Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 5)

So, as many of you know by now, I am in the middle of a series on science and Scripture (actually nature and Scripture, and you can read about why I make that distinction in the first post), and my goal in this series has not been to tell you what to think regarding some of the sub-topics of science and Scripture (e.g. the age of the universe) but to help you to learn how to think about science biblically and consistently as a Christian. In the first four posts in this series, laid a biblical framework for doing just that, using the analogy of building an intellectual and spiritual "house." And, in sum, that framework is the following:

1. In the first post of this series, I defended the idea that all truth is God's truth, and in some fashion all truths point us to God, which is the concrete for our foundation in the metaphorical houses we are building.
2. In the second post of this series, we looked at the Belgic Confession and saw that God reveals His truth and we discover it through the two "books" of nature and Scripture. From that I argued that God has revealed Himself infallibly in the books Scripture and nature, and since God is the author of both books there is no inherent contradiction between the two. When it comes to the house we are building, this is the foundation upon which we will build everything else.
3. In the third post of this series, we began to look at human fallibility, and I argued that when apparent conflicts arise, it is not because science and the Bible are in conflict but because we human beings are either interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly. We can think of this as the framework for our house, upon which we can put a metaphorical roof and walls.

And, in the fourth post in this series, we talked about where the conflict really lies when we hear about apparent "contradictions" between science and faith, science and Christianity, or however one words the tension. There I argued that the conflict is not between science and Christianity but between two worldviews: naturalism and theism. In short, it is not that "science" says things that conflict with what Scripture actually teaches but that a scientist interpreting the data through a naturalistic worldview says those things, but a Christian can interpret the same data from science through a theistic and biblical worldview and derive an interpretation that is just as valid. So, the conflict is not between science and Scripture or the data they give us but between the worldviews of fallible humans interpreting that data. And, if we move the argument up out of the finer details of various interpretations of data into the realm of worldview, then we get at the heart of the problem, and the debate becomes which worldview can best explain the universe in which we live.

Today we are going to move forward using this biblical framework for thinking about science and Scripture, and we are going to start to talk about how to live in a world that is over-impressed by science. Now, when I say "over-impressed by science," please do not misunderstand me. I love science. My background is in physics, and I still read several of the top journals on a regular basis. Science is a great tool, but our culture has raised science from the level of a wonderful tool to the status of an all-encompassing worldview, which is not where it belongs (see this post for more details on that). That is why I say our contemporary culture is "over-impressed by science." So, we need to learn how to live in such a world, and, moving forward, learning how to live in our day and age, will help us to put the "walls" and a "roof" on the metaphorical houses that we are building. But, let me say right at the outset that our houses will not be perfect. There will be some leaks in our roofs and drafts in our walls because we are fallible humans, but if we learn to think within the biblical framework we have laid out, our houses can be sufficient to live confidently as Christians in our world.

First, we need to talk briefly about the ways that people attempt to relate science and Scripture, science and faith, or however one puts the tension. There is a continuum of possibilities with two polar extremes, and we need to think about where in this continuum we should build our "houses":

On one end of the spectrum is the constant clash idea. This is the view of many today who write books and news articles, and it’s the idea science and religion, particularly Christianity, will always be at odds. Usually this is held by atheists and they use it to say that Christianity simply needs to give up and listen to everything they claim "science says," which remember is not science but their naturalistic interpretation of the data. However, I have met some Christians that try to live here. Yet, I would argue that is not faithful to Scripture. As we talked about yesterday, God has told us that He has revealed Himself and His truth in nature, so the study of nature starting from the proper, biblical assumptions, will never truly conflict with Christianity. That was the foundation of our house that we learned about in the third post.

On the other end of the spectrum is the independence idea. This is the view that "science" and Christianity are totally independent of one another. They should never come into contact so they should never conflict, agree, or relate to each other at all. Some more moderate atheists take this position, but usually they are not the ones writing books because they do not care to write books about two things that, in their view, should not interact at all anyway. Yet, this is not sustainable either. The worldview of naturalism held by many scientists puts them in the position of having to make religious conclusions: like how the universe came into being, what is the meaning of our existence, why the universe is finely tuned for life, etc. Their answers to those questions are answers that are inherently religious, which sets them up right in front of Christians ready to clash. Now, I have also heard some Christians take this view. They usually phrase it differently, saying something like: "Science answers the "how" and "when" questions--e.g. how the universe came into being and when it happened--and Christianity answers the "who" and "why" questions--who created it and why He did it." Now, there is some truth to that, but it is not completely true and fails at several points:

• First, because someone has to approach the data from science with a worldview and interpret it within that worldview, they have assumptions about "who" and "why" that play into their interpretation of "how" and "when." If the naturalist assumes no one created it and there is no meaning to it, then that affects how they interpret the data. Christians know God created the universe and that He did it for His own glory, which affects how we interpret the data as well. So, the "how" and "when" questions can never really be independent of the answers we assume to the "who" and "why" questions.
• Second, while Scripture is not a scientific textbook designed to give us details about genetics, physics, biology, etc., that does not mean Scripture has nothing to say about our universe and how it came into being. Ge. 1-2; Jb. 9, 38-41; Ps. 104, 148; and many other Scriptures make some very specific claims about the creation of this universe. We do not have time to discuss the creation account itself and the various interpretations of those passages, but one cannot simply say, "Well, all those passages are just allegories or something like that and aren't making scientific claims." They are to some degree or another. So, Scripture does have some things to tell us about the universe and the how and when of its creation, and since Scripture is our highest authority that should come into play for a Christian interpreting the data from science.
• Third, while the data science gives us from nature is not a philosophical or theological textbook designed to give us details about God, nature is a book written by God that does declare His power and manifest some of His divine attributes. That is why Ro. 1:20 says, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they [i.e. all mankind] are without excuse." So, nature does have some things to tell us about the who and why of creation. These things are not as detailed as what Scripture tells us, but it is simply false to claim there is no information about God there at all.

So, an atheist who does not understand Scripture and who does not think through his naturalistic assumptions completely might be able to get away with saying that science and religion should simply be completely independent, but a Christian who wants to be faithful to God's Word cannot live there. So, we Christians have to build our house in the middle, which is integration territory--Scripture is our highest authority that puts parameters around how we interpret the data from scientific research, and the data from scientific research can help us refine our interpretations of Scripture. This is where we start to put walls a roof on our intellectual houses that we are building.

As we move forward in learning how to live in a world over-impressed with science, we need to talk about an idea that is inherent in the last sentence of the previous paragraph: mutual correction between our interpretations of science and our interpretations of Scripture. Now, please when I say that, do not jump to the conclusion that I am trying to say the claims of scientists can overturn/override Scripture. They cannot. I am committed to the inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of Scripture, as we talked about in the first post. Have you ever heard of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy? It is a document about the inerrancy of Scripture written in 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders a bunch of different denominations. It is very, very helpful in defining inerrancy. In the 12th article it says this:

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

I completely agree with that statement. But, note that it says scientific hypotheses cannot overturn the "teaching of Scripture," i.e. they cannot overturn God's infallible revelation, what Scripture actually teaches. And, of course they cannot. God is the author of both books, so the data from science properly interpreted will never even attempt to overturn the actual teaching of Scripture, and if it does, then that theory is just wrong. But, that little world "actual" is very important. R.C. Sproul, who was one of the great pastors and defenders of the Christian faith of the 20th century, wrote in his book Scripture Alone when talking about this article of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy:

It is important to note that the second denial… does not carry with it the implication that scientific hypotheses or scientific research are useless to the student of the Bible or that science never has anything to contribute to an understanding of biblical material. It merely denies that the actual teaching of Scripture can be overturned by teachings from external sources… To say that science cannot overturn the teaching of Scripture is not to say that science cannot aid the church in understanding Scripture, or even correct false inferences drawn from Scripture or actual misinterpretations of the Scripture.

Perhaps several examples might be helpful here. First, any claim of a scientist about his scientific research cannot overturn the actual teaching of Scripture.

• For example, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have each written a book claiming that God is no longer necessary for the beginning of the universe (my responses to both of them can be found here and here). They claim that the universe could create itself and attempt to show why that can happen. Now, there are a number of scientific inaccuracies in their claim (check out my responses for some of those), but from a Christian, biblical perspective, we do not even need to go that far to know they are just plain wrong. However we interpret the creation of account of Scripture, there is one thing that is beyond dispute when it comes to the actual teaching of Scripture: God did the creating. Christians can perhaps debate amongst themselves how God did it and how long it took Him, but no one debates the fact that He did it. That is the actual teaching of Scripture, Hawking and Krauss' theories really have nothing for us to help us understand Scripture.
• Another example might be Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett's claims that resurrection from the dead is impossible. They claim to have scientific reasons for believing that, but really it is their naturalistic assumptions that makes them believe that, yet they attempt offer some scientific theories trying to prove that resurrection from the dead is impossible. Now, they are just plain wrong about that. 1 Co. 15 is quite clear: If Jesus was not raised from the dead bodily, then our faith is in vain. The actual teaching of Scripture is that Jesus had a physical, bodily resurrection from the dead. There is no other legitimate way to interpret that. So, any scientific theories that claim otherwise, cannot help us understand Scripture better.

Yet, there are times when a scientific theory can help us understand Scripture better or correct a misinterpretation of Scripture, as Sproul states above. As we established in our biblical understanding of science and Scripture: we are fallible humans who sometimes make do mistakes in our interpretations of Scripture. The example I gave in part 3 of how Copernicus' (and later on Galileo and Newton's) heliocentric model of our solar system helped correct misinterpretations of Scripture is an easy illustration to point out again. For more than 1000 years, Christians thought they had the right interpretation of passages like Jos. 10 that seem to say that the earth does not move and the sun moves around the earth, and it was not just Christians but scientists did too. But, over the course of about 200 years, scientific research corrected both Christians and scientists' interpretations of nature and Scripture. So, now virtually everyone agrees that the earth moves around the sun.

At this point, when I was first giving this information as a seminar to college students, it was asked, "How can I know where I should stand firm with my theology no matter what a scientist says and how can I know where I can perhaps let their theories alter my interpretation of Scripture?" That is a great question, and it is one that we will address in the next post, for this one is getting too long as it is.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 4)

In previous posts I have been attempting to give Christians a framework for living as believers in a world that puts a great deal of weight on science, and what I have been trying to do is to help my Christian readers learn to think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. I have been using the analogy of building a house--I want to help you build an intellectual and spiritual "house" in which you can "live" as a Christian in our day and age. In the first two posts, we started to do that by talking about God's revelation of Himself and His truth. Then in the previous post we began to look at human fallibility. In each post, we have added a new "section" of our "house":

1. In the first post of this series, I defended the idea that all truth is God's truth, and in some fashion all truths point us to God, which is the concrete for our foundation in the metaphorical houses we are building. 
2. In the second post of this series, we looked at the Belgic Confession and saw that God reveals His truth and we discover it through the two "books" of nature and Scripture. From that I argued that God has revealed Himself infallibly in the books Scripture and nature, and since God is the author of both books there is no inherent contradiction between the two. When it comes to the house we are building, this is the foundation upon which we will build everything else.
3. In the third post of this series, we began to look at human fallibility, and I argued that when apparent conflicts arise, it is not because science and the Bible are in conflict but because we human beings are either interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly. We can think of this as the framework for our house, upon which we can put a metaphorical roof and walls. 

I ended the previous post in this series by reminding you all that the "framework" that we just built tells us the nature of apparent conflicts. But, then, I asked a question the questions "What gives rise to these conflicts? From where do they come?" That is part of what human fallibility adds to our understanding and what we will discuss today, and from this we will see the source of the apparent conflicts or "clashes" between "science and Christianity." Here it is in a nutshell: the apparent contradictions are not a clash between science and Christianity; they are a clash between two worldviews that we fallible humans hold: naturalism and theism.

Now, let us talk briefly about worldview. Everyone has a worldview, which is a set of assumptions or presuppositions that help us to interpret the data we get from God's revelation, whether through Scripture or the natural, physical world. The assumptions of our worldview are beliefs that we may not even think about consciously, but they are beliefs that affect our interpretation of everything that we read in Scripture or observe in nature. For example:

• Naturalism is a worldview that holds a number of assumptions/presuppositions:
• There is no such thing as a god or higher power. This is assumed by someone who has a naturalistic worldview before they even look at the data from their scientific research. And, the assumption that there is no god is going to lead one down a particular path of interpretation of data because, from this worldview, all explanations, even those about the origins of the universe itself, cannot appeal to anything beyond the physical universe. 
• Along with that, the naturalist assumes that the physical world--matter and energy--are the only things that exist. There is no such thing as the "supernatural" or a spiritual realm in this worldview. They assume that if something cannot be tested by the scientific method, then it simply does not exist. This leads to the assumption there can never be a non-physical explanation for anything in our universe or in the history or our world, and they interpret all data with that assumption.
• Theism is a worldview that holds a number of differing and conflicting assumptions/presuppositions:
• God does exist. He is, in some fashion or another, the creator and sustainer of the universe in which we live. This assumption leads one down another path of interpretation of all data, especially those about the origins of the universe itself, and this path of interpretation can be quite different from the path someone with a naturalist worldview takes.
• Along with this, the theist assumes that there is a spiritual realm along with the physical. He assumes there are things that there are parts of reality that scientists cannot probe through the scientific method, and as a result, some scientific theories may be incomplete because without the spiritual component they cannot get the whole picture. For example, theories about consciousness, emotion, the origins of religion in humans, and the origins of the universe cannot be completely understood by the scientific method, and a theist knows that some information has to come from another source. The Christian theist goes further and says that the Bible is our source that helps us understand these things that science cannot test or probe.

Now, these two worldviews are absolutely in conflict, and when we take that into account, it is no wonder that they will at times produce conflicting interpretations of scientific data. When it comes to the origins of the universe, for example, the naturalist must grope for some type of way that the universe could create itself because he cannot accept the explanation of God being behind it. That puts him at odds with the verse first verse of Scripture and everything else from then on. But, it is his naturalism that is at odds with Scripture, not science. 

So, at the heart of these "science vs Christianity" debates is not really a conflict between science and the study of Scripture, because again, referring back to the previous post, science and the study of Scripture by exegesis are tools. They can no more conflict with one another than a hammer can conflict with a circular saw. Yet, when fallible humans start to use these tools and interpret the data they get from them within their worldview of theism or naturalism, then the apparent conflicts will arise. And, the source of the conflicts is competing worldviews.

See, the Christian can look at the Bible and scientific data and say, "The data from this scientific research and the data from my study of Scripture are not in conflict because God is revealing Himself through both. It's the interpretation of the data that is conflicting. However, if one interprets the data from Scripture this way and the data from the natural world through scientific research that way, we can see that they harmonize perfectly." Now, sometimes that is a really, really hard thing to figure out how to do, and there may be times when we never really figure it all out (we will talk more about this in an upcoming post). But, that is not because science and Scripture are in conflict. It is because one's interpretation of the data from science, Scripture, or both is in error. And, when atheists scientists are interpreting data through a naturalist worldview, you can bet that sometimes their interpretation of the data will conflict with Scripture, but that does not mean science itself does. This is a conflict of worldviews (and therefore interpretations of data), not a conflict between science and Christianity. 

When we boil conflicts down to a clash of worldviews, this helps disable the alleged "privilege" that "science" has over Christianity and Scripture. It "levels the playing field," we could say. It is not science saying these things that appear to conflict with Scripture but a naturalist scientist saying them. And, naturalists like Richard Dawkins, for example, do not have the monopoly on the interpretation of data from the sciences. They might say, "Science says the fossil record proves that evolution is a fact that Christians must accept," but science cannot say that at all. Science only gives the data. Their interpretation of the scientific data says that, but a Christian looking at the data through his theism and derive an equally valid interpretation that is both faithful to Scripture and the natural world. And, when Dawkins or someone like him says it is wrong, the only reason for that is because he believes only natural explanations are acceptable. But, why does he believe naturalism is the correct way to view the universe? He accepts it only by faith. He cannot prove that there is nothing beyond the physical universe of energy and matter. There is no way to prove that. He simply assumes it is true, and then claims that his interpretation of the scientific data from his naturalistic worldview is the only right one. But, he does not have the monopoly on interpretation of scientific data.

Now, Christians have worldview commitments as well, as noted above, and we need to be honest about those. But, the point of saying all this is to bring the debate up out of the realm of competing interpretations of evidence and put it where it belongs: competing worldviews. That is where the conflict really lies. And when we do that, we "level the playing field." Christians have a bias towards theism and atheists have a bias towards naturalism, and both of us can interpret the scientific data within the assumptions of our worldview, which for the Christian means taking what the Scriptures tell us into account as well. Once we bring that out, we can move the debate from competing interpretations of scientific data to which worldview can best explain the universe in which we live. Can naturalism? I would argue "no," and of course it is not just me. There are many books that have shown the many failures of the worldview of naturalism, including one that I discuss here by an atheist (i.e. an atheist critiquing the atheistic worldview of naturalism). (I would highly recommend you read this post and check out the book to which I am referring: Mind and the Cosmos by Thomas Nagel.)

A helpful example of what I have been talking about in this post would be the infographic that I critique in this post. There, I show how there is a hidden assumption in many of the things that some popular scientists claim "science says," and when we expose that assumption, we get to the heart of the matter: which worldview can best explain the reality in which we live. 

Alright, that is enough for today. In the next post I will begin to talk about how we move forward. Now that we have a biblical view of science and Scripture and now that we have seen where the source of the apparent conflicts really lies, how do we move forward and live as Christians in a world that puts a great deal of weight on the sciences? How do we (using the analogy of the intellectual and spiritual "house" in which we "live") put a roof and walls on the foundation and framework we have laid? Well, we will talk about that in the next post. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

God of the Gaps?

"Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a Legislator." ~ C. S. Lewis, Miracles

It is sometimes claimed by atheists that theists are "intellectually lazy" and simply uphold a "God of the gaps" mentality, which one could define as the tendency to attribute anything that cannot be explained scientifically to God. They charge that saying God created the universe or that God created species is simply filling God in the gaps of science, but as science discovers more about the universe, the gaps get smaller and God gets pushed out. "Theists," they say, "are lazy and just do not want to do the work of intellectual inquiry, so they say, 'God did it' and leave it at that." That is, at least, the claim many atheists make. Lawrence Krauss did this in his recent debate with William Lane Craig. He said:

There's a lot we don't know about the universe—a lot more we don't know than we do. That's the wonder of science; that's why I'm a scientist. But it is intellectually lazy to just stop asking questions and stop looking for physical explanations and just say, "God did it." That's lazy.

Now, Stand to Reason has given a good response to this challenge, and I would recommend you watch it:


Brett makes some very good points in this response. In particular, showing that there are sufficient stopping points in intellectual inquiry, is a good one. Also, pointing out that Krauss will only accept a physical explanation is important. Saying that all inquiry must obtain a physical explanation for it to arrive at a sufficient stopping point is, as Brett says, begging the question. It assumes axiomatically that only the physical exists and that only physical explanations are acceptable. It assumes naturalism as an a priori fact. Finally, pointing out that theists are making an inference to the best explanation (not filling a gap with God) is important. Perhaps the best explanation for the existence of this universe or life is not a physical one, and to say that could never be the case (as Krauss implies) is, again, begging the question—assuming naturalism as an a priori fact.

Brett gives a good response, and I just want to add a little to it. So, let's talk a little more about this so-called "God of the gaps" accusation. At the beginning of this discussion, we need to distinguish between mechanism and agency. This is a distinction that is overlooked far too often when this charge is made or even when it is rebutted by a theist. The success of science sometimes leads people to believe that since we can understand many of the mechanisms of the universe, we can safely conclude that there is no need to discuss or consider agency—the agent that designed, made, and upholds the mechanisms. That is a logical error that fails to distinguish between mechanism and agency.

I once heard an analogy that demonstrates this well. To explain how a Ford car engine works, we would need to talk about the details of thermodynamics and the principles of internal combustion (i.e. the mechanisms). Such an explanation would not necessarily require us to mention Henry Ford (i.e. the agent), but if we concluded that because we understand how the engine works (mechanism), then we have a comprehensive understanding of it and no longer need to believe in Henry Ford or any subsequent engineers (agency), that would be absurd! In a similar vein, just because we understand many of the impersonal mechanisms of the universe, that does not make it necessary or even valid to conclude there is no personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds it. In fact, as the above quote from C. S. Lewis shows, the early scientists went looking for these mechanisms and laws precisely because they believed in a Creator (agent) who designs such things. The mechanisms did not create themselves and do not uphold themselves, and even the more recent attempts to say that they do only push the question back a step and fail to disprove agency.

How does this contribute to our discussion of the "God of the gaps"? Well, consider the Ford analogy. Henry Ford is not a mechanism, and no one is using him to fill in the gaps of our knowledge about internal combustion engines. But, he is also no less than the agent who is responsible for the mechanism in the first place! The engine and the mechanisms all bear the marks of his handiwork as the agent who created them in the first place. Therefore, saying Ford was the designer and creator behind the engine is simply an inference to the best explanation, not lazy. Furthermore, saying this is not presenting Ford as an alternative explanation to the mechanisms of an internal combustion engine. It is saying he is the necessary agent. But, Krauss and others like him, often insist that theists use God as an alternative explanation to mechanisms, and that is simply not the case. We are following the evidence, making an inference to the best explanation, and saying God is the necessary agent. Just as Ford (i.e. agency) and internal combustion (i.e. mechanism) are both necessary for a comprehensive explanation of the car engine, so God (i.e. agency) and the mechanisms science studies are necessary for a comprehensive explanation of the universe and life. We are not filling the gaps with God, we are pointing out the necessity of both mechanism and agency and then making an inference to the best explanation for the existence of our universe and life itself. As Brett says in the above video, "That's not lazy. It's just good reasoning."

By His Grace,
Taylor

Theism vs. Naturalism, NOT Bible vs. Science

"These days naturalism is extremely fashionable in the academy; some say it is contemporary academic orthodoxy... Still, naturalism is certainly widespread, and it is set forth in such recent popular books as Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and many others. Naturalists like to wrap themselves in the mantle of science, as if science in some way supports, endorses, underwrites, implies, or anyway is unusually friendly to naturalism." ~ Alvin Plantinga, "Evolution vs. Naturalism"

You may have seen the above info-graphic floating around the Internet lately (click on it to view the larger, readable version). It presents six stories that explain how the world was created, and it is essentially designed to shame any religious creation account (in particular it is aimed at Christianity, for how many books do you see written about the Hindu, Shinto, Chinese, or Norse creation accounts' scientific viability?) by implicitly asserting that they are irrational, "anti-science," and only have their sacred text as evidence for their account. "The text just says so, so it must be true," is how they present those who adhere to a religious creation account. It presents "science" as the sixth alternative and attempts to make it look obviously superior to the Bible's creation account (let's just cut to the chase, shall we?) and in complete opposition to it, as if there is a Bible vs. science battle. There is a lot said in the popular media today that characterizes the debate over evolution, embryonic stem research, etc. as "religion vs. science" (as if the two are mutually exclusive), and this info-graphic is another attempt to convince the reader that the Bible is opposed to science. It characterizes the Bible and Christians who advocate its worldview as "anti-science" de jure (as a matter of law), which also labels them as "anti-reason," "anti-evidence," and just plain ignorant. However, like most info-graphics floating around the Internet, it presents a straw-man, reductionist, and logically fallacious argument that crumbles when some simple observations are made.

Is there a battle between religion and science? Does the debate really lie there? Are Christians "anti-science"? Well, if we are honest we have to admit that at times and in isolated incidents this is true. I have met Christians who think that science is opposed to Scripture, thus making it their enemy, and I have made it one of my goals to show Christians that this is not the case. Christians can choose to make science an enemy; scientists can choose to claim that religion and science are like oil and water, but it is not necessary to draw that conclusion. That kind of thinking comes from a faulty view of science (why I put it in quotation marks above) and the idea that philosophical naturalism (i.e. physical nature as the sole reality) has the monopoly on the scientific enterprise. These two interrelated fallacies lie behind the conclusions and pejorative remarks in the above info-graphic.

First, the graphic claims that science gives a creation account that starts with the Big Bang, continues through the evolution of all life on earth, and ends up with humans evolving from hominids. That, however, is not strictly a claim of science. You see, the graphic works from a faulty definition of science that changes it from a tool to a worldview. Science is an epistemological tool that helps one gain knowledge about the physical world around us. It is a methodology by which we can gain knowledge about the physical world through observation and experimentation. The graphic, however, lists "science" along side five other worldviews and treats it as if it were another worldview. In the second row it gives a fairly random list of a few pieces of data about which science has given us information (the so-called "evidence") and in the first row, an interpretation of that data that is based on a purely naturalistic worldview. It does all this under the heading of "science," and yet only the second row properly fits under the heading "science." The first row is scientific data absorbed into and interpreted by the naturalistic worldview (i.e. a philosophy). So the graphic labels the sixth column as "science" but only because it is working from a faulty definition of science.

This leads us into the second fallacy. The graphic treats science as if it and naturalism are the same thing, identical. It merges science, which is a tool, with one worldview (naturalism) and then makes the implicit claim that other worldviews are opposed to science. It treats science as a worldview, but science is not a worldview, it is a tool to be used by worldviews. The graphic treats science as if the naturalistic worldview has the monopoly on its methodology and all other worldviews are left with only hear-say. Now, naturalism does make science its exclusive method for discovering truth, but that does not mean that science is the exclusive property of naturalism. What should really be at the top of the sixth column is "naturalism," not "science." Naturalism gives the explanation of "how the world came to be" that the info-graphic lists in the first row of the sixth column. Certainly, it uses the scientific tool, but it interprets the data within its worldview, and it is not the only worldview that can validly use the tool of science. The data they list in the evidence row under the heading of "science" can easily be interpreted within the Judeo-Christian worldview, and in fact it merges well with the Bible's creation account (which is in many more places in Scripture than just Genesis 1-2) and can be used as evidence for it as well. You see, the graphic attempts the frame the debate as a clash between Christianity and science when the debate is really a clash between philosophical theism and philosophical naturalism, and science is a tool readily available to both worldviews.

Here lies a major problem with the way the term "science" is sometimes used today. Many atheists, like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, would have us believe that science is opposed to religion, but that is only because they make a philosophical commitment to naturalism first and then claim exclusive rights to the scientific enterprise. They commit to naturalism as dogma before they even look at the evidence, and then they claim their interpretation of scientific data (within philosophical naturalism) is the only valid interpretation. I am not the only one to notice this, and even some atheists point it out this problem. Some have admitted the failures of naturalism and others may not go that far but at least admit their commitment to naturalism de jure. Harvard Geneticist (and atheist) Richard Lewontin admits this in his review of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark in the NY Review of Books:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Do you see the admission? "It is not that the method and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes... that materialism is absolute...."

When the commitment is absolute, one could even call it a "religious" commitment to naturalism (or materialism). Do they know naturalism to be the absolutely true worldview? No, they simply want us to take their word for it and make the same dogmatic commitment they have made. If one put naturalism in the sixth column of the above graphic, which is what belongs there instead of "science," then the "it says so" line would be in the evidence row for it too. Why should we believe that nature is the sole reality? Naturalism (or materialism) just says so. Why should we believe there is no uncaused personal Creator who brought universe into existence? Naturalism just says so. Why should we believe the cosmic constants, which are finely-tuned for life, just popped into existence? Naturalism just says so. Why should we believe there is no God, spiritual realm, or anything beyond the physical? Naturalism just says so. Why should we never let a "Divine Foot in the door"? Naturalism just says so.

Do not be fooled by info-graphics and arguments that attempt to frame the debate as the Bible vs. science. The clash is not there. The clash is in competing worldviews, and naturalism does not have the monopoly science.

By His Grace,
Taylor