Sci-202 Unit 7 Thinking about Science and Religion: The ...estrada.cune.edu/facweb/brent.royuk/sci202/docs/Unit7_6.pdfSci-202 Unit 7 Thinking about Science and Religion: The Christian

1

Sci-202 Unit 7 Thinking about Science

and Religion: The Christian Landscape

Brent Royuk Concordia University, Nebraska

Relax Our Approach The View from the Ivory Tower

Relax Relax This Stuff is Not Simple

Relax Relax This Stuff is Not Simple

Discussing Science

and Religion

Theological Traditions

Biblical Interpretation

Biblical Anthropology

of Human Nature

Definitions of Science

Science-and-Religion Models

Personal Concerns

Introduction What is Truth? John 18:38

Philosophy of Science

The Problem of Induction

Realism

Instrumentalism

Symbiosis

Logical Positivism Fallibilism

Constructive Empiricism

Kuhn & Paradigm Shifts

Popper’s Falsifiability Crieterion

Epistemological Anarchism

2

A More Excellent Way John 18: 37-38

Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into

the world– to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth

listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he said this, he

went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.”

Different Questions Different Methods

Scientific Questions • Does the earth go around the

sun? • Do atoms exist? •  Is genetic information

encoded in DNA? • Does continental drift occur? •  Is the earth 4.5 billion years

old? •  Are humans and chimpanzees

descended from common ancestors?

•  Is space 10 or 11-dimensional, with 6 or 7 of the dimensions compactified?

Religious Questions • Does God exist? • Did God create the universe? • Was Jesus born to a virgin

mother? •  Is body and blood present in

the bread and wine at Holy communion?

•  Are we born sinful? • Did Jesus save us by dying on

a cross? •  Are we going to live forever in

heaven after we die? •  Is the body and blood of Jesus

present in the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper?

God and Truth Two Kinds of Truth?

How do we determine truth in religion?

Why do we ultimately trust the Bible as the

revealed Word of God?

Now faith is the substance of things

hoped for, the evidence of things not

seen. Heb 11:1

“If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr.

Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall” –Indiana Jones

truth Empirical

Provisional

Tentative

Skepticism

Truth Revelatory

Eternal

Absolute

Faith

truth vs. Truth What is truth?

truth vs. Truth How do they relate?

Truth is more important than

truth, right? Can Truth

inform truth?

Does Truth trump truth?

Can truth change Truth?

Compartmentalism

Complementarity Intelligent Design

Empirical Only? Natural Explanations Only?

Old Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationism

S&R Models

3

What Is Science?

Science Is: Natural Explanations for Empirical Observations?

Empirical Observations?

çOnly collect data with senses Include all we know and believeè

Natural Explanations?

çOnly natural explanations in science Intelligence is empirically detectableè

Methodological Naturalism

Complementarity Compartmentalism

Open Science

Intelligent Design

Theistic Science Young Earth Creationism

S&R Models

S&R Models

Philosophical Position

Definition of Science

Ideological Position

Practitioners

Philosophical Naturalism

(PN)

Natural explanations for empirical observations

Atheists Agnostics

The Academy

Methodological Naturalism

(MN)

Natural explanations for empirical observations

Complementarists

Comparmentalists

Templeton, ASA, Bube, Collins, Van

Till, Barbour, Polkinghorne,

BioLogos

Open Science

A formal study of the observable universe

Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute, Behe,

Dembski, Johnson

Theistic Science

Best explanations

for all we observe or

believe



CRS, ICR, AIG, Price, Whitcomb,

Morris, Gish, Ham, Ross

But first…

The cosmos is all that is or ever was or

ever will be --Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins • cf William Paley’s

Watchmaker Hypothesis, 1802

Compartmentalism




In its broadest sense, theistic science is rooted in the idea that

Christians ought to consult all they know or have reason to believe

when forming and testing hypotheses, when explaining things in science, and when evaluating the

plausibility of various scientific hypotheses.

--J. P. Moreland

Compartmentalism




4

It is my contention that recognizing the Bible as a

reliable source of information for the conduct of science is essential for an effective use of resources and for correct

results. --Larry Vardiman, ICR

Compartmentalism




Things that look like they were designed, probably were... If intelligence is an operative

component of the universe, a science that methodologically excludes its existence will be

susceptible to being trapped in an endless chase for materialistic

causes that do not exist... --Donald L. Ewert

Compartmentalism




The difference between science that is open and closed is the difference in responding to a

question: Has the history of the universe included both natural and non-natural causes? In an open science (liberated from MN) this question can be

evaluated based on scientific evidence; a scientist begins with MN, but is flexible and is willing to be

persuaded by evidence and logic. In a closed science (restricted by MN), evidence and logic are not the determining factors because the inevitable conclusion — no matter what is being studied, or what is the evidence — must be that "it happened

by natural process.” --Craig Rusbult

Compartmentalism




Sure, Ham talked about some science here and there, but almost all of what he said focused on trying to support a young earth viewpoint. Since

he's not a scientist, the great majority of his arguments amounted -- over and over again --

to "Because the Bible says so." Nye's main argument was, "Because the scientific evidence

says so," and he cited a lot of reasonable evidence for an old earth. While Ham did make a

few effective points that you don't have to accept evolution to do good science, the

compelling scientific evidence for design in nature got skipped over. –Casey Luskin

Compartmentalism




The Two Realms View: Propositions, theories or methodologies in theology and another discipline may involve two

distinct, nonoverlapping areas of investigation. For example, debates

about angels or the extent of the atonement have little to do with organic

chemistry. Similarly, it is of little interest to theology whether a methane

molecule contains three or four hydrogen atoms. --J.P. Moreland

Compartmentalism




Hoimar von Ditfurth writes “To this day science is by definition the attempt to see how far man and nature can be explained

without recourse to miracles.” This is not a statement of materialist philosophy. This is

an explanation of the rules of the game. The rules are well understood. The game has been a highly successful one in the past and continues successful today.

Playing the game according to the rules does not make one an atheist. --Jean Pond

Compartmentalism




5

For the origin of the universe the current consensus in cosmology and physics is that the big bang theory

accounts best for the observational data we now have and is supported by excellent and straightforward

evidence… For the adherent to NOMA, of course, the Bible neither supports nor refutes the big bang, or vice-versa. We are happy to accept the cosmological knowledge that

the big bang offers, but we recognize that (as a scientific theory) it is subject to revision. We may find, personally, that the big bang fits well (or does not fit well) with our overall worldview, including our idea of what is aesthetically pleasing in nature… [We] do not worry about it too much one way or the other. --Jean

Pond

Compartmentalism




Independence is a way of resolving the conflict by affirming separate spheres of validity for science and religion, with a demilitarized if fuzzy boundary… Neo-

orthodox religion is comfortable with this resolution, and most working scientists are

also quite happy with this pragmatic approach. Lutherans may feel at home

here, seeing this as a version of Luther's "two kingdoms," and there is the air of

Copenhagen and Bohr's complementarity about it. --Daniel Johnson

Compartmentalism




Criticism I find [the Compartmentalist] view of scripture

and science (along with NOMA) to be an elaborate cop-out that gives total precedence to science at every point in the discussion carrying any significance for discovering physical reality.

Pond (and NOMA) seem to overlook the turbulent nature of scientific theories throughout history while discounting the possibility that the

Bible has a divine author capable of giving a general but accurate description of physical

reality that science is yet to fully discover. --Roy Massie

Compartmentalism




Science and faith have different methodologies, but

they are complementary, not contradictory; a faith

without reason is as stultifying as a reason

without faith. --R. J. Berry

Compartmentalism




They [S&R] ask different questions: in the one case, how things happen, by what

process?; in the other, why things happen, to what purpose?... The fact that we now know that the universe did not spring into being ready made a few thousand years

ago but that it has evolved over a period of fifteen billion years from its fiery origin in the Big Bang, does not abolish Christian talk of the world as God's creation, but it certainly modifies certain aspects of that

discourse. --John Polkinghorne

Compartmentalism




Paul Dirac invented something called quantum field theory which is fundamental to our understanding of the physical world. I can't

believe Dirac's ability to invent that theory, or Einstein's ability to invent the general theory of relativity, is a sort of spin-off from our

ancestors having to dodge sabre-toothed tigers. It seems to me that something much more profound, much more mysterious is going

on. I would like to understand why the reason within and the reason without fit together at a deep level. Religious belief provides me with a entirely rational and entirely satisfying explanation of that fact. It says that the reason within and the reason without have a common origin in this deeper rationality which is the reason of the

Creator, whose will is the ground both of my mental and my physical experience. That's for me an illustration of theology's power to

answer a question, namely the intelligibility of the world, that arises from science but goes beyond science's unaided power to answer. Remember, science simply assumes the intelligibility of the world.

Theology can take that striking fact and make it profoundly comprehensible. --John Polkinghorne

Compartmentalism




6

Criticism Christians who adopt evolution are

inconsistent because they are accepting the foundation of the humanistic

worldviews. Essentially, they are telling God that they believe Him when He told

us about the Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ, but they do not trust Him when He tells us about

how He created the world. –AIG Website

Compartmentalism




Criticism • Too Deistic

God is portrayed as being more active in the Bible “He makes grass grow for the cattle” Ps. 104:14 “You bring darkness, it becomes night” Ps. 104:20 “He covers the sky with clouds” Ps. 147:8

• Evolution, being naturalistic, is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian faith The road of compromise looks attractive at first, but long experience has proved it to be a one-way street. The evolutionists at the end of the road are never satisfied until their opponents travel all the way to the atheistic void at its end. --Henry Morris

• Many aspects of evolutionary theory are directly contradictory to God’s Word. Evolution cannot be “baptized” to make it compatible with the Christian faith. --A.L. Barry

Compartmentalism




The Game Analogy

Compartmentalism




The God of the Gaps

Compartmentalism




Historical Varieties of Creationism

OMPHALOS: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot by Phillip Henry Gosse,

1857

“Omphalos” means “navel” • Appearance of age: navels, tree rings, starlight

Publication met with derision and

indifference, faded from

history

Chief argument against: God does not lie

An invincible and untestable proposition

The Omphalos Hypothesis AKA Fully Formed Creation

7

Recent (special, fiat) creation, 6000-10000 years ago

Six 24-hour Days (yom)

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution

Flood Geology Catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism Canopy Theory

Dinosaurs & Humans

Concurrent Many Varieties of

YEC

Compartmentalism




Criticism • Scientific Philosophy • Hermeneutical Considerations

• “Blowing up one’s young people”

Compartmentalism




Kaboom

• In the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Francis Collins argues that young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on Creationism sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of an ancient universe and the relatedness of all living things through the process of evolution and natural selection.

Compartmentalism




The day-age position acknowledges that Bible authors sometimes use figurative language to convey God’s message and meaning, but such

language always conveys truth and never

contradicts it. –Hugh Ross

Genesis 1-2 offers an answer (to the fossil record). During six long eras, God systematically introduced new life-forms as changing conditions permitted or even required. During the seventh- the human era- God ceased from his work of creating new life-forms. –Hugh Ross

Compartmentalism




What then is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things which

undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the

pieces as meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause…

Intelligent Design presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent Design is theologically minimalist… It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders

Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory, and distinguishes it from the design arguments of philosophers, or what has

traditionally been called "natural theology…" Intelligent Design entails that naturalism in all forms be rejected. Methodological

naturalism, the view that for the sake of science, scientific explanation ought never exceed undirected natural causes, is

to be rejected because it stifles inquiry. --William Dembski

Compartmentalism




Irreducible Complexity • Michael Behe, the

mousetrap example

Complex Specified Information • William Dembski, the

alphabet example

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe • The universe has characteristics that allow life to exist, including the value of many physical constants, the strength of nuclear forces, etc. If any of these values were different by a small amount, life would be impossible. Taken together, these circumstances are highly improbable and suggest the existence of a designer.

Evolutionists argue by assumption • If God is excluded from any possible manifestation with the physical world, of course you’ll end up with something that looks like Darwinism. This elevates the theory to more of a belief system, that has found its way into all the sciences, often inappropriately.

Compartmentalism




8

Criticism

• MN vs. Open Science • The Chicken or Egg Question • Modern Version of “God of the Gaps”

• Theology of the Cross vs. Theology of Glory

Compartmentalism




MN vs. Open Science •  Intelligent Design supposes that supernatural forces have

crafted the world as we see it. Supernatural forces are simply not within the scope of science. Science necessarily only concerns itself with natural phenomena and natural causes. Supernatural causes are not testable, quantifiable, or qualifiable. They are simply not the scope of science. ID is unscience. Those proponents of ID are not simply insisting on better science. They are insisting on being antithetical to science and sitting down at the science table. Science cannot and should not concern itself with causes that it cannot empirically demonstrate or test. It should make no assertion that cannot be shown to be false by another scientist using the scientific method. --anonymous email blog post

Compartmentalism




The Chicken or Egg Question • It is… possible that some un-religious scientist might become convinced, on scientific evidence, of the existence of Intelligent Design, while remaining perfectly open minded about any of the truths of religion. When that scientist shows up, I shall begin to take Intelligent Design seriously. --John Derbyshire

Compartmentalism




Modern Version of “God of the Gaps” • ID theory posits that certain features of the natural world CAN

ONLY be explained by the active intervention of a designing intelligence. Since the entire history of science displays innumerable instances of hitherto inexplicable phenomena yielding to natural explanations (and, in fact, innumerable instances of "intelligent design" notions to explain natural phenomena being scrapped when more obvious natural explanations were worked out), the whole ID outlook has very little appeal to well-informed scientists. A scientist who knows his history sees the region of understanding as a gradually enlarging circle of light in a general darkness. If someone comes along and tells him: "This particular region of darkness HERE will never be illuminated by methods like yours," then he is naturally skeptical. "How can you possibly know that?" he will say, very reasonably. --John Derbyshire

Compartmentalism




Theology of the Cross vs. Theology of Glory •  If Luther is right, if the cross is where we really see what

God is like, then we should expect that God’s actions in the world bear the mark of the cross… Just as the Son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on a cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws which God has chosen… A theology of the cross then suggests that, contrary to the belief of ID advocates, methodological naturalism is appropriate for natural science, which is not to invoke God as an explanation for phenomena… But this God does not compel the belief of skeptics by leaving puzzles in creation which science can’t solve. The mark God has placed on creation is both more stark and more subtle. “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah” (Matthew 16:4 NRSV). --George Murphy

Compartmentalism




U.S. Supreme Court, 1987: Edwards v. Aguillard “...Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.”

U.S. District Court, 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District “We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents.”

Compartmentalism




9

Two choices for a definition of science in the Ohio Science Standards, 2001-02: • "Science is an active process of

investigating, learning, and thinking about the natural world.”

• "Science is a method of explaining the natural world using natural processes.”

• http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/OhioPoll.htm

Compartmentalism




Some Wise Words From Neil DeGrasse Tyson

The Meta Approach

Speculative Theology: Theology based on human philosophy rather than God's revelation. • God could have…

A medical analogy: Veritable vs. Putative

“Luther has been called the Copernicus of

theology while, on the other hand, Copernicus

has been called the Luther of astronomy.”

--Donald H. Kobe

Scientists believe that…

Some Final Thoughts Finally!

Documents

Sci-202 Unit 7 Thinking about Science and Religion: The ...estrada.cune.edu/facweb/brent.royuk/sci202/docs/Unit7_6.pdfSci-202 Unit 7 Thinking about Science and Religion: The Christian