Posted by Robert on August 25, 1999 at 11:57:21:
In Reply to: Theology is a science. posted by Douglas... on August 23, 1999 at 16:53:44:
What is Science
At this point in the commentary an extra-biblical discourse is in order. Not long ago the editor of BE
heard some creationists denounce the theory of evolution and its foremost proponent, Carl Sagan, in
no uncertain terms. They accused evolutionists of having a theory with scores of unanswered
questions, for which God was the only rational explanation. From these discussions it became evident
that two major problems are indelibly written into their approach. First, it exposes a misconception
about the nature of science. Physical scientists gather data and formulate theories or laws based upon
the information collected. As additional information is gathered, the theories and laws are improved
and perfected in a never-ending, on-going process. Physical scientists never arrive at a point where
they can say they have a theory or law that is good for all time and under all conditions. They can
never say they have an absolute truth that will be true forevermore. What they say is that, based
upon all known data and information, a particular theory or law is valid. They are not saying the
theory or law will never have to be modified. For the present, however, it's the best explanation
available.
When creationists denounce Carl Sagan for calling evolution a proven fact, they are actually attacking
all physical scientists, because no scientist can prove any physical law or theory will be eternally true.
Creationists want absolutes, which science will never generate. Science does not provide the kind of
eternal verities creationists seek. Every law or theory in science is a temporary truth, a relative truth.
It works for now; it is true for now. But that is not to say it will never be enhanced. Scientists gather
data and formulate theories based on what they have. As new information is collected, the theory is
modified and improved, to take account of new facts. Creationists, on the other hand, formulated
theories based on the book of Genesis, gathered data to corroborate them, and discarded all
information to the contrary. Facts were made to fit beliefs, rather than vice versa. Secondly, there are
always going to be questions in the physical sciences for which current theories or laws have no
provable explanation. That is inherent to the nature of science. And because scientists don't know all,
creationists and others of an anti-science propensity will always have a void to exploit. And, of
course, historically they have done just that. Quick to provide supernatural explanations for unknown
causes or phenomena, they have specialized in focusing on the weakness of science and asking
questions for which scientists had no conclusive proof. The history of the struggle between scientists
and supernaturalists has been, and will continue to be, a perpetual process in which supernaturalists
are retreating, while naturalists are advancing. Every time naturalists have found answers to the
questions of supernaturalists, the latter have moved to new questions. And until naturalists can
provide satisfactory explanations for everything, supernaturalists will always have an opening for
divine intervention. The theory of evolution provides a prime example. Yet, it is a theory for which
no absolutely conclusive proof is available. But, then, that is true of every law or theory in the
physical sciences. If one seeks absolutes, statements which are true at all times, under all conditions,
then he should stay with supernaturalists such as the creationists. They, alone, provide absolutes:
absolutes which are absolutely wrong. They ignore or discount that which doesn't comply with a
predetermined, eternal "truth," which is undoubtedly one of the greatest weaknesses of the entire
Bible. It deals in absolutes. By saying "All have sinned" or all must die, it boxes itself into a corner,
because exceptions aren't difficult to find in the Book itself.
True, evolutionists can't provide provable explanations for some questions; but creationists provide
readily disprovable explanations for most questions. Originally, naturalists held sway 5% of the time
and supernaturalists 95%. As naturalistic explanations have grown throughout history, as frontiers of
science have expanded, supernaturalistic explanations have been forced to retreat. The percent of
naturalistic influence has grown immeasurably, while the percent of supernaturalistic influence has
decreased dramatically. But the former will never totally eradicate the latter until a provable natural
explanation can be provided for every event, including those of the bygone ages. As Ingersoll once
noted:
"At one time it was believed that a race of men existed with their heads beneath their
shoulders. Returning travelers from distant lands were asked about the wonderful people
and all replied that they had not seen them. Oh, said the believers in the monsters, the
men with the heads beneath their shoulders live in a country you did not visit. And so the
monsters lived and flourished until all the world was known. We cannot know the
universe. We cannot travel infinite distances, and so, somewhere in shoreless space there
will always be room for gods and ghosts, for heaven and hell." (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2,
p. 480).
One would think, though, that creationists and other supernaturalists would learn from history and
admit they are fighting a losing battle. They are correct in feeling they can never be eradicated,
because science will never know all, it will never become God; but they must realize their losses will
grow with every scientific advance. Indeed, increasing numbers of biblicists are wisely abandoning
the ramparts and leaving fundamentalists to cover the retreat.