Apologetics
Science Has to Know Its Limitations
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge..." (Prov. 1:7). This modern era has been largely shaped by a scientific worldview. Science is the primary method through which knowledge is discovered. Facts are validated and accepted by means of scientific methods. That which cannot be verified through science is considered "unscientific," and so cannot be properly regarded as factual. This is how modernists view reality. Science is the final determiner of truth. It is the only objective way through which we can learn anything about this world. This is the way some view science, but is this a correct view? Should science be so highly regarded? And what does this say about God and religion? We need to understand what science is, what are its limits, how our understanding of it affects the discussion about evolution, and how the Bible fits in with this topic.
What is Science?
I am not a scientist. In the minds of some, that might disqualify me from talking about this. What some fail to realize, however, is that science itself is based upon philosophical ideas. The first "scientists" were more philosophers than anything. I might not be qualified to talk about all the ins and outs of the scientific discipline, but I can discuss the philosophies that underlie it. That is what this is about.
Natural science is defined as "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." It involves the use of the five senses -- touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight -- to help people learn about the world. The key components of science are testing and observation. This requires that the thing being studied can be tested and observed, and that the experiments can be repeated in a controlled environment. If something cannot be tested, observed, and tested again, then it cannot be proved by the typical scientific method. Science must be able to test that which is falsifiable. This means that the hypothesis can possibly be proved false through the testing process. The scientific method involves observations, then hypotheses, which are possible answers as to why something happens the way it does. Through testing and observation, the possible answers to a given problem are eliminated (falsified). After a period of time, the hypothesis which stands the testing may become a "theory" (a term which, in science, denotes a stronger sense of truth than an opinion). The main point is that science deals in the natural realm of that which can be tested and observed with the five senses.
Limits of Science
By its very nature, science is limited. It cannot test all that falls within the realm of what is true; it is not the final determiner of truth. For example, unique, historical events cannot be tested and observed. Similar conditions might be tested, but the actual events cannot be. The life of Abraham Lincoln cannot be observed by science, but no sane person questions that he was historical or that he was President of the United States during the Civil War. These things are true, though outside the realm of natural science. Science can only test and observe evidence that exists in the present. Fossils, for example, give humanity a record of dead things, but they only exist now. They do not get dug up with brochures explaining how old they are, what they were doing when they died, or how they died. The reconstruction of the history of a fossil is not capable of being tested and observed. It is open to historical investigation, but one cannot observe the past. So a fossil does not, in and of itself, give us a complete picture of history. Science is further limited in the fact that it is not equipped to deal with morality. In other words, the scientific method itself is not able to make value judgments. The results of scientific study might have an effect on how people make value judgments, but ultimately it is the people, not the methods, that argue values and morals. Morality neither starts nor ends with science. Rather, Christians believe that morality, as with knowledge, begins and ends with God (cf. Lev. 11:44-45; 1 Pet. 1:13-16). This is important to remember when thinking about issues like abortion. As noted, science is limited because it cannot deal with that which is unique. It can only deal with things that are universal, dependable, and repeatable. One-time events cannot be so tested. The unique falls outside of natural science. None of this is written to be critical of true science. God is the One who created the natural world and upholds it; it is because of the dependability of nature that one can study science (cf. Psa. 19:1). Gravity, for example, is something we can always count on to work. It is dependable. This is what makes the study of science possible. But science is not the final standard of all that is true and right. It is too limited for that.
Presuppositions of Science
The scientific method has certain presuppositions that underlie it (Moreland 198). In other words, it assumes certain things to be true before it can even be a valid discipline. For instance, before scientific testing can occur, one must assume that the five senses reliably give proper information about the world. Otherwise, how can one trust the findings of experiments? It must assume that the mind is rational, capable of knowledge and logic. It must assume that logic is true, that truth exists, that numbers and language have true meaning, and that there are certain universal moral values (like the need to report the truth). But none of these assumptions can be proved by the scientific method. To try to prove any of these assumptions by science would be to beg the question (i.e., assume what needs to be proved in the first place). These questions are really more philosophical in nature, but they are necessary for the proper use of science. This is why we can say that science is built upon philosophy. It must first accept these assumptions. Christians believe that God is the key to these assumptions. God created mankind with minds capable of learning and knowing (Gen. 1:26-27). He made us rational creatures and gave us moral standards by which to live (1 Pet. 1:16). He created the world and governs the natural working of the universe (Gen. 1; Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:17). "For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (Heb. 3:4). Behind it all, and before science has any validity, there is God.
Science and Evolution
Evolution is said to be a scientific theory. Because of its attachment to science, many have assumed that evolution is a scientific fact, as if it is one of the "laws" discovered by objective scientists. This is misleading. Macroevolution is far from an established fact. In fact, it is just bad science, not to mention bad philosophy. Macroevolution is a story, a belief about what happened in the past. It is not a scientific fact. It is a belief, a philosophy in which people trust. Given the principles involved in the scientific method, one should be skeptical of any theory claiming to be scientific that cannot be observed. The scientific method is simply not equipped to deal with ultimate origins. Since we cannot observe and experiment with the beginning of the universe, the earth, or life on earth, then we cannot claim that our beliefs about these things are scientific facts. This is just as true concerning evolutionary theory as it is about creation. These matters are tied up in unique, historical events that cannot be repeated for our observations. Neither the naturalistic "big bang" theory or the biblical statement of Genesis 1 can be falsified. While scientific principles can be used to study the nature of this universe, which, in turn, can impact our understanding of creation, the unique event of creation itself is a historical matter that cannot be repeated under controlled conditions. Our final concept of origins is best understood from the perspective of the One who was there (Gen. 1:1). This is where Christians begin. Suppose, though, that a scientist could "create" life in a laboratory. Would this prove that life spontaneously generated millions of years ago? No. It would only show that such could be done today (under humanly-controlled conditions, with intelligent experimentation, etc.). It would prove nothing about what actually happened in the past. When a scientist experiments with moths or fruitflies, and notes changes that occur within the kinds, does this prove that macroevolution occurred in the past? No. It only proves that changes can occur within kinds. It proves nothing about kinds crossing over into other kinds. But this is the type of evidence that evolutionists use to prove their ideas. Such evidence, however, simply does not prove what they want it to. The point is simply this. Science by itself does not favor macroevolutionary theory. It is the people who put the spin on the evidence and put their own version of faith in a story that they imagined. It is not a matter of faith versus science, but of faith versus faith. One’s bias has something to do with how he or she interprets the evidence.
Science and the Bible
Some claim that the Bible has "bad science" in its pages. However, studying the Bible in its context shows that this claim is groundless. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is not intended to convey scientific information to the satisfaction of those who would live centuries later. The language of the Bible is not scientific in nature. Rather, it is language of common people in given cultures. It describes things in non-technical ways. It is written through ordinary eyes, with the common language of everyday observation. This is why the Bible can use phrases like "the four corners of the earth" without intending to convey the notion that those who wrote believed the earth was flat (Isa. 11:12; Rev. 7:1; 20:8). It can speak of the sun standing still without conveying the concept that the writers thought that the sun revolved around the earth (Josh. 10:12). This would be much like phrases today when one speaks of the "sunrise" or the "sunset." Scientific technicality says that these phrases are incorrect, but we are using figures of speech to describe our observations from the earth. We are not making scientific statements when we use such phrases; neither are we using bad science. We must allow Bible writers the same freedom to use figures of speech to express themselves under God’s guidance.
Summing Up
Science is a valid discipline because of the way that God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). To think, however, that science is the "be all and end all" of truth is to put too much trust in the methods developed by and conclusions reported by fallible humans. Science has its limitations, and one does well to remember this when studying about God, creation and evolution. "Scientific" proof for God is not due to a lack of reality, but to limits of science. God is not a material being who can be controlled and experimented with. Even so, scientific studies are compatible with the truth that "God is." The Bible was never intended to be a book on science. It is written in the ordinary language of its day, without the technical scientific jargon of the modern world. Therefore, one should not think that the Bible is opposed to science. It is not science itself that the Bible contradicts; rather, it is the false theories of people that contradict the Bible. The Bible itself fits well with the scientific discipline, for it accounts for what makes the study of science possible in the first place. The Bible can be trusted.
Works Cited
Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987.
Doy Moyer