What is Science?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on April 27, 2010 at 8:26am

Arthur Smith said in Why do You Believe in a Young Earth?:

"Where we differ in this is in the definition, I guess. And maybe not really that far. Science, above all else, should be the search for the truth. If your findings are not true, then anything you base on those findings are also not true and are therefore worthless. At least worthless as anything other than blind faith.

Instead, you are accepting the atheist's definition of science which says it has to be naturalistic. This in its essence is unscientific. Science must follow the Scientific Method which requires observation and testing. These naturalistic processes used to claim billions of years do not follow these scientific principles in their application to millions/billions of years. So the things you are claiming are scientific because they rely on naturalism (and uniformitarianism ) are actually not scientific for that very reason. They follow religious faith, not the Scientific Method. Pointing this out through the evidences for a young earth IS vital because otherwise, we fall back into Creation vs science when creation is NOT against science but against evolution, naturalism and uniformitarianism which are religions, not science."

Hey Arthur,

Thanks for being the first to post to my thread! You have some great points. I would disagree with you that science, above all else, should be the search for truth. This would imply that you could use the methods of science and human reasoning and find "truth" apart from God. I wish that were the case but by all apearances God created us as dependant creatures without the ability to "know" things independanty apart from Him. If we could, just think of all the "sceptical" atheists who would be searching for truth and coming to God in droves. It just doesn't happen that way. We are not truly independant apart from God, nor can our knowledge base operate independently of Him.

I would disagree that naturalism is the atheist’s definition of science but would agree with you that science depends on observation and testing; add to that predictions and falsifiability criterion and I think we have a working definition of science. I have one question for you. Given the criteria you have established how would you go about observing and testing things that are supernatural? Where in the world would you go to conduct such experiments? Would you try to observe and replicate the supernatural in a laboratory? I think the answer would be no and this is why I say science relies on natural phenomena in order to operate and be a discipline. Please correct me if I am missing how science can work with the supernatural.

You bring up a good point in observing that evolution is based on religion. These religious worldviews guide the whole of science. Science can not exist without the presence of religious worldviews because they form the basis with which evidence is interpreted. That doesn't make science any less scientific but that does exclude science from being the search for truth. I say this because religious worldviews start with a presupposition of truth before they approach the natural world for interpretation. You never "find" truth this way unless the Truth was first revealed to you.

I'm sorry, even with the consideration of religious worldviews guiding science; science still operates with regard to natural phenomena and can not operate otherwise. If I am wrong please show me where.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arthur Smith on April 27, 2010 at 9:30am

I would say naturalism very much is the atheist's religion, that and uniformitarianism. Here is an example of it: Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University said, "‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’"

That is an atheist speaking of what is acceptable as science. No matter where the evidence points, they refuse anything not naturalistic. That is a religion, not science. To your questions...

1) Given the criteria you have established how would you go about observing and testing things that are supernatural? Where in the world would you go to conduct such experiments? Would you try to observe and replicate the supernatural in a laboratory?

a: You can't

2) I think the answer would be no and this is why I say science relies on natural phenomena in order to operate and be a discipline.

I agree, but there is a 'but' with it.

3) Please correct me if I am missing how science can work with the supernatural.

Here is the 'but': It cannot. BUT it likewise cannot operate using naturalism and uniformitarianism as a basis for events in which those standards can only be assumed and not observed or tested. To claim these things as basis for fossils, rock layers, planet formations, red shifts, distant light, big bang, and on and on is no less faith than is the supernatural and no more science than it either. If you are going to allow naturalism and uniformitarianism to study these things (I'm speaking of past, not present which IS observable and testable), the the supernatural is every bit as valid.

So, I will agree with you that since we cannot observe or test the supernatural it should not be used as science IF AND ONLY IF you remove using naturalism and uniformitarianism from studying where it is unobservable and untestable as well. CAN this be done? Absolutely. We do not need any of that to study the past. Why? Because it is the past and not something we can scientifically know. It is NOT science but a cross between history and philosophy and it is not needed to scientifically study a single thing in the present.

How could science operate under this set of rules? Simply. Just follow the Scientific Method of observation and testing. Do not add ANY interpretation or extrapolation to it.

Take fossils for example. Scientifically we can determine their size, weight, composition, etc. We can cast them, preserve them, compare them to similar ones and look for signs of disease and distress. We cannot know how old they are, how the animal lived, if it had offspring (more evolved or not), etc. The scientist will here ask, "What do you suggest we put in the textbooks then?" How about the truth? That we have no way of knowing these answers scientifically. Is it better to accept a lie than admit we do not know the truth? No. Is it better to call that lie 'science' and any other idea that may fit the evidence not? No.

Personally, I do not care if you use the Supernatural as science or not AS LONG AS the same criterea is applied to the secular reasonings. If you are going to call naturalism and uniformitarianism 'science' then by the same qualifications, so are the things of God. If the things of God are not science, then by the same qualifications, neither are naturalism and uniformitarianism. They both follow the same basis: a presupposition of things that are outside of science, unknowable, unobservable and untestable by true science.

Prof. Evelleen Richards said, "Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time." That is the issue, truth is not a consensus, truth is what is true. If it is not true, it is wrong. If it is wrong but taught as true, it is a lie. Science, to have any validity must be about truth, not about accepting lies. Lies serve no purpose in science and only lead to false findings which are a detriment to progress.

To summarize, science needs to be about truth to work. models based on unobservable, untestable and unprovable assumptions are not science, but faith based and should not be a part of actual science. If you want to add models based on unobservable, untestable and unprovable assumptions as "science", you must allow all such models and not simply refuse any that disagree with your preferred faith.

In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on April 27, 2010 at 2:40pm

Great! I think we’re coming closer to an understanding of naturalism’s role in science and in creationism… which is science. For brevity I will make a list of the points you both made so that we can talk about the issues all at once.


1. I would say naturalism very much is the atheist's religion

I think this is a false dichotomy. Part of the atheist’s religion is built on a religious worldview that sees the universe arising in a step by step progression from a singularity to the vast complexity we see today in the universe. It is certainly a naturalistic worldview. Another atheist’s religion is built on the belief that the universe is eternal and boundless and that the complexity we see has always existed. This is also a naturalistic worldview that is completely separate from the developmental view. If you interpret naturalism as looking at the natural world and seeking natural causes and explanations then I would say that naturalism isn’t so much a religion as a method. It’s even been called methodological naturalism. This form of naturalism is what I am talking about when speaking about naturalism and it certainly isn’t its own worldview. Christianity is a supernatural worldview but the science it produces must by definition follow methodological naturalism.

2. Science likewise cannot operate using naturalism and uniformitarianism as a basis for events in which those standards can only be assumed and not observed or tested.

Of course it can and it does under the auspices of a worldview that interprets results. Creation science uses both naturalism and uniformitarianism under the same conditions. How do you think there could be young earth dating methods? It’s because we utilize uniformitarianism as a principle to reach young earth conclusions. Naturalism and uniformitarianism are both tools that don’t interpret their own results. They rely on worldviews for that. Science can’t operate without worldviews.

3. Personally, I do not care if you use the Supernatural as science or not AS LONG AS the same criterea is applied to the secular reasonings. If you are going to call naturalism and uniformitarianism 'science' then by the same qualifications, so are the things of God.

Let me make this clear so we can properly understand the division I’m making. The supernatural can never be used as science because by definition it goes beyond nature and natural explanations. A supernatural worldview, however, can create scientific theories that are observed and tested utilizing naturalism and uniformitarian methods. The supernatural worldview would be interpreting the observations but the interpretations must me natural interpretations to count as science. This is just the way of things. It doesn’t make the theories any less scientific or the worldview any more naturalistic.

4. Science, to have any validity must be about truth, not about accepting lies.

The point I am about to make is very important. Science relies on worldviews for interpretation. Worldviews can never be falsified because they form the interpretive framework for the very observations that are supposed to be used for falsification. ALL science is dependant on worldviews to exist. Science can NEVER be justified or validated by observations. Theories and hypotheses may be able to be falsified but they can never be justified through observation and testing. That doesn’t mean that science can’t be pragmatic and utilitarian but we can never have certainty and therefore truth from doing science. For truth we must rely on revelation.

5. "Does science extend beyond the ability of natural explanations?" No, of course not. If it cannot be observed, categorized, and tested it is not science.

Thank you for coming around to the point I had originally made. Science MUST be naturalistic to be science. There is no supernatural method availavle to mankind that can be used to produce science.

6. Doing science presupposes the Biblical worldview in order to remain valid.

I agree and disagree with this. Science can never be valid as explained earlier. A worldview can represent reality and that worldview can produce a science that coresponds to reality but the science itself can never be justified based on natural observation and testing.

7. If you observe the universe from the starting assumption of naturalism the results science gives you are necessarily wrong as naturalism stands refuted as being inconsistent to observable phenomena (described by scientific methods) because of the presence of information and information systems which require an intelligent cause that naturalism rejects.

I disagree. Naturalism by itself gives you nothing. You need a worldview behind the naturalism to interpret the results that naturalism is used to produce. There are naturalistic and supernaturalistic worldviews that exist. Naturalism is a necessary tool used by all worldviews to produce science. Science can not be produced by any other methods.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on April 27, 2010 at 4:32pm

Glad you started this thread. Things should be interesting.

I read this a lot on AiG, and I think I'm beginning to see that when you use the term "science" you're talking about operational science. Operational science, I think we can agree, consists of that which you can observe/test in some form or fashion. This is not to say that miracles cannot be observed, as I believe they have (given, not all accounts of miracles are truly that). I just don't believe that God would deign to perform one in a laboratory setting (see Matthew 12:38-39).

Another way of saying it, perhaps, is - instead of science - we say natural science. By the very nature of the name, we exclude the supernatural from this specific field/branch/department of science. As I believe the best definition for science is simply knowing, then we can say that natural science deals only with that which we can know through testable, repeatable observation. I believe this falls under science in general, because to use laboratory results and expect any kind of sense, you must borrow from the Biblical world-view! Our axiomatic beliefs are the foundation of our science. From there, we can test our beliefs to see if they stand up to logical scrutiny (in the cases where we can't use natural science). I think I'm rambling off topic again, so I'll end my post here and await your reply!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on April 27, 2010 at 8:16pm

“First things first, the term 'naturalism' is correct as the evidence does not support it but 'creationism' is not correct. Because we have evidence for creation it is not relegated to arbitrary 'isms'.”

Is this an argument based on semantics? I’m unsure what your point is here besides you not wanting me to use the term creationism. Perhaps I’m unaware of the issue of politically correct terminology among creationists but if you have any creationist references to this discussion of terminology I would gladly read it and change my language usage accordingly. As far as I have read the terms “creation science” and “scientific creationism” are still used interchangeably and it was for the sake of convenience that I dropped the term scientific thinking you would understand my meaning. So much for brevity regarding the term.

“Since we have the presence of information and intelligence, naturalism is unsupportable thus placing naturalism squarely in the realm of belief. The methodology you refer to is mere ritual and exemplifies the whole idea as religious.”

Perhaps we are confusing the terms and their implications. The reason I defined naturalism as a method was for the sake of clarification about what I was talking about. If you are referring to naturalism as a philosophical worldview then perhaps you are muddying the water as the clearer name of that worldview is atheism. If not what would you say would be the differences between these worldviews if they indeed are separate?

The alternative implications of your use of the term naturalism is that the only method that is supportable would be supernaturalism and you have already admitted in this thread that science can not operate under supernatural methodology (such a concept doesn’t exist). Science can only operate under a methodology of naturalism as science must make observations and explanations of natural phenomena.

In regards to your comment about intelligent design, that alone does not imply a supernatural cause, although the natural religious implications certainly make that connection. As for the implications of intelligence in biological life IDers love to suggest the possibility of alien intelligence (yes it’s quite laughable but a naturalistic possibility). In regards to the design aspect found in the universe it can merely imply a design principle programmed into the initial appearance of the universe much like the anthropic principle proposes. So the supernatural isn’t the only possibility, although it appears to the obvious.

“I believe it was the RATE team of PHD creationists who debunked the radiometric dating system. You do not need naturalism to observe scientifically. In fact, naturalism has been in the way of pure science research for hundreds of years. The uniformity of nature is not inherent to science but can observed and described through science. The uniformity of nature was exemplified in the scriptures that defined the reproduction of animals after their kind.”

I hope you aren’t implying that uniformitarianism and radiometric dating are equivalent concepts. They clearly aren’t as although radiometric dating utilizes uniformitarian assumptions the scope of uniformitarian assumptions is much broader than the small scope of radiometric dating. For example, one of the RATE methods was to use uniformitarian assumptions regarding the escape rate of hydrogen from the porous quality of the rocks to contradict the implications of the decay rate of the radioactive material in the same rocks. How could uniformitarian assumptions contradict other uniformitarian assumptions to favor the young age of the rocks if the “evil” nature of uniformitarian assumptions is synonymous with an old age worldview? The point is that it’s not. Uniformitarian assumptions are just a naturalistic tool used to do science. The method doesn’t make conclusions by itself. It’s as inanimate as the rocks it’s used on.

I love how you pull the uniformity of nature out of the Bible and yet don’t make the connection between it and uniformitarianism. You do realize that the two concepts are intimately linked don’t you? One flows out of the other. What’s also funny is that the uniformity of nature is the foundation of naturalism as well. If there were no uniformity of nature it would be impossible to use methodological naturalism. They are unavoidably linked and both Biblical principles. Go ahead and embrace naturalism. You can now put your arms around naturalism and squeeze tight. That’s right, hold that pose while I take a picture. You can even squeeze out a tear if you’d like because now you know that you’re loving on a part of God’s character: his unchanging nature. You can feel secure because both He and naturalism are loving you back.

“You make the assumption that there are supernatural phenomena. The only necessarily transcendent event recorded in scripture is the initial creation account. After that supra-dimensional activity can account for all miracles and spiritual activity.”

Supra-dimensional activity… yeah, explain to me the physics behind that one for me again so I can make scientific predictions and experiments on that dimension.

“But a worldview can be invalidated by showing any fallacies present and ultimately tested by falsification of evidence. If a worldview lacks the scope needed for validation then it is arbitrary.”

Worldviews think they are invalidating other worldviews through their gathered evidence all the time; however, when you ask the other worldview if the evidence invalidates and falsifies their worldview they will disagree over the interpretation of the evidence used. This is the whole problem in a nutshell. No matter how much evidence you interpret, the other worldview will always interpret it differently so although you may believe that you have falsified another worldview, you have only done so in your own mind. In the mind of the other you have done no such thing and they will then proceed to give you an equal amount of evidence to falsify your worldview with which you will disagree over the interpretation. I wouldn’t say that worldviews are arbitrary as they are coherent belief systems which are logically structured. I believe this precludes them from being arbitrary. The science they produce could hardly be considered objective. I think that may be the word you’re looking for.

“No, science itself is impartial relying on observation. I can observe supra-dimensional interaction in the form of miracles, this makes it testable. Your belief that science is naturalistic is irrelevant.”

Let me show you the relevance. Your senses with which you make the observations with rely on nature to operate. Anything that they observe are limited to natural phenomena as our senses can only operate using laws of nature. You may miss the contradiction but in a previous statement you tried to convince me the supra-dimensional activity was naturalistic as it fell outside the boundaries of being supernatural. Now you’re taking the opposite approach to try to convince me it is not naturalistic. You have yet to provide the necessary framework to show me that such a supra-dimensional realm exists and how it operates. Speculative conjecture does not count as a philosophical foundation. The mathematics of string theory is nonsensical when trying to describe such a place where you propose the angels dwell. It doesn’t describe anything like what you might imagine.

“Science must be valid to be good science.. remember that science describes observable phenomena. If the description is accurate, it is valid.”

Description implies interpretation. Please build an argument which can justify your interpretation of science. The most intelligent philosophers of science have been unable to accomplish this feat regardless of their obsessive desire to have an objective discipline to substitute revelation.

“I believe your issue stems from an irrational need to invalidate science because of the philosophy of naturalism. Science is very useful, and has produced many advances in our understanding of how the observable universe fits into scripture. I may be wrong in my assumption.. perhaps you would care to invalidate it?”

As I stated in my previous response, a valid science would substitute the need for revelation. Are you willing to admit you no longer depend on revelation to understand the world? Would you say your desire for independence from God would qualify you as irrational or do you believe rationality can be attained apart from God? If you weren’t aware, assumptions by their very nature are invalid as were you were to justify your assumption, thereby making it valid, it would cease being an assumption and could be classified as law. Your rhetoric is far from law.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on April 27, 2010 at 8:21pm

Science is the study of... something. In particular, by the scientific method - observe, hypothesis, test, revise. This is the most basic definition I have of science. Alexander, I believe what you are referring to as Naturalism is the concept of uniformity. Science relies on certain uniform principles to be true in order to function as a science - natural laws - things will react as they have in the past so that it can be tested, etc.

Naturalism is the belief that everything can be explained by natural causes, including Methodological Naturalism which is also a philosophy, which excludes the possibility of the super (beyond) natural. Science does not require a naturalistic assumption to work. For example, from a creationist perspective, we know that God created in 6 days, approximately 6000 years ago. Knowing this, we then look to the world and say "What can I expect to observe based upon this supernatural supposition?" Accounting for super-natural or incorporating the supernatural causality does change the direction of the research (creationists look at modern creatures and see what the affect of the fall might have been, evolutionists look at modern creatures and try to find in between forms, naturalists look to natural processes, usually an evolutionary perspective).

Operational science is the everyday science (took us to the moon, created plastics, filters the water in my tap) - Historical science is ALWAYS based upon worldview, and deals with what cannot be observed or tested, as it is what happened in the past. Suppositions are necessary in Historical science and the difficulty for the evolutionary worldview is that - if it were true - it would make all of science irrational - as we cannot count on uniformity because there is no REASON for things to happen in the future the same way they do in the past. See Jason Lisle's Ultimate Proof for more in depth on this.

Brian Guiley

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on April 27, 2010 at 8:33pm

Stefan Morin said:

Glad you started this thread. Things should be interesting.

I read this a lot on AiG, and I think I'm beginning to see that when you use the term "science" you're talking about operational science. Operational science, I think we can agree, consists of that which you can observe/test in some form or fashion. This is not to say that miracles cannot be observed, as I believe they have (given, not all accounts of miracles are truly that). I just don't believe that God would deign to perform one in a laboratory setting (see Matthew 12:38-39).

Another way of saying it, perhaps, is - instead of science - we say natural science. By the very nature of the name, we exclude the supernatural from this specific field/branch/department of science. As I believe the best definition for science is simply knowing, then we can say that natural science deals only with that which we can know through testable, repeatable observation. I believe this falls under science in general, because to use laboratory results and expect any kind of sense, you must borrow from the Biblical world-view! Our axiomatic beliefs are the foundation of our science. From there, we can test our beliefs to see if they stand up to logical scrutiny (in the cases where we can't use natural science). I think I'm rambling off topic again, so I'll end my post here and await your reply!

Thanks for your comments Stefan! I have read how AIG differentiates “operational” science from “historic” science. I can visualize the two categories and recognize there is more agreement between worldviews about operational science. I disagree, however, with implications that one category is more scientific than the other. Creationists shouldn’t degrade the very science they can distinguish themselves by as if it is a lower form of science than the other. What are the differences in scientific methodology between the two categories? I would argue there are none. Yes you can’t observe the past to determine if your theories about the past are the correct views but you observe the evidence of the past in the present just as well as you observe the operations of natural law in the present. You can conduct tests with regard to your hypotheses of the interpretations of historic evidence as well as you can about your interpretations of your observations in operational science. Our conclusions about our interpretations of observations in operational science are just as uncertain as our conclusions about the historic past and are just as subject to be overthrown by new ideas in regard to our interpretations of our observations. Neither category can provide us with objective truth about nature separate from revelation. There is no need therefore to act as if we should be ashamed of the quality of our science. I hope this confidence in the discipline will catch on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on April 27, 2010 at 9:15pm

Alexander Martin said:
I have read how AIG differentiates “operational” science from “historic” science...I disagree, however, with implications that one category is more scientific than the other.
That's not at all what I was implying, nor is that what I gather from my reading on AiG. Rather, I believe the point is that you cannot ultimately verify historical science the way you can operational. With operational science, we can repeat an experiment and observe (e.g. sending an atomic clock into space to confirm time dilation). On the other hand, historical science requires that we interpret existing data (fossils, strata, etc.), but we can never repeat history.

You can conduct tests with regard to your hypotheses of the interpretations of historic evidence...
I must disagree. Let's say you're trying to determine what killed a particular dinosaur. You can look at the bones, examine them for trauma, and develop scenarios that produce similar results on similar substances (bone in this case). Ultimately, however, all you have done is create a story. That story may be right, but it remains just that. As I stated above, however, with operational science you create the events real time and observe the outcome. There are similarities, yes, and both sciences are useful. No one is arguing otherwise.

Our conclusions about our interpretations of observations in operational science are just as uncertain as our conclusions about the historic past and are just as subject to be overthrown by new ideas in regard to our interpretations of our observations.

I agree entirely!

Neither category can provide us with objective truth about nature separate from revelation.

Truth is not dependent on our interpretations. Truth is truth regardless. If this were not the case, then science would be meaningless. All of this is getting away from the point I was originally trying to make, however. We can say that operational or natural science (I want to avoid using the term naturalistic as it is too associated with the philosphy that nature is all there is) is the science of things which we can test and observe.

I would challenge you, however! If you agree that historical science is just as valid, then I wonder how do you reconcile Genesis with your idea that science can only deal with the natural world?

Let's propose that:

A- Historical Science is the determination of facts about the past.

We agree that:

B- The Genesis Creation account is historical fact.

Therefore it can fall under our study. We also know that the original creation act was a supernatural event.

Given A and B I believe we can therefore include that:

C- The Supernatural can in fact be called "scientific."

If I've erred in any way here, please correct me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on April 27, 2010 at 11:11pm

Hey Brian! You strike me as someone who may actually practice science. In that light if I were to have to admit that I was wrong I’d have no problem admitting it to you. Let’s not give up so easily just yet though shall we?

“Alexander, I believe what you are referring to as Naturalism is the concept of uniformity.”

Okay, I concede. The two are inextricably linked.

“Naturalism is the belief that everything can be explained by natural causes, including Methodological Naturalism which is also a philosophy, which excludes the possibility of the super (beyond) natural.”

I would tend to argue with you here. I agree there is a worldview which could be categorized as Philosophical Naturalism which excludes any consideration of a supernatural worldview in interpreting science but I think the term prevents clarity of the issues. More accurately the worldview should be labeled Atheism because that more clearly defines the issue. Philosophical Naturalism is named such to try to have people make the connection with Methodological Naturalism which is nothing more than a tool that is used and I would argue analogous to the scientific method. Science can not operate apart from methodological naturalism but works just fine apart from philosophical naturalism. Supernatural phenomena can not be observed with natural eyes. You can argue that the natural effects of the supernatural cause can be observed but the very act of observation requires naturalism and science can not work without observation.

“Science does not require a naturalistic assumption to work.”

No argument here, however, I would expand your language to replace assumption with worldview. It’s just a picky detail because worldview implies assumption. I just want to make sure you are connecting the two. I want to point out that the worldview, however, is exempt from falsification and therefore may lie outside the umbrella of science but science is completely dependant on worldview for operations and can not exist apart from it.

“from a creationist perspective, we know that God created in 6 days, approximately 6000 years ago.”

I’m going to be picky and clarify it’s from a Christian or religious perspective if we are to equate the term creationist with the scientific discipline. I realize you have Biblical creationism which is separate from scientific creationism but in the context of this thread I will assume you are talking about the scientific variety of creation.

“Knowing this, we then look to the world and say "What can I expect to observe based upon this supernatural supposition?" Accounting for super-natural or incorporating the supernatural causality does change the direction of the research.”

Again I would agree with you but clarify that it is the supernatural worldview that is doing the interpreting and not the scientific model based on the worldview. I would also answer the question you posed by suggesting that the scientific model formed from this perspective would seek a natural framework for the purposes of making predictions before seeking natural observations. Such a natural framework would take the form of determining if the universe displayed initial appearance of abrupt complexity. It would not try to determine if observational data supported initial appearance of complexity over a period of six days. How could you naturalistically observe evidence that could support such a specific conclusion? Therefore the supernatural reality of six days wouldn’t make a very good natural framework with which to compare observations.

One might argue that the assumption of abrupt appearance of complexity would rule itself out of being a naturalistic framework. I would like to argue otherwise. There are two possible solutions to this perception. The first would be to compare the difficulty of accounting with natural laws for a complex universe that appeared abruptly with the same difficulty big bang theorists have in accounting for the initial appearance and expansion of the singularity and relegate that part as outside of the realm of science. That would be the more honorable position perhaps and deserves having the rest of the scientific framework be granted the same naturalistic label as the developmental framework of the universe. However, this solution drives philosophical naturalists, or atheists, insane (perhaps drives is too generous an implication). The second solution hatched out of the minds of the most “gifted” of the atheists is to imagine a multiverse where infinite universes pop in and out of existence. Given infinite universes they claim there is no need to account for the supernatural appearance and expansion of the initial singularity as universes pop in and out of existence all the time and ours just happened to be finely tuned to promote the appearance of life. Although this explanation is pure fantasy it is a naturalistic explanation and therefore atheists claim this makes their scientific framework comprehensively naturalistic. In defense of a naturalistic label for a creation framework it is but one small step in logic to expand the appearance of a singularity from an infinite number of universes to the abrupt appearance of a fully complex universe showing all the signs of design that exist.

The worldview that the scientific framework is produced from is still a supernatural worldview but the science it has created is fully naturalistic in every way conceivable. There is no distinction between the science conducted by the Christian worldview and the science conducted by an atheistic worldview. They are equivalent by every measure of science. The one big difference is that one is based on the principles of revelation while the other is a rebellion from it.

“Operational science is the everyday science (took us to the moon, created plastics, filters the water in my tap) - Historical science is ALWAYS based upon worldview, and deals with what cannot be observed or tested, as it is what happened in the past.”

What you’re missing is that operational science is likewise ALWAYS based on worldview. It can not escape it as a worldview is the only way one can “see” the world. It is just as susceptible to the influences and nuances that a worldview commands of it. A great example of this which you hint at in your next comment is that science was born under a Christian worldview that perceived God as orderly and consistent which gave us the necessary background to assume a uniformity of nature. Without this basic influence of the Christian worldview there could be no science the way we know it today.

“Suppositions are necessary in Historical science and the difficulty for the evolutionary worldview is that - if it were true - it would make all of science irrational - as we cannot count on uniformity because there is no REASON for things to happen in the future the same way they do in the past.”

I’m with you 100%. This is EXACTLY the reason you shouldn’t hide from the naturalist label. Evolutionists lack the worldview foundation to be truly naturalistic. Naturalism is the direct result of a Christian worldview of nature. We should be telling them they are not consistently naturalistic and therefore fall outside of the discipline of true science which relies on natural interpretations. Instead the situation is reversed with them pointing the unscientific finger at us. What drives me crazy is that we accept that misnomer and claim that what we practice isn’t “real” science. What a defeatist strategy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on April 27, 2010 at 11:35pm

Stefan Morin said:

Truth is not dependent on our interpretations. Truth is truth regardless. If this were not the case, then science would be meaningless.

I would challenge you, however! If you agree that historical science is just as valid, then I wonder how do you reconcile Genesis with your idea that science can only deal with the natural world?

Let's propose that:

A- Historical Science is the determination of facts about the past.

We agree that:

B- The Genesis Creation account is historical fact.

Therefore it can fall under our study. We also know that the original creation act was a supernatural event.

Given A and B I believe we can therefore include that:

C- The Supernatural can in fact be called "scientific."

If I've erred in any way here, please correct me.

I apologize ahead of time Stefan for not showing your post as much attention as it deserves. Many of the arguments you have made I have dealt with in my previous post. If you have an argument I skipped over that you feel I didn't touch please point it out and I will reply to it.

You're right that truth is truth regardless of our interpretations but my point is that science is incapable of uncovering truth without the direction of a worldview's interpretation based on revelation. In this light then science which is not based on revelation IS meaningless. You can't even get the uniformity of nature without revelation so everything else is hopelessly irrational and incapable of comprehension. You've made a good point.

As for your challenge about Genesis I hope I have met your expectations in forming a scientific framework out of the implications of supernatural events without making the supernatural scientific. I find it hard to conceive how the individual days separated by their specific events could fall under our natural observational study as I see no way in nature to discern the separation of days. All I am able to discern are the observations that imply a single abrupt appearance of our complex universe. If you are aware of a scientific method that can distinguish between the specific days in time so close to the beginning six thousand years ago I would be willing to change my mind but I am doubtful there could be a mathematical equivalent of evolutionists parsing milliseconds of the expansion of a singularity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arthur Smith on April 28, 2010 at 6:46am

-- Christianity is a supernatural worldview but the science it produces must by definition follow methodological naturalism.

Except for where it doesn't.

-- Of course it can and it does under the auspices of a worldview that interprets results.

No, it cannot. Because those 'results' are therefore untestable, unobservable and unknowable thus does not follow the Scientific Method and is only "science" by those who insist it is. Not by reality.

-- Creation science uses both naturalism and uniformitarianism under the same conditions. How do you think there could be young earth dating methods? It’s because we utilize uniformitarianism as a principle to reach young earth conclusions.

Very correct. It is because they use naturalism and uniformitarianism that we can use it to show how by their own standards, it doesn't work. But that doesn't make it follow the Scientific Method any better. I am all for trowing out ALL evidences that rely on unobservable, untestable, unknowable assumptions based on naturalism and uniformitarianism, both theirs and ours. As I have stated before, doing so destroys every pretense of evolution but doesn't harm creation in the slightest.

--Naturalism and uniformitarianism are both tools that don’t interpret their own results. They rely on worldviews for that. Science can’t operate without worldviews.

Again I disagree. Naturalism and uniformitarianism, as applied to the unobservable, untestable, unknowable past IS the worldview. Its not science.

--The supernatural worldview would be interpreting the observations but the interpretations must me natural interpretations to count as science. This is just the way of things.

ONLY because you and secular scientists insist on it. Stop insisting on it, start insisting on things that ONLY follow the Scientific Method, and that would be the way of things AND be scientific.

--The point I am about to make is very important. Science relies on worldviews for interpretation.

Only under the current insistence of secular scientists.

--ALL science is dependant on worldviews to exist. Science can NEVER be justified or validated by observations.

No offence, but that is hogwash. That statement defies the entire Scientific Method and all of practical science. Testing and observing the conclusion is the basis on which science resides. You observe something in nature, create a hypothesis, design a test, test and retest it until certainty is reached, observe the results and have either validation for or against your hypothesis. You only need the RESULTS to have real science. Those results are THEN interpreted through a worldview which is NOT science but philosophy.

--Thank you for coming around to the point I had originally made. Science MUST be naturalistic to be science. There is no supernatural method availavle to mankind that can be used to produce science.

While you are correct on the supernatural not being able to follow the Scientific Method, you are incorrect on naturalism (and uniformitarianism), as applied to the untestable, unobservable and unknowable past also does not.

--To Allen you say "I love how you pull the uniformity of nature out of the Bible and yet don’t make the connection between it and uniformitarianism. You do realize that the two concepts are intimately linked don’t you? One flows out of the other. What’s also funny is that the uniformity of nature is the foundation of naturalism as well. If there were no uniformity of nature it would be impossible to use methodological naturalism. They are unavoidably linked and both Biblical principles."

That is also false. Scripture is very clear on that point. First and foremost is creation itself which defies this. Then throughout the entire Bible we have miracles that defy this and we are told many things are to come including the end of all that defies this. 2 Peter 3 warns against your statement saying that it is the scoffers who will say "For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." They are NOT linked in reality, only i the naturalist's insistence.

--Again to Allen you say, "valid science would substitute the need for revelation. Are you willing to admit you no longer depend on revelation to understand the world? Would you say your desire for independence from God would qualify you as irrational or do you believe rationality can be attained apart from God?"

God made this world. He made it for us to understand. That is why IN THE PRESENT, Naturalism works. Through God designing the world this way, we CAN understand it through (real) science without further revelation but through science based on the laws of science which God ordained. Naturalism is not one of those laws but a worldview. It is a worldview and not science because it CAN be observed and tested IN THE PRESENT but then is applied to the past when it cannot be. The revelation we need to use science is that God created everything thus (real) science has a basis for study.

Had countless Greek gods created it, each would have had their own say and different parts of the world/universe would work so differently based on their whims, that science would not work. Had it been created by chance, then each separate law would have been created by chance and therefore we could never know if chance had created it the same here as in China, as on Mars or as in another galaxy. The revelation we need for (real) science to work IS God. We do not require any further revelation to know that what He created works.

--To Brian you said, "What you’re missing is that operational science is likewise ALWAYS based on worldview."

I am going to make a slight change yo this statement. I would say instead that scientists (tend to) base their operational science on a world view. This does not HAVE to be true as my earlier example on fossils points to. WITHOUT a worldview we can study the makeup, composition, structure, density, size, condition, etc of fossils. We have to add a worldview to then add in age, anything about its life, how it evolved, etc. Simply either eliminate the later half and you can have unbiased science. The later half then becomes, as it should be, a philosophical argument and not science.

In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on April 28, 2010 at 1:27pm

Arthur,

No offense but I have you figgured out. When you claimed "Don't add any such qualifications or insistences on what God has done" in another thread regarding the issue of time dialation I realized you are no friend of science. In fact, following your logic, doing science is a sin because it questions the faith one has in the Bible if they have to go to nature to inquire about "what God has done." To you the only "science" we need is the Bible and anything not found in the Bible is heresy. With that in mind you are not worth throwing my pearls before.

The only point you made that was worth responding to (that I wouldn't have had to repeat myself about) was the question over whether operational science could be justified by observation. If anyone else questions that point and wants a coherent rationale I will be more than happy to break down why operational science can never be justified by any number of observations but Arthur, I'm afraid my explanation would fly right past you. God speed.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 130
• Next ›
• Page