Science, Uniformity, and Causality
Many times "scientific" articles would better fit under the category of "science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20). Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines science as:
|sci·ence: 1 a: possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding b: knowledge attained through study or practice 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge c: one of the natural sciences 3 a: knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through the scientific method b: such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : Natural Science 4: a system or method based or purporting to be based on scientific principles|
Simply put, science takes observable, empirical, measurable evidence and determines if it is a reasonable scientific theory and can become a scientific natural law using the scientific method. The scientific method can NOT prove a scientific fact it can only tell you if you have a reasonable theory. It is this operational science that is used to develop technology, synthetics, and medicines. The hierarchy of how universally true something is can be broken down into the following.
1. Scientific Fact
2. Scientific Law
3. Scientific Theory
4. Scientific Model
The scientific method can be broken down in to the following steps.
2. Proposal of a question or a problem
3. A hypothesis or educated guess made - Model
4. Scientific experimentation
5. Theory formed - A hypothesis with a high degree of probability
6. Scientific natural law (If the theory is shown to be valid on a universal scale)
We can now use these steps of the scientific method to see what they tell us about evolution.
2. Proposal of a question or a problem
How did we get here?
3. A hypothesis or educated guess made
We evolved from nothing, to stars, to chemicals, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans.
4. Scientific experimentation
Now we have a problem. When dealing with evolution (Cosmic, Chemical, Biological, or other) we have never observed, tested, or repeated any of the "scientific" models including the Big Bang, origins of planets and stars, origin of life, and higher animals being produced from lower animals. Since evolution does not even pass the first step in the process it is still in the stage of a scientific model of how someone thinks it may have happend. No one has ever done an experiment that made life come from non-life, or a lower creature turn into a higher creature. Without that empirical evidence, evolution cannot leave the hypothesis or model phase.
When reading articles, always look if they mention what testing they have done to verify that evolution happened. They may look at it, measure it, weigh it, map what layer it was found in, or count the radiation coming from it, but that does not prove anything about its origin.
The reason there is often so much confusion with calling evolution a theory or a model is because most people that talk about the subject (professors, researchers, television specials) have a background in science and not in philosophy. People that are well versed in philosophy tend to keep track of the actual titles of fact, law, theory, or model better because it is crucial to putting things in a reasonable order in your mind.
For evolution to be considered scientific it would need several things to be repeated in a laboratory and observed, including:
- Creation of something from nothing
- Creation of life from non-living chemicals
- Billions of beneficial mutations that produce increased genetic complexity
- Bone structure naturally change from one "kind" of animal to another "kind"
Just like a crime scene is not open to using the scientific method because the crime has already past, we have to leave the operation science field and enter the origin science field. Origin science is used when the events in question have already happened and are not occurring over again, so no direct observation is possible. Two methods can be used to logically infer what has happened in the past since the scientific method does not apply.
1. Principal of uniformity or analogy (If something happens in the present and causes the same effect as seen in the past)
2. Eyewitness testimony
Principal of Uniformity
The principal of uniformity states: If we can observe the cause that produces an effect in the present, we can reasonably assume that the same effects we see were from a similar cause we did not see.
The Uniformitarian view explains that everything happening now is exactly the same as it happened in the past; slow and gradual changes. If small rivers flowing through large canyons only erode a small amount of dirt, then it must have taken many, many years for the river to erode the canyon. Problems with the uniformitarian view of geology can be seen in the Grand Canyon. The Colorado River enters the canyon at 2800 ft above sea level, and exits at 2500 ft above sea level. This is a drop of only 300 ft, yet the canyon is almost 1 mile deep in places. Since rivers only flow down hill, the river could not have carved the canyon. The Grand Canyon (along with many other canyons and the Bad Lands) are washed out spill ways left over from a major catastrophe.
Empirical measurements of Grand Canyon (measure depth, watch the erosion rate) will lead you to conclude that a little water took a lot of time to carve the canyon; however, if the uniformitarian view of geology is incorrect, then measurements of the current rates will be irrelevant.
Our presuppositions will cause us to have different interpretations of the same circumstantial evidence; therefore, the best method for determining what happened in the past is a reliable eyewitness.
Since man is limited in our knowledge, it is possible that things we think we know today will be proven wrong in the future. Drawn to the logical conclusion, this means that if we don't know everything, then it is possible we don't know anything! The ONLY way that knowledge is possible is if there is someone who knows everything, they cannot lie, and they choose to reveal some of that knowledge to us.
The Christian position is as follows:
- The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7).
- We all know the biblical God, therefore knowledge is possible (Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:3).
- Laws of logic and reason are part of God's nature and cannot be violated (Isaiah 1:18, 2 Timothy 2:13).
- God upholds the universe in a uniform way to make science possible (Genesis 8:22).
- The Bible is reliable (John 17:17, Psalm 119:89).
The naturalistic presuppositions is that science requires only natural explanations: therefore, no evidence for a designer will be accepted.
- Can you trust your brain if it is nothing more than chemical reactions that evolved by chance processes?
- How can you verify your own thoughts or senses without using your thoughts or senses?
- Why would there be a standard of logic and reasoning in a random universe?
- Why would there be uniformity in a universe cause by chance?
Christianity alone provides the prerequisite for knowledge and science.
If the Bible were not true, it would be impossible to prove anything.