In 1982, there was a court case concerning the addition of Creation Science in scientific textbooks in the state of Arkansas (McLean vs. Arkansas).[1] Critics of this initiative argued against the inclusion of Creation Science in the school curriculum. They believed that Creation Science necessarily included a belief in God and objected to the inclusion of Creation Science in textbooks on the grounds that the state should not support any particular religious position. Accordingly, the critics of Creation Science argued that science must be essentially atheistic.
Ultimately, the court decided against the state of Arkansas and determined that Creation Science could not be included in school textbooks. This decision was based in large part on the testimony of Michael Ruse, a professor of the philosophy of biology, ethics, and science at Florida State University. Ruse’s testimony included a description of principles which he argued were definitive of good science. These principles, he maintained, were antithetical to what he understood to be the inherently theistic nature of Creation Science.
The criteria of good science as described by Michael Ruse in his testimony are as follow:[2]
1. Scientific explanation “relies exclusively on blind, undirected natural laws and naturalistic processes.”
2. “A scientific explanation may try to explain how one phenomenon follows in a tight and definite way, as a result of the working of natural law.”
3. The explanations of science must be “testable.”
4. The explanations of science must be “tentative.”
But do these principles which Ruse asserts to be the characteristics of good science conflict in any way with a theistic worldview? In his book, The Universe Next Door, James Sire identifies the basic presuppositions which function as the a priori assumptions through which individuals view the world.[3] Here he outlines the presuppositions of the Christian faith, which are as follow:[4]
1. God is infinite and personal (triune), transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign and good.
2. God created the cosmos ex nihilo to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system.
3. Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness and creativity.
4. Human beings can know both the world around them and God himself because God has built into them the capacity to do so and because he takes an active role in communicating with them.
5. Human beings were created good, but through the Fall the image of God became defaced, though not so ruined as not to be capable of restoration; through the work of Christ, God redeemed humanity and began the process of restoring people to goodness.
6. For each person death is either the gate to life with God and his people or the gate to eternal separation from the only thing that will ultimately fulfill human aspirations.
7. Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good (holy and loving).
And so the question is, is there an inherent contradiction between the presuppositions of the Christian faith and the principles of good science? The thesis of this composition is that they do not. There is no explicit contradiction between the Christian presuppositions of James Sire and the tenets of good science as maintained by Michael Ruse in his testimony in McLean vs. Arkansas.
In order for there to be an explicit contradiction between two propositions, there must exist a “conjunction of a proposition and its negation.”[5] This is not the case when the principles of good science as espoused by Michael Ruse are weighed against the presuppositions of Christian theism. Rather, the coexistence of both sets of propositions is logically possible.[6]
But while it is clear that there is no explicit contradiction between much of what Sire understands to be axiomatic of the Christian faith and what Ruse maintains to be the characteristics of good science, methodological naturalists might object, maintaining that there is a contradiction after all. It might be clear that there is no unambiguous negation between the Christian understanding of the afterlife and the testability of scientific explanations, but there may appear to be a contradiction between the “blind, undirected natural laws” of good science and the sovereignty of God as posited by Sire in the first of his presuppositions. Doesn’t it seem that God’s sovereignty would entail a divine control of these natural laws?
While it is true that the divine attribute of sovereignty does include God’s control of natural laws, Ruse’s description of these laws as “blind” and “undirected” does not conflict with this idea. In his testimony, Ruse explains that “uniformitarianism refers to scientific reliance on blind, unchanging natural laws.”[7] Further, he says that uniformitarianism describes the fact that the natural world is “subject to the same natural laws in the past as in the present.”[8] Thus the characterization of natural laws as “blind” and “undirected” is merely an account of their uniformity. This, of course, in no way conflicts with a Christian worldview.
Ultimately, unless it can be shown that the presuppositions of Christianity contradict the principles of science, then science need not be necessarily atheistic. And not only does it appear obvious that no explicit contradiction exists between science and theism, but it seems that the distinctives of good science are dependent upon the Christians worldview. Ultimately, the uniformity of natural law upon which Michael Ruse says good scientific explanations are dependent, is expected by Sire who presupposes the universe to “operate with a uniformity of cause and effect.”[9]
_________________________
Endnotes
[1] The information included in the summary of McLean vs. Arkansas was taken from “Hoisted Upon Their Own Petard: How Design Science Satisfies the Scientific Criteria as Established by Its Critics,” by Bryan O’Neal, Assistant Professor of Theology, Moody Bible Institute. This paper was presented at the 2005 Midwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO which I attended.
[2] Michael Ruse, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1996), 296-301.
[3] James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1997), 16.
[4] Ibid., 23-35.
[5] Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York: Oxford, 1994), 81.
[6] A proposition is logically possible when its negation does not entail a contradiction. Ruth B. Marcus, “Possibility,” The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (New York: Oxford, 1995), 706.
[7] Ruse, 298.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Sire, 16.
Hey, Steve...I enjoyed this paper. However, I’m having some trouble understanding the argument in the following paragraph:
ReplyDelete“While it is true that the divine attribute of sovereignty does include God’s control of natural laws, Ruse’s description of these laws as “blind” and “undirected” does not conflict with this idea. In his testimony, Ruse explains that “uniformitarianism refers to scientific reliance on blind, unchanging natural laws.”[7] Further, he says that uniformitarianism describes the fact that the natural world is “subject to the same natural laws in the past as in the present.”[8] Thus the characterization of natural laws as “blind” and “undirected” is merely an account of their uniformity. This, of course, in no way conflicts with a Christian worldview.”
Especially, the last sentence. Since, as you say, at this point in the discussion we sense the severe disjunction between Ruse’s naturalism and Christian theism, namely how the respective worldviews “account” for the uniformity of the natural world.
For me, the antithetical tension between the two rivals is no more obvious than at this very point. For Christian theism, on the one hand, presupposes a personalistic final reality, which has its accounting in the absolute personality of the sovereign Lord. On the other hand, naturalism couches us in a perfectly impersonal final reality, characterized as having back of it all “blind...undirected” eternal (material) stuffs.
I feel like I’m missing the point here.
When I say that Ruse's "characterization of natural laws as 'blind' and 'undirected' is merely and account of their unifority," I'm not speaking about the way his worldview accounts for uniformity. I'm just saying that Ruse is using the phrase "blind and undirected" synonomously with the word "uniform." When he says "blind and undirected," he is not speaking about what lies behind uniformity. Rather, he is merely speaking of the fact of uniformity. And so in this sense "blind and undirected" is his account (not explanation for, but description of) of uniformity.
ReplyDeleteI think the confusion comes with the natural connotations of those words. And perhaps Ruse has chosen these words knowing that they have these connotations. But I also think Ruse recognizes that if he claims that there is nothing behind such laws, he is begging the question. Thus, he must be content to limit the phrase "blind and undirected" to the concept of uniformity.
So my argument is fairly straight forward. I'm simply stating that Ruse's definition of good science does not exclude Christianity. Of course, you and I would go on to argue that the reason for this is that science must presuppose Christianity if it is to get off the ground! But the thesis of this post is much more modest.