Posts from — June 2006

Dr. Ralph Seelke, a microbiologist at The University of Wisconsin, recently testified in favor of a bill that would require the government schools in Michigan to include critical analysis of evolution (and other things) in the science curriculum. He said,

Why do I think that having students critically analyze evolution is a good idea? First of all, in any area where there is considerable disagreement, a sound teaching strategy is to teach the controversy: allow the students to examine both the strengths and weaknesses of arguments for both sides, and in so doing make up their own minds about the subject. There is a term used when we only want student to learn one side of a story. It is called indoctrination, not education.

I think he’s right, but wouldn’t that mean the government school’s policy in regard to religion, or the supernatural/metaphysical, is… indoctrination?

HT: Evolution News & Views

I continue reading Bones of Contention, and I am enjoying it quite a bit. Very scientific and very poignant. Here is an extended quote from it, not dealing with the specific issue the book takes on (human evolution), but the much broader question of science and revelation.

Many people believe there is a serious conflict between science and the Bible. A classic work on this subject is Andrew White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology. However, the famous scientist and educator James B. Conant made this interesting observation on White’s book:

…the warfare White describes has been for the most part a series of battles in regard to the interpretation of the past…. As long as one sticks to physics, chemistry, and experimental biology, a cautious approach to science such as I have employed will offend but few.

The overwhelming majority of people working in science and technology deal with the present, not the past. The overwhelming majority of books and journal articles of a scientific nature also deal with the present, not the past. In truth, there is simply no conflict between the Bible and scientific discoveries and observations in the present. The only conflict between science and the Bible involves the scientific community’s interpretation of the past.

While science thrives on observation and experimentation in the present frame of reference, it has no mechanism to observe the past with the same authority it has to observe the present. The scientific method (or methods) applies to the past only indirectly, if at all. In the absence of historical records, all data regarding the past involves interpretations which may or may not be correct. Not without reason did Oxford scholar R.G. Collinwood say that the study of the past is really a study of the human mind, indicating that there is a high degree of subjectivity in all scientific reconstructions of the past. It is unfortunate that many scientists think that because they are able to make authoritative statements about the present processes of nature, this allows them to speak dogmatically about the past history of our planet, ignoring historical documents such as Genesis.

The failure of the scientific community to recognize the high degree of subjectivity in its interpretation of past events is the major cause of the “warfare” between the Bible and this area of science. While Christians may not always have handled this warfare well, the cause of the conflict cannot be laid upon our shoulders. Believing that we have a reliable historical record of two crucial past events, creation and the Flood, the Christian accepts the contributions of science to the present with gratitude and thanksgiving while he challenges the authority of science to make dogmatic statements about the past.

Typical of the confusion that comes from not understanding that the nature of the scientific method and the nature of biblical revelation are two distinct and separate things is the statement by Eugenie C. Scott (National Center for Science Education, an organization founded to combat scientific creationism): “The scientific method is vastly superior to revelation (or other epistemologies) as a means to discover the workings of the natural world.”

Scott is absolutely right in what she says, but she doesn’t have a clue as to why she is right. She is right, but she is comparing apples with oranges. The primary purpose of revelation is not to tell us about the “workings of the natural world.” Why should God give us a revelation of things we can discover for ourselves when we utilize (among other ways) the scientific method? God’s purpose in biblical revelation is to give us information on things we could not know by any other means. For this reason God has given us a revelation of two momentous historic events: creation and the Flood. Knowledge of these two singular, unrepeatable events is beyond the scope of the scientific method. Scott confuses the issue. She has lumped information of the past through God’s revelation with information of the present obtained by the scientific method. She then indicates that she prefers the information provided by the scientific method above the information provided by the Word of God, whether the scientific method is adequate for the task of dealing with past singularities or not.

Providence is hosting our 3rd annual Reforming Marriage Conference this summer, and this year’s topic is on the family, specifically childrearing.

It is Saturday, July 22nd, and costs $40 for a couple (until June 23rd).

You can get more info at our website: http://www.providencekirk.com/

Not only a new issue (controversy), but also a brand new website. Don’t miss it!

http://www.stannespub.com/