ARE CHRISTIANS DISQUALIFIED FROM DOING SCIENCE?

 

We’ve all heard these indictments against the role of religion and Christianity:

• “Science has achieved so much because it has not been tied down to religious commitments and ideas. Christians approach science with presuppositions that interfere with them dealing impartially with the evidence. Therefore, religion and Christianity should be kept out of science.”

Although this statement might seem reasonable, there are many incorrect assumptions lurking behind these words. I’ll list the assumptions and the counter-arguments:

1.    Christians (and other “religious” people) are the only ones who have presuppositions that might interfere. We all have our presuppositions, values, philosophical commitments, or religious sentiments.

Even secular humanists used to refer to their belief system as a religion, until they realized that they had more to gain by denying this fact. The first Humanist (atheist) Manifesto (Paul Kurtz, 1933) reads: “Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” Consequently, the argument to remove religion from science should rule equally against atheism.

2.    Christians can’t do science. This just doesn’t accord with the facts. The record of history in favor of the Christian role in the development of science is overwhelming. British scientist Robert Clark sums it up this way:

·          “However we may interpret the fact, scientific development has only occurred in Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations—Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on—science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that, perhaps, science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did. And no wonder. For the non-Christian world believed that there was something ethically wrong about science. In Greece, this conviction was enshrined in the legend of Prometheus, the fire-bearer and prototype scientist who stole fire from heaven, thus incurring the wrath of the gods.” (Christian Belief and Science, quoted by Henry F. Schaefer, 14)

3.    The naturalistic explanations are the only ones that are scientific. Why limit science to only one kind of explanation? It would be like a detective saying, “I will only consider possible perpetrators who are over six feet tall.” Of course, this is ridiculous. Instead, a detective should not allow himself to be limited by his biases if he wants to find the real perpetrator.

Likewise, Science should represent a search for the truth, but it has recently been hijacked by philosophical naturalism. This worldview believes, without any evidential support, that the laws of science and causation are natural and unintelligent, as opposed to being intelligently designed. Since this worldview now controls the scientific establishment, it is no longer acceptable to question it or to provide any explanation that isn’t naturalistic and without design.

While we cannot see either natural or supernatural causation at work, yet there are many reasons to regard the supernatural (ID) paradigm as preferable. http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2010/03/naturalism-vs-supernaturalism.html

4.    Christian presuppositions will take us in an unscientific direction. Instead, it had been the Christian presuppositions that had reopened the door to scientific inquiry. http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2009/11/science-and-christianity.html

5.    Naturalistic (atheistic) presuppositions are the most scientifically fruitful, since they are neutral and do not impede scientific discovery. Instead, we all see through a lens. The question then becomes, “Which lens brings reality into sharp focus and which lens will distort our perception of reality? C.S. Lewis wrote:

·          “I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun—not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” (The Journey, Os Guinness, 27)

According to Lewis, Christianity is the lens that brings every else into focus. Let me try to give an example of this. In many ways, the Bible says that we are sin infested, even the best of us (Romans 7:25; Gal. 5:17). This lens has enabled me to fruitfully navigate life’s demands in many ways. On the surface, people can look darn good, but the Christian lens (presuppositions) declares that there are no ascended gurus out there, just people like me. Nor should I expect to find the perfect wife for me. The biblical lens has enabled me to accept myself, knowing that the struggles I have are little different from those of others. It has also helped me to accept others, despite how they might have disappointed me.

But does the Christian lens produce scientific clarity and knowability? In his debate with the ardent atheist Richard Dawkins, John Lennox stated that if the scientific community had taken the Bible’s assertion that God had created the universe more seriously, it would probably have found evidence to reject the widely accepted Aristotelian idea of an eternal universe – the Steady State theory – much sooner.

I think that there are many examples of this kind of thing. Furthermore, I would predict that much of the atheistically-driven research to find the natural origins of RNA, DNA, the cell, and life itself, in their attempt to get around ID, will merely drain us of a lot of money and time. But, of course, this prediction comes from my presuppositions.

Is the Bible at war against science and its systematic observations? Not according to the Bible! Instead, the Bible expects us to observe the universe, God’s creation, as proof of its Creator:

• For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)

Consequently, to know the cosmos is to know its Creator and to become enthralled by His workmanship. This is an understanding that has driven many Christians to science. Can naturalism similarly inspire?

Science has shown us that life is more than a naturalistically assembled ball of jelly. Instead, it is a collection of cells, each containing an irreducibly complex array of machinery. Even the molecular components - proteins and DNA - are so complex and functional that they laugh at any naturalistic explanation. Here are several testimonies to this amazing fact:

• "The cell is as complicated as New York City.” (Look, January 16, 1962, p. 46)

• "A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism." (Sir James Gray, chapter in Science Today (1961), p. 21)

The evidence for design is so compelling that even atheists are forced to admit that the cosmos itself bears the appearance of design. Do we have any reason to believe that the cosmos is not designed, as the Bible claims? Not in the slightest!