Blinded by Science
On Saturday mornings, I get together with a group of guys for
breakfast, fellowship and mutual edification. It's been a great time
to tell of how the Lord has been working in each of our lives -what
He's done for us, how we are dealing with our struggles, and just to
talk on the issues of the day.
Recently, we've been reading through _The Pilgrim's Progress_ by
John Bunyan. For those of you who aren't familiar with the work, it
is an allegory of growing in Christian faith where the protagonist,
Christian, meets some friends (such as Evangelist and Faithful) as
well as many unsavory characters (such as Mr. Worldly Wiseman,
Hypocrisy, and Talkative) in his walk down the narrow path. This
classic, written in the mid 1600's, is amazingly poignant even for
today.
One particularly striking section dealt with a character named
Shame. Christian's friend Faithful recounts to him Shame's
accusations against believers. Specifically, Shame claims the
religious are basically weak-minded individuals, not living in the
real world. He goes on to point out how successful and intelligent
people don't believe in such things and how believing in
Christianity forces one to ignore the scientific advancements and
knowledge of the day. "He moreover objected to the base and low
estate and condition of those who were chiefly the pilgrims of the
times in which they lived; also in their want of understanding in
the natural sciences." 1 So, Shame accuses the
Christians of being willfully ignorant. Ignoring the true knowledge
of science, the believer instead chooses the crutch of religion to
salve his wounds.
Our Popular Conception of Science
Today, we are even more apt to hear such objections to believing
the biblical message. This is in large part due to the
over-emphasized view science is given in our modern culture. Science
is understood in today's world to be the only reliable source of
truth. One has only to look at the advertisements we use to sell
products to see how much we esteem the concept of scientific
veracity. If you really want to make your case for the potency of a
product, just have your spokesman wear a white lab coat, begin his
name with Dr., or explain how "tests have shown" the item
to be more effective. If science has shown something to be true,
then it must be true. And if there is a conflict between beliefs and
what science has shown, then most people will assume that it is our
beliefs that are in error, not science.
These assumptions are unfortunate, but not altogether
unsurprising. As I've said before, science has helped humanity in
incredible ways. Our lifespan have been extended by decades, we can
modify our environment if we're too hot or too cold, and technology
has made our daily chores easier. Our learning has also increased
exponentially; we better understand the way the world works, we can
predict certain phenomena and we've even visited the moon! So, with
all science has proven it can do, how could it not be real way to
know truth?
Science versus Scientism
There are two problems we run into when discussing science and
the way we know things to be true. The more egregious error is the
one the easier to identify and argue against. That is the belief
that only things that are scientifically verifiable are truly
knowable and everything else is opinion and conjecture. This view is
known a Scientism, and has proponents such as Carl Sagan, Stephen
Hawking and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Noted skeptic Michael
Shermer defined Scientism as "a scientific worldview that
encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews
supernatural or paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and
reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for
an age of science." 2
So Scientism holds the natural above the supernatural and the
empirically testable above that which cannot be tested empirically.
Now anyone who understands the basics of logic can see the flaw in
this way of thinking. The proponents of Scientism hold that
"only things that are scientifically verifiable are truly
knowable", is a true and knowable statement. However, that
statement is itself unverifiable scientifically. One cannot
construct a hypothesis to test for the statement's veracity. There's
no way to go into a laboratory and run this idea through a battery
of tests to see whether it can be falsified. Scientism, by setting a
standard that cannot itself meets, undercuts its own existence. It
becomes what we call a self-refuting statement. Because it does so,
Scientism should rightfully be rejected as illogical.
Improper Role of Science as The Arbitrator of Truth
The main problem with our popular view of science, though, is
more subtle and it therefore takes more care to identify. Because
science has taken such a high role in our society, statements that
are couched in a scientific approach are thought to hold more weight
than other types of assertions. However, many who are purporting to
advance a scientific view are really making philosophic statements -
and they're making a lot of assumptions along the way.
A good example of this is one that Christian philosopher Francis
J. Beckwith related at our
last Dare to Defend conference. He told of how he had become
engaged in a discussion on origins through an Internet bulletin
board whose members were primarily biologists and other scientists.
One member was asserting the fact of evolution by noting how science
has shown human DNA and chimpanzee DNA to be 98% identical. The
biologist then concluded that this proves humans and chimps share an
evolutionary ancestor.
Dr. Beckwith countered this claim by asking a simple question:
Why do you choose genetics be your basis of comparison? It seems an
arbitrary choice. Why not any other field of science, say quantum
mechanics? Dr. Beckwith went on to explain that if you examine
humans and chimpanzees at the quantum level, why then we're 100%
identical! Our atoms move and act in exactly the same way as the
atoms of the chimp! Of course, human atoms and the atoms of the
table where I'm writing this also act identically. How about if we
examine each via physics? Again, we're identical - each species will
remain in motion unless enacted upon by an outside force, etc.
Now, the scientists had a very difficult time understanding Dr.
Beckwith's point, but it was simply this: one cannot start with
science to understand the world. Science relies on certain
philosophical rules in order to work at all. What was happening is
the biologist was making philosophical assumptions and then using
science to try and support them. The assumption in the claim above
is that all life can be reduced to its genetic make-up, and
everything you need to know about any living thing can be deduced
from its DNA. It's this assumption that's flawed. It doesn't follow
that if humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps that evolution is
therefore a fact. But the scientists today aren't trained in logic
or philosophy, so they have a lot of difficulty understanding that
they are making flawed philosophical arguments and packing them in
scientific facts.
In our next article, we'll look at some other ways science is
reliant on philosophy and how there is more than one way of knowing
things to be true. In the mean time, let me know what you think
about how science is viewed in modern culture. E-mail us at newsletters@comereason.org
with your comments.
Until then, God bless.
. |
