When mixing science and theology is OK
by KrauzeWilliam Dembski is starting a series of posts on theological arguments against intelligent design, so I thought I'd bring this post back from the archives.
Some Christians reject an ancient age of the Earth because it conflicts with their theology. Here's Henry Morris, the famous young earth creationist from the sixties, in one of his candid moments:
"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology."1
But other Christians reject intelligent design for similar reasons: Their theology does not allow God to intervene in nature in a way that humans can detect.
A recent article in Nature about ID reports:
"The basic problem that I have theologically is that God's activity in the world should be hidden," says George Murphy, a Lutheran theologian, PhD physicist, and author of The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. Murphy says Lutherans believe that God's primary revelation came through Jesus Christ, and many find it distasteful that additional divine fingerprints should appear in nature.2
The physicist Howard Van Till remarks:
"… I find it theologically awkward to imagine God choosing at the beginning to withhold certain gifts from the creation, thereby introducing gaps into the creation's formational history - gaps that would later, in the course of time, have to be bridged by acts of special creation."3
Finally, the cell biologist Kenneth Miller writes, in a book that makes it clear that he is talking about "evolution" as something that excludes ID:
"The irony is that only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truly deserves."4
Now, everybody agrees that when the YECs use their theology to dictate the findings of science, they're wrong. But when Murphy, Van Till, and Miller do the same, they're being courageous and progressive. Why? Where are the people telling Murphy that the Bible isn't a science textbook? Where are the people telling Van Till about Galileo and warning him of what happened the last time religion intruded on the turf of science? Where are the people claiming that since evolution is obviously part of Miller's theology, he shouldn't be allowed to teach it in public schools?
Update
The latest issue of Nature brings us another example of people using theology to argue against ID. In a correspondence-piece titled "Seeking evidence of God's work undermines faith", UK biologist Douglas W. Yu writes:
"The Bible throughout teaches that faith is more valuable when expressed in the absence of evidence. For a Christian, when science is allowed to be neutral on the subject of God, science can only bolster faith. In contrast, and I imagine without realizing it, ID proponents have become professional Doubting Thomases, funded by Doubting Thomas Institutes. When advocates of ID use the vocabulary of science to argue for God's presence in cellular machinery or in the fossil record, they too poke their fingers through Jesus' hands. In so doing, ID vitiates faith."
References
1. Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (Bethany House, 1972), p. 94
2. Geoff Brumfiel, "Who has designs on your students' minds?", Nature 434(7037):1062-5 (2005), p. 1063
3. Howard J. Van Till, "The Fully Gifted Creation", in J.P. Moreland & J.M. Reynolds (eds.), Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Zondervan, 1999), p. 187
4. Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999), p. 258, my emphasis
June 19th, 2006 at 5:04 am
Hi, Krauze (and others)
Your attitude to this depends upon your presuppositions (now where have I heard that before?!). I would approach this issue as follows:
There are three worldviews that relate to this. The first is modernism/rationalism. This places all knowledge in the realm of the real/observable/scientific. Thus love is no more than a biochemical phenomenon, or an effect that ultimately can be traced back to the fact that one configuration of carbon atoms is thermodynamically favoured over another - and religion can similarly be explained in terms of its (ultimately) chemical basis. This worldview underlies most science that traces its epistemological basis to the enlightenment.
The second is postmodernism. This divides categories of knowledge - the real/observable/measurable (science) from the moral/irrational/religious (faith/love/religion). Science can explain a lot, but if we want to know about God, love or morality, then the answers lie beyond science - they require a leap of faith - something beyond rationality. This is the approach favoured (in effect) by people when they say things like "The basic problem that I have theologically is that God's activity in the world should be hidden." - religion is understood to be fundamentally irrational. Gould was prepared to concede this in "Rocks of Ages", as he expounded his NOMA thesis - religion was OK as long as it remained entirely in the realm of the irrational/private/unscientific.
However, neither of these two perspectives represents the traditional Christian worldview. If you like, you might call it "premodern" - although this contains negative connotations - because it predates the enlightenment, and in actual fact was the foundation of modern science before the enlightenment came along - people like Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, probably Galileo and Maxwell would all have expressed their understanding of the universe in this way, and disagreed with both the modern and postmodern worldviews talked about above.
The thinking behind this is that our nature is derived from God as well as from the natural world. We (humans) are fundamentally different from everything else in the universe, because we bear God's image. Many of the "irrational" things that either postmodernism talks about "leaps of faith" for and modernism struggles to explain (ultimately) with chemistry that has been stretched well past breaking point are actually there not because of us but because they represent the nature of something that is external to the universe, which is "more objective". And then how do we know about God? Because he has made himself known in the universe - both generally (we can apprehend things about the nature of God by looking at the universe) and "specially" through the Bible.
How does this relate to the original subject of this post? People's opinions on whether mixing science and theology is OK will be inextricably linked with their presuppositions. If you have a modern worldview, then any theological opinions are meaningless - they don't reflect anything to do with the universe, just a random chemical reaction in somebody's brain. If you have a postmodern worldview, then theological opinions may be expressed, but they are fundamentally irrational - they are a leap of faith, they are private, and they have no real significance to anybody else. Only if you have a premodern worldview will you consider it reasonable for your theological beliefs to have an impact on your scientific beliefs. Thus, Henry Morris, me and (for example) Dave Heddle have this in common. We may disagree on things like what exactly our theological understanding tells us, but we accept the idea that there is a unity between theological knowledge and other kinds of knowledge. A modernist would simply deny that theological knowledge has any meaning at all, and a postmodernist would argue that theological knowledge is a completely separate category to scientific knowledge.
The comment from Nature is theologically and biblically ignorant.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — June 19, 2006 @ 5:04 am
June 19th, 2006 at 5:42 am
I think Exile has made a slight over-generalisation or two. For example when he says:
I think he actually means:
I'm not sure why Exile's religious opinions are better than anyone elses.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 19, 2006 @ 5:42 am
June 19th, 2006 at 6:45 am
Okay, then, let me clarify. Neither the modernist nor the postmodernist worldview represents the worldview that underlies the content of the Bible, the practice or beliefs of the apostolic church, or that of the church fathers, or that of the Reformation. It also doesn't underlie the Christian faith as expressed in the Apostolic and Nicene creeds, or the 39 Articles of the Church of England, or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. It also doesn't reflect the nature of Christianity as it has been expressed by key modern Christian thinkers such as Francis Schaeffer and C.S.Lewis.
So it's not just me.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — June 19, 2006 @ 6:45 am
June 19th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Krauze:
Um, in the snippets provided, I see no indications that Murphy, Van Till, and Miller are using "their theology to dictate the findings of science".
Comment by Art — June 19, 2006 @ 7:28 am
June 19th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Exile keeps on generalising:
I guess we're going to hear shortly that someone who is both a Christian and a postmodernist is not a 'proper' Christian, right?
And your 'traditional Christian worldview' is the only one that's allowed, yes?
It's strange that only religious believers (or some of them at any rate) seem to think science is about belief. It's a classic case of projection.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 19, 2006 @ 8:22 am
June 19th, 2006 at 8:31 am
There was an episode of 24 this season where Jack Bauer had to shoot his friend's wife in the leg in order to get his friend to talk about where some terrorists were hiding toxic nerve gas. In any normal situation, Jack would never do something like that, but these terrorists posed such a threat to the nation, that drastic measures had to be taken.
Comment by macht — June 19, 2006 @ 8:31 am
June 19th, 2006 at 8:37 am
"everybody agrees that when the YECs use their theology to dictate the findings of science, they're wrong"
For anyone interested, I have a defence of the concept of using scripture as a basis of scientific inquiry.
Comment by johnnyb — June 19, 2006 @ 8:37 am
June 19th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Hi Art,
"Um, in the snippets provided, I see no indications that Murphy, Van Till, and Miller are using "their theology to dictate the findings of science"."
Sure they do. They're using their theology to determine which conclusions science should reach to satisfy them. That's every bit as much "dictating the findings of science" as what Morris was doing.
Comment by Krauze — June 19, 2006 @ 11:28 am
June 19th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
In the words of Hawking: "However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology." I would say that this goes for any origins study, since they are not directly testable. You have to have a predefined idea about what causes are acceptable and what causes are not, and what the relative domains and ranges for different types of causes are, as well as exclude nearly every cause not known except for the ones required by the model!
I go into more depth on Hawking's reasonings here:
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/...
Comment by johnnyb — June 19, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Exile from Groggs, I, sporting a Bachelors in (evangelical) Theology, support your position. I agree that there are certainly significant, significant in sincerity, Christian communities that would reject both modernism and post-modernism as you have defined them.
The following is written from a strictly Christian worldview. Please accept it as such. Those who are Christians will appreciate it. Those of you who are not may be puzzled at the many assumptions which come from a Christian worldview. Just remember, when you write from the perspective of your worldview, your writing contains just as many assumptions.
As for Douglas W. Yu, "The Bible throughout teaches that faith is more valuable when expressed in the absence of evidence." His interpretation of Scripture is sloppy at best. He forgets that when Thomas needed to touch Christ's hands, the Lord obliged him. And hudreds of us mere mortals were pleased that he did because our faith can succle off of Thomas' experience.
The Old Testament and New Testament is full of examples of God miraculously interacting with man. One of God's purposes is to allow man to recognize Him for who He is. I have found in my own life that God has acted miraculously on dozens, nay hundreds of occasions. These acts have been provisional — supplying my need. But they have also been faith building.
So is my faith somehow diminished because I have witnessed the immediate handiwork of God? No, it has been incresed! What then did Jesus mean when he said, "blessed are those who having not seen still believe" Jesus simply meant that at some point we never have enough proof of God's presence. Even though I have witnessed the miraculous hundreds of times, I still sometimes feel like I have been left out of the loop, if only because a greater miraculous act is possible. Theoretically, Jesus could pop down from heaven, and show his hands so that I could touch them as Thomas did. So I believe because of what I have experienced. I believe despite the fact that I have not experienced more.
If God invaded His creation by sending Christ to redeem it, then it is not anathema for God to invade His creation. I see no Biblical imperitive to reject ID.
Comment by bFast — June 19, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
I don't like unnecessary cross-linking, but I wrote more about what Yu said (and a mini-exposition of that part of John) on my blog. It should be pointed out that Yu is in good company here - I managed to go to easter Sunday services in two evangelical churches on one day, and neither speaker picked up that there should be a direct connection between doubting Thomas and the verses that immediately follow.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — June 19, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Christianity and ID…
I will make my comment to Krauze's post here. I think between the YEC and TE, there is a spectrum of Christian positions on ID. Hugh Ross is a OEC with progressive underpinnings. There are also those who are OEC that does not subscribe to progressive…
Trackback by Teleological Blog — June 19, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Teleological Blog: "I think between the YEC and TE, there is a spectrum of Christian positions on ID." I would agree that there is a spectrum of Christian positions on ID. I even think it helthy for Christendom that this is so.
I don't find it puzzling that a very Bible-centric "the Bible is the Word of God infallible" position such as YEC would strongly suggest that all other interpretations are of the devil. I am still baffled, however, when the thiestic evolutionists suggest that anyone who disagrees with their "the Bible isn't exactly the inspired Word of God" position is somehow in fundimentall theological error. We non-NDE Christians may be in scientific error — time will probably tell, but the argument that the Bible forbids us from considering a view other than the NDE veiw is balderdash!
Comment by bFast — June 19, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Hi Krauze,
Because they aren't doing the same. I assume in the article in Nature they were being asked specifically about their religious beliefs. I would guess, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that in their scientific research they don't quote the Bible to support specific factual determinations in their research. I would also guess they haven't taken a pledge that all their observations will be interpreted in light of their understanding of the Bible. I would also guess that they haven't taken any scientific positions based on biblical interpretation that almost all other scientists say are wildly incorrect.
Does Miller teach in public schools? Show me a single public school board in the United States which has voted to include evolutionary theory in the curriculum, not because it is mainstream science, but in order to glorify God, and we'll talk.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 19, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Aagcobb: But evolutionary theory wouldn't be included to glorify God - it is pushed by atheists for the opposite reason - because it reduces the need for a God. And this isn't done on the basis of the science - which in my experience is often inaccurate until you get beyond high school level. It is nonetheless not a "religiously neutral" position.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — June 19, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Krauze:
Let's look at the snippet from Miller:
Fact is, Krauze, Miller (and the others you quote) are using reflections on science to help shape their theology. Just about the opposite of what you are claiming.
(This isn't another PWW thing, is it? I wish youse guys would let the rest of us know when you are taking your God-given liberties … )
Comment by Art — June 19, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Hi Exile,
I see you disagree with Krauze as well.
I will give you the opposite challenge to Krauze's; show me one U.S. school board dominated by atheists which instituted the teaching of evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 19, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Aagcobb: "show me one U.S. school board dominated by atheists which instituted the teaching of evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits."
I think it would be really hard to find a school board announce, "we are atheists, we teach evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits." For a school board to make such an announcement would be really dumb. Therefore the analysis must be the "if it walks like a duck" kind of analysis. If you observe the goings on in the courts recently, you may come to the conclusion (I have) that the resistance to ID, the claiming that ID is unacceptable because ID is religion is good proof that "we are atheists, we teach evolutionary theory to promote atheism rather than for its scientific merits."
Comment by bFast — June 19, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
bfast,
Your first post indicates to me that you may be forgetting the 'eternal God' part of the Christian world view. That is, Yahweh is without beginning or end. He is not bound by time so it therefore follows that he encompasses all of history and there is no 'tinkering' from God's point of view. He doesn't see some error, then plan (future) to fix it. He existed before during and after what is being called tinkering. God has no past, nor a future for his nature encompasses both.
To sum, I categorically reject the premise God is bound by time, therefore what we may perceive as intervention to solve some present problem for some future outcome is not, at least from an eternal perspective. (I would add this is also why I reject pre-destination as an argument against free-will, we choose in the moment, God exists outside time and already knows how we will choose)
Comment by todd — June 19, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 1:05 am
Todd, I fully agree that God is outside of time. This is a necessity of Biblical interpretation, and of physics. I also recognize that an entity that is outside of time is a little hard to grasp. So be it.
However, God created a timeline, and His interaction with that timeline has points in time. Though God is timeless, the date that Christ died is fixed in history.
By the same token, if biology does require saltations, then those saltations happened at some point within our understanding of time.
Comment by bFast — June 20, 2006 @ 1:05 am
June 20th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Hi bfast,
Nevertheless, its very easy to find christian school boards that basically announce they are going to teach IDism in order to promote christianity. People on school boards generally aren't aware of the legal consequences of such statements, so I would expect members of an aggressively atheist school board to make statements about how they are replacing God with Darwin, or something of the sort.
Then you don't really understand constitutional law. Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case is a conservative republican appointed by President Bush, and a Lutheran, not an atheist.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 20, 2006 @ 9:07 am
June 20th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Sure, it is fixed in history. But history is written by beings trapped in time. When one looks at this or that evolutionary leap and concludes an imperfect god who must tinker, one puts God in a time-box, and that's a big mistake. Our view of what is real to God is but a facet of his own, for we lack a whole perspective of eternal reality.
This particular argument is one of the silliest out there, revealing a wholesale misunderstanding of what christian theology actually says and the implications which follow.
Comment by todd — June 20, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Todd:
You seem to be going back to the "the Christian God couldn't possibly intervene in His creation" interpretation of Christian theology.
First, let me say that I am not convinced that God did intervene in His creation. It will not surprise me at all if laws of nature are not uncovered which are carefully tuned so that man, or something very like man, is the inevitable and necessary result. IE, I do not find it theologically offensive to suggest that God is so smart that He set the whole thing in motion from day one so that what we have is the natural result. I will only add that if such is discovered, it will be because more laws of nature are uncovered than have been uncovered so far.
Second, let me rehearse that according to Christian theology, God has intervened in His creation. God intervening in His creation is pretty close to an accurate definition of miracle. Further, the incarnation of Christ is clearly an intervention on God's part according to Christian theology.
Therefore, it is theologically unacceptable to suggest that God intervene in his creation is theologically unacceptable.
Comment by bFast — June 20, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:21 am
I really think we should start our school day with a moment of science.
Comment by Mung — June 22, 2006 @ 10:21 am
June 22nd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology. (Morris) "
I know it's off topic, but the Bible says no such thing. I no longer believe in the prima facie Genesis account of creation. But when I did, I was very interested in such questions. And it ain't in there.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 22, 2006 @ 9:19 pm