The “Facts of Nature” Versus Scripture Part 1 of 3
Laws are irrefutable principles governing the mechanics of the universe (gravity, thermodynamics); meanwhile, theories are just proposed explanations of nature backed by some evidence and hypotheses are mere, proposed explanations with less to no evidence.
While this might be the third grade explanation of these terms, it is not nearly that simple. The term “theory” is attach to many principles that science and engineering take as “facts” and society banks billions of dollars on. For example, airplanes work on “Wing Theory” and “Control Theory”. The medical field cures people on principles of “Cell Theory” and “Germ Theory of Disease”. Computer technology works on the principles of “Information Theory”. As to those theories relevant to the age of the Earth goes, there is the “Big Bang Theory”. Big Bang cosmology relies on the Theories of Special and General Relativity. These two theories have been tested and verified to a great degree of precision. In fact, these tests are constantly pushing the limits sensors and instrumentation technologies to develop more accurate and precise instruments that further validate these theories. Each time these come out very well for Einstein. The argument, “it’s just a theory” is very weak and shows a lack of understanding of science and technology.
Another YEC argument is that “science’s understanding of what is a ‘fact’ has changed from decade to decade”. This is indeed true. It is inherit to the scientific enterprise and this has actually worked in favor of a Christian worldview. For example, the prevailing paradigm of astronomy was the Steady-State universe (in short, the universe has always been and all there will ever be giving naturalistic processes an infinite amount of time to produce life). Now the prevailing paradigm is “Big Bang”- a finite, definite beginning to the universe. Dr. Ross has done well on explaining how Big Bang theory has works well to support a Christian worldview [2].
By the way, this lay understanding of “law vs. theory” fails in the other direction too. It is now known that established “laws” of physics are not laws in the sense that they are absolute in correctness. For example, Newton’s Laws of Motion has shown to fail as the speeds in consideration get closer to that of light. The Law of Gravity has broken down in the study of black holes. Both of these are really replaced by a “mere theory” – the Theory of Relativity.
And CAT is very much correct in noting that the “fact” has changed from decade to decade. As the authors put it:
“ …science’s understanding of what is a “fact” has changed from decade to decade, especially when it comes to the question of ancient events and origins. Paradigm shifts have occurred again and again. History provides numerous examples. It is important to remember that…” [3]
That is true simply because the size of the database changes. This happens, in part, because new and better information attained modifies, confirms, or challenges the prevailing scientific theories, thereby refining them and often improving or in other cases, discarded. However, I do not think we Christians are in a position to throw rocks here. It‘s said that our database, the Bible, has not changed in 1900 years. Yet, we still cannot resolve contradictory “theories” on eternal security, end-times, Christology, etc. I would suggest it is important to remember that.
RE: Science Cannot Directly Deal With The Past.
Here the authors of CAT claims “Scientists cannot go back in time for a hands-on examination of events of long ago. Scientists are limited to testing and observing things as they exist now — in the present”. Put another way, CAT invokes the age old, third grade playground argument, “How do YOU know. You weren’t there!”
This is true of many sciences but not all. Many YEC fail to appreciate that the fields of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology are actually work as time machines. Since the speed of light is finite, the farther we look out into space, the further back in time we are looking. For example, since it takes 8 minutes for light from our sun to reach us, astronomy can- at this instant- tell us lots about the sun 8 minutes ago, but it can tell us nothing about the sun right now, this instant as you are reading this. The nearest star to our solar system is about 4 light years away, if it were to explode at the time you finish reading this post, we would be none the wiser until that light reaches us, four years from now.
Other disciplines of science that can see into the past are geology by looking at old rocks, and paleontology, by looking at fossils. Archeologists use historical records and artifacts to piece together what it was like are the time of Christ, but no one says, “Hey, you weren’t there!” to any historical claims of the life of Christ.
Not everything about YEC is anti-science. Many of them will admit that some science can be trusted- those that we can “see” and “fell” now. The authors of CAT put it this way:
“…we must remember that [computer technology, medicine, and space travel] are far different subjects than the question of ancient origins. Computer chips and medical inventions exist in the present.…beliefs about ancient origins are different: these are beyond the reach of finite, mortal hit- mans and therefore involve much hypothesis, assumption and guesswork.” [3]
But they don’t seem to realize that computer chips and medical inventions (such as x-rays and MRI technologies) rely on the very sciences that they reject when applied to the question of the age of the earth- such as quantum physics, particle physics, nuclear physics, to name a few.
Re: Majority Opinion Does Not Determine Truth
This section is just one big two-way street. Let me address this in a more point-counter point fashion:
CAT: Unfortunately, many people seem to be of the opinion that if the majority of scientists believe in something, it must be true. [3]
jjgoalie: Well, not really. Most new ideas of science are not readily embraced. They are subject to scrutiny and the rigors of testing. After that, they begin to find acceptance. Sure this has not always been the case, it usually is.
CAT: Christians, of all people, should see the clear lie in this thinking. The majority of people have never wanted to accept God’s truth. The majority of people did not survive the Flood, either. The Bible says the broad path is the one always followed by the majority. The narrow path is the one which leads to truth and life. [3]
jjgoalie: Yes, indeed Jesus warned us that God’s truth is the narrow path rarely taken, but this teaching of Jesus is not a broad principle. Jesus applied this to the question of His Messiahship. Many (the broad path) rejected His Messianic claims, but few accepted them. Where Jesus uttered this warning, He was speaking of the arena that CAT wants to apply it- “science vs. faith”. I would also have to say that this biblical principle is not just for the world, but for Christian teachings too. How many are lead away from His path by YEC teachings that do not match up with what we see in the world around us?
CAT: The majority of scientists do not believe in most things the Bible says — the miracles, the virgin birth, the global flood, the resurrection. etc. The Bible is true nonetheless. Also remember that most, if not all, important scientific findings were originally minority views. [3]
jjgoalie: Finally, something here I agree with. Again, if YEC creationists are right, and if their view is the majority view- why is it that their own warnings do not apply to their position? After all, they claim to be the majority view amongst Christians.
For more see "Facts of Nature vs Science - Part 2"
FOOTNOTES:
[1] CAT pg. 25
[2] Consider “Creator and the Cosmos” by Hugh Ross and http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first (accessed 7.14.2007)
[3] CAT pg 26
No comments:
Post a Comment