Site under construction!!
When someone uses the word science there are often many assumptions included in that word. What I want to do here is make a quick statement on the 2 different definitions that are not usually stated out loud. The scientific method refers to the development of tools and rules in various fields to help us become very specific in our definitions. For example an astronomer will develop different types of telescopes and how to best study the lights in the sky. A chemist will use a wide variety of chemicals, testing equipment and test tubes to study and record chemical reactions in an organized fashion. The goal is to gather data, with the goal to make opinions and interpretation as close to the relevant facts involved. Sometimes called scientism, there is the philosophical position that only science can be a source of knowledge. That any other source of knowledge is not trustworthy. Epitomized in the idea that the only things that we know are true are what we learn from the hard sciences. For a longer summary read the following review and for full argument I recommend the book itself. https://creation.com/review-scientism-and-secularism-moreland
When it comes to Human Origins there are 4 main responses from Christians!Â
The most well known Christian perspective on human origins is that of the Young Earth Creationists. The primary proponent of this view is Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (answeringenesis.com) their overall perspective is start with the Biblicalinterpretation of a universe beginning around 4004 b.c. Their approach is to start with the Bible, teaching that the only way to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 is as a record of seven 24 hours days. Any science that can support this view is presented, but they seek to find alternate interpretations of any science that disagrees with this perspective. The overall perspective, one that many Christians appreciate, is that the Bible can’t be wrong (nor can their interpretation of it) but the science can.
The second model is Old Earth Creation that is primarily put forward through the work of Astrophysicists Hugh Ross and Biologist Fazale Rana at Reasons to Believe or reasons.org. They understand Genesis as describing the days are really periods of time allowing a different approach to science. The two books idea is explained here and starts with the comment “Permeating the Western Christian tradition of natural theology is a metaphor expressing the belief that God is revealed in a complementary pair of sources: the book of scripture and the book of nature.” This perspective acknowledges that at times there can seem to be conflicts between
Truths claims from science and truth claims from scripture but takes the attitude that each field is made up of both facts and the interpretations of those facts. When Reasons to Believe finds a conflict they look at and question the interpretations seeking from both the Bible and Science interpretations that remove the conflicts.
This is a long debate between Ken Ham and Hugh Ross moderated by John Ankerberg with the Old Testament Scholar Walter Kaiser. It goes into many of the issues between the 2 sides.
The third group would be often called the Theistic Evolutionists primarily represented by Francis Collins and Biologos. With this group science is one category that is true and Bible and it’s truth exists separately valid in the human heart in the realm of faith. Honestly many apologists are uncomfortable with this perspective compartmentalizing faith and science. Often this is group is made of those who are scientists who for one reason or another attend church and find the comforts of Christianity. Culturally today when we think of a scientist we confuse that definition with the definition of polymath (polymath is the master of many fields, where a scientist today is finely focused on one small category of science that they then master). This also means they don’t know philosophy which is necessary for the bigger questions of how faith and science interact.
There is a fourth topic in this discussion that is less of a view of origins but does play a part of the discussion. One of the primary premises of evolution is the role of chance, the role of the dice, in the process that started with a chemical soup and ended with modern humanity. Today there is a strong voice of counter argument to the power of random chance in the intelligent design (or id) movement. Evan the atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted that the world contains the appearance of design. Primarily based on surprising scientific discoveries this movement is led by Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute. Eric Metaxas writes about this in “Is Atheism Dead”, Meyers books include “Signature in the Cell”, “Darwin’s Doubt”, and “The Return of the God Hypothesis”. The fancy word is Telos or purpose, and starts with the idea that if God created and designed the universe we might find evidence of His intelligence. John Lennox says the best explanation of the origin of the human mind is the divine mind. Greg Koukl says the best explanation for a big bang is a Big Banger. William Lane Craig says the best explanation of the fine tuning of the universe is God. James Tour shows that as we grow in understanding the complexity of a cell we keep finding more intricately designed pieces that are harder for random chance to explain. Based on the mathematical odds it seams more likely to find a randomly assembled textbook on the ground than a functioning cell.
Add your own content here. Click to edit.