreme.

He later says

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down.

What is going on here is the assertion of a deductive argument with an unstated premise that is unstated precisely because to put it in plain black and white would be too revealing of the underlying subjective unscientific bias on the part of the one making the argument. That premise is that any theistic model of reality is anti-intellectual at its core, requiring not reason or facts, but unsubstantiated "blind" faith with no questions asked or even allowed. Were this premise true, then Mr. Rennie’s conclusion would be correct, and the answer to Marie’s question would be yes.

But, as I stated in the beginning, this premise runs afoul of the data of philosophy, history, and theology. (Which is not to say that there aren’t certain "religious" quarters where anti-intellectualism may indeed be found.)

The methodological naturalism on which Mr. Rennie buttresses his assertion is a philosophical worldview that is adopted not on the basis of facts but by reason of an anti-Christian secularism. It is not required to have such underpinnings to do science as will be shown below.

Ironically, in an intermingling of philosophy, history, theology and science, modern science achieved its initial successes as man moved from a polytheistic pantheon ruling the world by the capricious whims of gods made in the image of man to the monotheistic biblical worldview of an orderly creation ruled by law and sustained by a logical Creator.

Returning to the philosophical for the moment, this methodological naturalism is an expression of the general post-Christian secular worldview permeating our current culture. In the book, Classical Apologetics, (Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley; 1984; ISBN 0-310-44951-0), we find a description of what is really going on here with Mr. Rennie’s article. (Italic emphases in the original. Bold emphases are mine.)

Secularism...is a post-Christian phenomenon carrying in its baggage, a conscious rejection of the Christian world view. It supplants the Christian consensus with its own structured view of reality. Less barbaric on the surface than paganism, secularism adopts a benevolent paternalism toward the not yet enlightened Christian who continues the practice of an anachronistic faith. Wearing a benign mask, the secularist loudly proclaims his commitment to religious tolerance on behalf of those weak-minded souls who still cannot bear to face a hostile or, worse, an indifferent universe, without the narcotic effect of ecclesiastical opium. The church is safe from vicious persecution at the hands of the secularist, as educated people have finished with stake-burning circuses and torture racks. No martyr’s blood is shed in the secularist West – so long as the church knows her place and remains quietly at peace on her reservation. Let the babes pray and sing and read their Bibles, continuing steadfast in their intellectual retardation; the church’s extinction will come not by sword or pillory, but by the quiet death of irrelevance. It will pass away with a whimper not a bang. But let the church step off the reservation, let her penetrate once more the culture of the day and the Janus-face of secularism will change from benign smile to savage snarl. (page 4)

And that is precisely what has happened, and is happening. Creationism is just one example of where the church has had the audacity to step off her reservation and seek to engage the culture. Mr. Rennie’s article is just one example of the savage snarling coming out of the secular culture being challenged today by attempts to turn our culture back to the roots of Christianity on which our country was founded (which is fact despite what your history teacher taught you, or didn’t teach you, as the case may be). In other words, the root of the resistance on the part of evolutionists is not found in the data but a nonscientific philosophical basis.

Science is intimately associated with history. History is simply the record of what has occurred in the space-time continuum of human experience (although I just made up that definition, it fits and comes close to the dictionary definition). Science is the record of what man has done in a particular arena in an effort to understand his world. Were it not recorded and were history not a part of science, we would have to continually re-invent the wheel because there would be no record of accumulated knowledge. Scientific journals are the history of what has happened in certain laboratories in this world, with an effort to interpret those events in light of previous experiences, which may also be considered historical in nature.

The data of history are incontrovertible: the foundations of science were laid by men who believed in a personal Creator God, the inspiration of the Bible and special creation, and they professed faith in Christ and the gospel. Whether all were truly "born again," as we would understand that term in a Bible-believing church today, we cannot know. Certainly some were unorthodox in their specific doctrinal beliefs, but all were creationists, and they found nothing incompatible with their faith and their work in science. Their faith did not shut down scientific inquiry but lent it motivation as they sought to understand the world their Creator had made and "think God’s thoughts after Him."

Some disciplines "established" by Bible-believing scientists (you may quibble with the use of the word "establish" but regardless, these men made significant contributions to the beginnings of these disciplines within science) include:

Antiseptic Surgery - Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Calculus - Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Celestial Mechanics - Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Chemistry - Robert Boyle (1626-1691)
Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
Computer Science - Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Dynamics - Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Electronics - Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
Energetics - Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
Field Theory - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes (1819-1903)
Galactic Astronomy - William Herschel (1738-1822)
Gas Dynamics - Robert Boyle (1626-1691)
Genetics - Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Gynecology - James Simpson (1811-1870)
Hydraulics - Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Hydrography - Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsay (1852-1916)
Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Natural History - John Ray (1627-1705)
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866)
Oceanography - Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster (1781-1868)
Paleontology - John Woodward (1665-1728)
Pathology - Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
Physical Astronomy - Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Reversible Thermodynamics - James Joule (1818-1889)
Statistical Thermodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Stratigraphy - Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
Systematic Biology - Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
Thermodynamics - Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Thermokinetics - Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
Vertebrate Paleontology - Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

For Mr. Rennie’s premise to be correct, if acceptance of a creationist model shuts down scientific inquiry, then all these men had to be either hypocrites or schizophrenic. Otherwise, what were they doing asking the questions they needed to ask to develop the scientific basis of all these fields? Note that several individuals were active in more than one area, such was the creativity of their minds. The historical data shows the lie to be Mr. Rennie’s premise.

Finally we come to theology, and let me remind my readers that by theology I mean primarily and almost exclusively Christian theology as derived from one source, the Bible (which is not to say there aren’t other theologies, only that this is my blog and I get to define which theology under which I will run the discussion; besides, it is the Christian theology to which the objections are being made). Everyone, whether they know it or not, has a theology. It is part of their worldview, the framework through which they see and interpret the world, the glasses, if you will, through which they observe all of life. It informs their choices as they are faced with the unique circumstances of their existence, and ultimately determines how they will face their own departure from this world. And it most certainly is a component of how they do science and understand the philosophy of science. Theology in this sense is simply your understanding of God and His activity. Atheists have a theology, or perhaps, an atheology, since even the belief that there is no God is a form of theology, albeit, one lacking much content.

Christian theology is grounded in the Word of God, the Bible, and as creationists hold the Bible to be a valid source document, it behooves us to determine whether or not the Bible requires a blind faith that would shut down scientific inquiry. If the answer is yes, Mr. Rennie is right; if it is no, then he is wrong. Here again we see the shallowness of Mr. Rennie’s position in his "inadequate" understanding of creationism based on the Bible.

One more point before we get specific, and that is that creationists do not believe Genesis chapters 1-3 exist in isolation from the rest of the Scriptures. So the real question requires an analysis of all of Scripture to fully understand the biblical basis for whether or not the scientific enterprise finds any sanction or condemnation.

Now the answer to this question is already implicit in the section entitled "Epistemology and Data Sources" over in Part 2 of this current series, and rather than reproduce it here, let me just briefly send you there for a quick review before I continue.

Now let’s look around in Scripture and see if any other passages come to mind regarding asking questions and the nature of faith. (The order below is more a fruit of my ruminations than any attempt at a logical organization.)

It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. (Proverbs 25:2, ESV)

Here it is stated that it is a good thing to investigate, to ask questions and seek out answers, about things God has hidden.

The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near. (Proverbs 10:14, ESV)

Knowledge here is not restricted to theological knowledge. In fact, at least in the KJV, the word knowledge is used in 41 verses in the book of Proverbs alone, and the acquisition of knowledge is "strongly encouraged," to say the least.

Now let’s see another story where faith versus evidence can be seen.

And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." And the people did not answer him a word. Then Elijah said to the people, "I, even I only, am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it. And you call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, he is God." And all the people answered, "It is well spoken." (1Kings 18:21-24, ESV)

Notice that Elijah proposes an empirical test, not an exhortation to greater faith. Just as we saw Jesus provide objective evidence for His truth statements that could not be verified directly, Elijah likewise proposes, and God ultimately provides, such evidence. Here we have a direct challenge to have faith, but it is not a blind, unthinking faith.

Again:

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11, ESV)

Even in matters of faith, the rule is to be rational, based on the biblical evidence and not just experience or some other subjective criterion.

He also said to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, ‘A shower is coming.’ And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching heat,’ and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?" (Luke 12:54-56, ESV)

Notice here Jesus condemns the crowds for failure to reason inductively about matters theological when they demonstrate their ability to do so in more practical matters such as the weather.

Many additional passage could be brought to bear, but for now a final point that will send PETA types and Greenpeacers into apoplectic shock:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:26-28, ESV)

The word "dominion" means "to tread down, to subjugate," as does the word "subdue." This matter of ruling over the earth and all the creatures thereon requires a knowledge of the creation that goes beyond that given man by His Creator. In this light, Proverbs 25:2 cited above takes on new meaning. Man must study the world in which he finds himself in order to have a dominion that glorifies his Creator by using it wisely. The word "stewardship" comes to mind relative to this concept of ruling, because man’s rule is over God’s creation, not his own, and nowhere is man given the authority to destroy God’s creation in his ruling. In the Garden of Eden, man is told to "work it and keep it." (Genesis 2:15) "Work and keep" does not mean "plunder and pillage." In fact, the word "to keep" literally means "to hedge about, to protect."

And so it goes. The Christian faith does have components that require belief in the sense of simple trust, but it is not an unreasoning blind faith divorced from rationality. The scientific enterprise as a whole is encouraged as an approach for all of life; just not the naturalistic materialism of Mr. Rennie and the evolutionists.

Returning then to Marie’s initial question, the full answer based on the above is that neither creationism nor intelligent design "simply state" that God did it, and leave it at that. Stating the who (God) does not answer the how (the science), and the how (the science) is important to correctly engage in the what (the stewardship over creation given us by the Creator).

First installment

Last installment

Next installment