https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=381
Is Creation Science?
| by |
Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A. |
On June 22, 1633, Galileo confessed to the “heresy” of believing that
the Earth orbits the Sun. With that statement in hand, the Holy Office
of the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the aging scientist from
discussing the Copernican view of the Solar System, and sentenced him to
house arrest for the remainder of his life (Hummel, 1986, pp. 118,123).
And so began the long conflict between faith and science, at least
according to the popular view. From that day forward, Galileo became a
martyr for free thought, sacrificed at the altar of an ignorant,
authoritarian church.
More than two hundred years later, the church and science faced off
again, this time over the writings of a certain Charles Darwin. It took
place on a balmy June day in 1860, at the annual meeting in Oxford of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The protagonists
were Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and Thomas Huxley, professor
of natural history at the Royal School of Mines. Bishop Wilberforce
mounted the floor first, giving a critique of Darwin’s new book,
The Origin of Species.
Apparently he ended his speech by inquiring of Huxley whether it was
through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent
from a monkey. Huxley got up to defend Darwin’s views, adding that if
the choice was between an ape for a grandfather, or a man who ridiculed
science, his preference was the ape (Blackmore and Page, 1989, pp.
102-103).
No one knows exactly what was said at that meeting, but in later years
the exchange achieved powerful legendary status. The scientist had
beaten the bishop publicly, and in his own diocese. Again, the popular
picture has reason triumphing over blind faith as it pushed the church
aside in its unrelenting pursuit of scientific progress.
This view gained momentum in the remaining decades of the nineteenth century. In 1874, John William Draper wrote a book titled
History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. Then in 1896, Andrew Dickson White published
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Both books received wide distribution, and helped sustain the tension into the modern era (Russell, 1985, p. 193).
THE CONTROVERSY
Many historians of science now reject this simple view of conflict
(Lindberg and Numbers, 1986, p. 6). To be sure, great minds clashed
through the centuries, but what they were saying about science and
religion often reflected only the currents of social change swirling
around them. Yet the origins issue remains a topic of intense debate.
Few people speak of the creation/evolution “discussion” or “dialogue.”
Even after making a case for a kinder, gentler consideration of the
issues, Numbers lapses into military language in his analysis of
creationists. He talks about the fundamentalist “crusade” against
evolution (1986, p. 394), and the “battle” to get scientific creationism
into public schools (1986, p. 413).
Part of the problem is that there are no ground rules for a reasonable
discussion of origins. Creationists would like an opportunity to give
scientific reasons for why they believe what they believe. However, many
evolutionists fear that creationists must necessarily
abuse science to
use
science. Creationism, they claim, is a religious dogma, and therefore
closed to the usual rigors of scientific investigation. Hence Stephen
Jay Gould has labeled “scientific creationism” an oxymoron—a
contradiction in terms (1987, 8[1]:64). Also, many evolutionists claim
that evolution is a fact, while admitting that they do not understand
the mechanism and details completely. This elevated view of evolution
prompts creationists to hurl the accusations of “religious dogma” back
on the evolutionists’ side.
To complicate matters, some Bible believers are uncomfortable with the
idea of defending creation on the field of science. A few have
retreated, seeing science as a threat to their faith. Some fears may
stem from the conflict described previously; scientists are seen only as
adversaries. It also may come from the perception that science has been
the source of many evils: atomic weapons, death-camp experiments,
ethically questionable medical practices, and so on. Still others object
outright, claiming that science and religion are on two different
planes separated by a distance equal to a “leap of faith.” In other
words, they believe it is impossible, or improper, to present any
rational proof or evidence that would lead anyone to a belief in the
Creator (Sproul, et al., 1984, p. 34).
The results can be unfortunate. In a world of ever-increasing
technological complexity, where scientism often reigns supreme, retreat
only serves to alienate the Gospel from people seeking genuine reasons
to believe, or continue believing, in God. And placing science and
religion into separate compartments, with scientists determining truth
in one area, and theologians determining truth in the other, can lead
ultimately to the compromise of theistic evolution (Moreland, 1989, pp.
12,217).
THE GROUND RULES
There is a need to step back from this debate and look for a better way
to present the wealth of evidence in favor of creation. Opponents still
may not agree with the conclusions, but it should allow creationists to
present a consistent, scientific case. Perhaps the best approach is to
put creation and evolution on an equal footing. This is not an attempt
to dodge the issue by saying both ideas are true. Rather, it is an
effort to set up a reasonable framework for discussing the origins
issue. The first place to begin, however, is among those who profess a
belief in God.
On Science and Religion
Faith need not exclude science. Yes, faith involves an emotional or
heart-felt response to God, but it also involves an intellectual
response. Abraham, Moses, and the other children of God listed in
Hebrews 11 were faithful, with no help from modern science. Noah’s
building of the ark, for example, was not based on his personal study of
marine engineering or hydrology, but rather a decision to obey God’s
command. However, surely some of Noah’s faith came from the knowledge
that God could and would work in nature to achieve His ends, including
sending a worldwide Flood and preserving Noah and his family on the ark.
Throughout the Old Testament, God invited His people to compare His
miracles and prophecies with the claims of pagan religions (e.g., Isaiah
41:21-22). Then in the New Testament, Christ and the apostles sought a
spiritual response from a reasonable consideration of what people had
seen and heard (John 5:36; Acts 2:14-41; 17:16-34). Peter gave
Christians explicit instructions to defend the reason for their hope of
eternal salvation (1 Peter 3:15).
Further, God appealed to the creation as a demonstration of His
existence and power (e.g., Job 38-39; Isaiah 40:26; 45:12). That God’s
revelation of His will to Moses began with the account of creation is no
coincidence, for it established His unique nature and role in the faith
of Israel. The apostle Paul told Christians in Rome that unbelievers
always have had the opportunity to recognize the existence of a Creator
by studying the creation (1:20). Of course, it is not possible to come
to a saving knowledge without special revelation (Romans 10:17), but it
is possible to understand the need to seek out the Creator by looking at
His natural or general revelation. Although salvation by grace is a
gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), it does not follow that faith is
irrational—that it has no tangible ground in “right reason,” as Warfield
put it (1977, 1:236-237). This “right reason” may include an
investigation of natural revelation using the tools of modern science.
Christians need not fear science. Nature and Scripture have a common
Author, which means that the facts of nature will complement the
statements the Bible makes about the physical world. It is not a matter
of making one the servant of the other, but of interpreting both
correctly. Scientists may disagree with theologians, but true science
and true religion never should be in conflict (see Thompson, 1984,
1:17). Finally, Christians should understand that science itself is not
evil. Rather, the application of science or technology for immoral
purposes is evil, although this improper use is not always perpetrated
by the original researcher or inventor.
Thus, science interacts with religion not only through a study of
natural revelation, but also through a consideration of broad issues
such as philosophy and ethics. This does not mean to say that the
relationship always will be harmonious. To say otherwise is to suggest
that someone has answered all the questions. What it does mean is that
faith and science can interact in useful ways.
On True Science
Creationists appeal to a supernatural cause to explain a unique event:
the origin of the Universe, the Earth, and all life. For many
evolutionists, that explanation is just plain unscientific. The late
Judge William Overton expressed his agreement by striking down the
Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act that required the teaching of both
creation and evolution in the State’s public schools. In his 38-page
decision, Overton dismissed creation theories because they do not
conform to what scientists think and do. His opinion is worth examining
in greater detail, not because he is a scientist or philosopher of
science, but because he based his criteria on the testimony of people in
these fields. Judge Overton concluded that a theory is truly scientific
when:
(1) it is guided by natural law; (2) it has to be explanatory by
reference to natural law; (3) it is testable against the empirical
world; (4) its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the
final word; and (5) it is falsifiable (as quoted in Geisler, 1982, p.
176).
While the decision disappointed creationists, Overton’s definition left
some philosophers of science aghast. Chief among them was Larry Laudan,
who found fault with all five criteria. “The victory in the Arkansas
case was hollow,” he complained, “for it was achieved only at the
expense of perpetuating and canonizing a false stereotype of what
science is and how it works” (1988, p. 355). Nonetheless, most
anticreationist publications refer positively to Overton’s ruling, and
others certainly share his characterization of science (Futuyma, 1983,
pp. 168-174; National Academy of Sciences, 1984, pp. 8-11). Grouping the
first two criteria under one heading, the problems with Overton’s
criteria are as follows.
Science Does not Have to Have Natural Explanations
As Blackmore and Page noted: “In a previous age the essence of science
was to discover God’s ways of working. Miraculous interventions were
perhaps rare, but certainly permissible. They would have found Overton’s
dismissal of miracles presumptuous” (1989, p. 161). A century or more
ago, many scientists had no problems seeking natural causes, while
recognizing that supernatural causes may be necessary in some cases
(Moreland, 1989, p. 226). In today’s controversy, evolutionists have
limited themselves to purely natural causes; creationists have not.
Neither choice makes one more or less scientific than the other.
Science is not Always Empirical
People can observe or experience the same phenomena, but come to quite
different conclusions. For example, the Ptolemaic idea that Earth is at
the center of the Universe directly contradicts the Copernican idea that
the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun. Unfortunately for Galileo,
more convincing evidence for Copernicus’ view would have to wait for the
superior observations and analyses of scientists like Brahe, Kepler,
and Newton. In the meantime, empirical science could not judge one
theory better than the other. Both models fit the data available at the
time, and made fairly accurate astronomic predictions.
Also, empirical science cannot test the
central claims of
creation and evolution directly (e.g., the creation of man, or the Big
Bang). However, it still is useful in two ways. First, as the next
section will show, empirical science can provide analogies on which to
test these central claims. Second, origin theories make other
peripheral
claims that empirical science can test directly. For example,
creationists suggest that most seemingly vestigial organs have genuine
functions. This claim is based on the belief that God created all major
animal types, the organs of which should show evidence of purpose, not
degeneration from a completely different ancestral form. Empirical
science can discover whether a given vestigial organ is functional.
Laudan suggests that evolutionists disprove such empirical claims,
rather than pretending that creationism makes no such claims at all
(1988, p. 352).
Science is not Always Tentative
At any one time in history, scientists hold to core beliefs—ideas that
need to be true if they are going to function in their work. Such
dogmatism can be useful, although there is a fine line between consensus
and censorship.
The reasoning behind this criterion goes back to the idea that
creationists cannot practice true science because they base their
beliefs on a doctrinal statement. In other words, it unfairly accuses
creationists of intellectual dishonesty. This is nothing more than an
attack on creationists themselves, which is not the same as defining
science (Moreland, 1989, p. 230).
Science is not Always Falsifiable
As a criterion of science, falsification is the idea that scientists
have to disprove alternative, related ideas before they can call their
theory truly scientific. Unfortunately for evolutionists, this nullifies
all scientific arguments against special creation because, they say,
creation cannot be falsified (Numbers, 1992, p. 248-250). The obvious
contradiction (that creationism is both false and unfalsifiable) reveals
the limitations of such a test.
In summary, all these practices have a place in science, but ultimately
they are not reliable in distinguishing science from nonscience.
ORIGIN SCIENCE
Laudan grants that creationism satisfies the last three of Overton’s
requirements (1988, p. 354). He even takes the first two criteria to
task, arguing that not all scientific ideas can be explained by natural
laws. For example, Galileo and Newton described gravity before anyone
explained it. And Darwin discovered the phenomenon of natural selection
before anyone understood the laws of heredity on which it depended. By
Overton’s rules, “we should have to say that Newton and Darwin were
unscientific” (1988, p. 354). Yet the issue still remains: can science
seek non-natural causes? Were great scientists of the past justified, or
merely naive, in their willingness to allow divine intervention in
nature?
Creationists have realized that the only way to resolve this issue is
to find the common ground between evolution and creation. This may seem a
fruitless task at first, seeing that they represent two quite different
world views. But they share this fundamental belief: that the Universe
and life are the products of one or more unique events. In particular,
evolutionists speak of the Big Bang, and the origin of life from
nonlife. Neither event is occurring today. Life is not arising
spontaneously from nutrient-rich environments and, fortunately for
humankind, Big Bangs are not rending space asunder on a regular basis.
Similarly, creationists believe that the Universe and life are the
products of a divine creative act, and further, that a worldwide Flood
shaped the present world. These events also are unique. God finished His
creation on the seventh day (Genesis 2:1), and promised that He never
again would destroy mankind with a Flood (Genesis 9:15).
What people imagine as “science,” including Overton’s caricature,
cannot begin to deal with these claims, but they still are open to
scientific scrutiny. While the answers may not lie directly under the
lens of a microscope, or in a test tube, they may come by testing the
claims against knowledge gained by empirical science. In an effort to
refine this distinction, Charles Thaxton and his colleagues suggested
separating
operation science from
origin science. The
first deals with the recurring phenomena of nature, such as eclipses,
volcanoes, reproduction, etc., while the second deals with singular
events, such as the Big Bang, creation, etc. (1984, pp. 203-204).
Origin science may be a new term, but it works by the standard
principles of causality and uniformity, which always have been a part of
doing science. The principle of causality says that every effect must
have a prior, sufficient, necessary cause. The principle of uniformity
(or analogy) says that similar effects have similar causes.
Still, evolutionists may argue that creationists have done themselves
no service by making a separate science out of singularities. Defining a
nonempirical science is one thing; proposing supernatural causes is
quite another. For this reason, they always will view creationism as
unscientific. But the idea that history consists of an unbroken stream
of natural causes and effects is merely a
presumption on their
part. Perhaps they fear a new generation of doctoral students invoking
God when they cannot explain something in their research projects. Yet
this fear is unfounded. As stated earlier, most scientists of the past
had no problem with divine intervention. Indeed, one of the driving
forces of early Western science was the idea that the Universe, as God’s
creation, was open to rational investigation. In doing good operation
science, these scientists would seek natural causes for regularly
occurring events. Many of them recognized, however, that unique events
may require a cause beyond nature. Only analogy with the present can
determine whether the cause is miraculous or naturalistic (Geisler and
Anderson, 1987, p. 16).
WAS PALEY’S WATCHMAKER STILLBORN?
In 1802, William Paley applied analogy in full force through his book,
Natural Theology.
Paley tells a story of a man who finds a stone. From the natural
appearance of the stone, and its lack of purpose, the man assumes it is
the product of nature. Later he finds a watch, and because of its
inherent purpose, he assumes it is the product of a watch
maker.
What is the difference between the rock and the watch? “Wherever we see
marks of contrivance,” Paley wrote, “we are led for its cause to an
intelligent
author” (1802, p. 232, emp. in orig.). Paley concluded that design in
nature demands a cause that exists beyond and before the natural world.
That cause he identified as God—Designer and Creator.
Yet many skeptics believe that Paley’s work was defunct before he ever
put pen to paper. More than fifty years earlier, David Hume had argued
that miracles cannot be true because the world normally operates using
natural causes. For example, if a man says he witnessed someone being
raised from the dead, which of the following is most likely: that a man
can deceive or be deceived, or that a person can be raised from the
dead? Hume would take the first option, because (for him at least) it is
easier to believe than the second (1748, p. 657).
Belief, Hume argued, derives from the guiding principles of uniformity
and causality. Are these not the same guiding principles of origin
science? Then how is it that Paley could allow miracles, while Hume
could not? In part, Hume was reacting to a popular idea of his day that
God not only designed the Universe, but also operated the Universe like a
machine. God was every cause, not just the first cause: He maintained
the Moon in its orbit of the Earth, and made the apple fall to the
ground. Hume found this idea totally unpalatable and, as often happens,
swung to the opposite extreme in response. God never could cause
any
effect, because that would violate all reasonable human experience
about the way nature normally operates. If God could intervene at any
time, then experience is useless, and science has no value. Hume’s
uniformity gave rise to uniformitarianism, and thence to the contempt
for miracles among so many scientists of the modern era.
The problem with this view is that miracles are
supernatural, not
antinatural; they are
beyond nature, not
against
nature. Further, they explain certain unique events, not all regular
events. Paley appealed to a divine Creator because no known natural
cause was sufficient to explain the design he saw in the living world.
Ironically, Paley said he founded his conclusions on “uniform
experience”—precisely the same phrase coined by his skeptical
predecessor (see Geisler and Anderson, 1987, p. 145).
CONCLUSION
Yes, creation is science. Judge Overton’s answer was to redefine
science, with dire consequences for science itself. In fact, there is
nothing about science that prevents a Bible believer from practicing
good science, or even investigating the existence of God.
However, miracles remain the sticking point. Some scientists feel very
uncomfortable with the idea that an effect might have a supernatural
cause. Note that this is only a feeling, a presumption, on their part.
Creationists have no interest in making God a capricious, meddlesome
Agent Who works to achieve every natural effect. Rather, He is the Cause
of unique events that cannot be explained by recourse to purely natural
explanations. Origin science provides a consistent way to test this
claim, along with the central claims of evolution—claims that are not
amenable to testing under empirical or operation science. Yes, there is
more than one way to do science.
When people belittle the scientific status of creationism, they attack
its believers, not its claims. Prejudice, not truth, sustains the idea
that faith and science must be in conflict. Christians
can use science to defend their belief in the Genesis account of creation, and should not be intimidated into thinking otherwise.
REFERENCES
Blackmore, Vernon and Andrew Page (1989),
Evolution: The Great Debate (Oxford, England: Lion).
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983),
Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon).
Geisler, Norman L. (1982),
The Creator in the Courtroom: “Scopes II” (Milford, MI: Mott Media).
Geisler, Norman L. and J. Kerby Anderson (1987),
Origin Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1987), “Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory,”
Discover, 8[1]:64-65,68-70, January.
Hume, David (1748), “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,”
The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill, ed. Edwin A. Burtt (New York: Random House, Modern Library edition, 1939), pp. 585-689.
Hummel, Charles E. (1986),
The Galileo Connection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).
Laudan, Larry (1988), “Science at the Bar—Causes for Concern,”
But Is It Science?, ed. Michael Ruse (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Lindberg, David C. and Ronald L. Numbers (1986),
God & Nature (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Moreland, J.P. (1989),
Christianity and the Nature of Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
National Academy of Sciences (1984),
Science and Creationism (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press).
Numbers, Ronald L. (1986), “The Creationists,”
God & Nature, ed. D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Numbers, Ronald L. (1992),
The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Paley, William (1802),
Natural Theology, ed. John Ware (Boston: MA: Gould, Kendall & Lincoln, 1850 edition).
Russell, Colin A. (1985),
Cross-Currents (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley (1984),
Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (1984),
The Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical Library).
Thompson, Bert (1984), “
How Does Science Work?,”
Essays in Apologetics, ed. Bert Thompson and Wayne Jackson (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 1:11-17.
Warfield, Benjamin B. (1977), “Apologetics,”
The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, reprint), 1:232-238.
