Over the last two weeks we have surveyed the philosophical and unscientific nature of both evolutionism and creationism. We have seen that neither one belongs in the science classroom, because both of them are much bigger than simply theories or beliefs about the origin of life. They are foundational assumptions that entire worldviews are built upon and, as such, are outside the realm of “science” as it is classically defined. But does this mean that Christians should not be involved in the field of science? Of course not, in fact, it is only because of Christianity that science can be “done” in the first place.

Science is a naturalistic pursuit. Science looks for natural answers in a created world. Science can never hope to explain miracles like the parting of the Red Sea, water becoming wine instantaneously, blind men regaining sight and lepers being healed. The fact that events such as these transcend the normal workings and explanations of the natural world is the very reason we call them “miracles.” If a naturalistic explanation could be offered and repeated under the same conditions, these events would cease to be “miraculous.” Many have tried to explain away the numerous supernatural events in the Bible, but none has ever been successful in recreating them. Science helps us to define the “normal” or natural pattern of our world and its workings, so that anything that operates outside of these boundaries is miraculous or supernatural by definition.

It is for this reason that science must remain naturalistic. If all of the pioneers of science were content to say, “God did it and that settles it,” we would never have made any of the technological progress that we take for granted today. “It was his intense commitment to mathematical precision that led Kepler through failure after failure until he finally hit upon elliptical orbits for the planets.”[1] God gave man dominion over the earth and expected him to utilize it. Without observation, experimentation and replication of natural phenomena in the natural world, progress would cease. It’s one thing to give God all of the credit for Creation, but we are also called to uphold our end of the bargain by using our senses, intellect and reason to understand further what is (and what is not) possible, technologically.

It is not heretical to try to comprehend creation via natural science, but it is heretical to say that God has no Part 1n it. “Atheists have no ultimate basis for believing in the general uniformity of nature that makes science possible. It is impossible to prove that the universe is orderly, because all possible proofs presuppose the very order they are trying to prove.”[2] Pure naturalists, i.e. atheistic scientists, cannot give a natural explanation for naturalism. They must presuppose that naturalism is true in order to form their naturalistic worldview. For the atheist to “do” science, he must first lift the dominion mandate from the Christian.[3] If he did not, he could never logically justify trying to analyze and predict a capricious, random nature that progresses through evolutionary jumps and spurts. This is the never-discussed dilemma of the naturalist, “precisely because they have refused to consider that there may be limits to what can be learned about reality through their methodology.”[4]

The Christian, on the other hand, is barred from speaking up in the science classroom because of his “religious bias.” If the God of the Bible cannot attend the science class, then neither should the god of Naturalism:

“One can choose to view chance selection as obvious evidence that there is no God, as Dr. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and uncompromising atheist, might argue, or to conclude instead that God chooses to work through natural means… But impugning the substance of the science, or requiring the introduction of essentially theological ideas like ‘intelligent design’ into the curriculum, merely muddies the water by imposing theological speculations on a scientific theory. Evolution, like Lemaître’s Big Bang, is itself ‘entirely outside of any metaphysical or religious question.’”[5]

Evolution has attained the status of an untouchable dogma. The scientific naturalist is the modern-day equivalent of the leaders of the Catholic Church in 1517. They claim to be in pursuit of “truth,” but certain “truths” will not be entertained, period. God must conform to the standards of the creature, instead of the other way around. This is a tug of war of philosophies, not evidence, or “facts” as Krauss would lead us to believe. This is why the creation/evolution battle in the public schools is a futile fight—it’s in the wrong classroom. Introducing “essentially theological ideas” into the science classroom only “muddies the water” because the current reigning paradigm of pure naturalism is a theological idea as well. Pearcey and Thaxton masterfully reveal that science has historically been limited or rewarded in its advancement due to the underlying assumptions that were taken for granted in any particular period of history.[6] Krauss is free to make statements about evolution being “entirely outside of any metaphysical or religious question,” but his stating it does not make it so. Krauss needs to prove evolution by using his presupposed “law of naturalism.” Since, there is no “law of naturalism,” this cannot be done. Since this cannot be done, we must accept it by faith. Since we accept it by faith it must be metaphysical, even religious. “Scientists today maintain a ‘scientific faith’ in the order of nature while lacking any rational basis for it. And without a rational basis, it is an open question whether that ‘scientific faith’ can long survive.”[7]

Endnotes:

[1] Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 66. [2] Jonathan Sarfati. Refuting Compromise (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004), 332. [3] “Man’s purpose and destiny are to bring honor and glory to God by exercising godly dominion in the earth (Gen. 1:26–30).”  Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 512. [4] Phillip Johnson, Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 89. [5] Lawrence Krauss, School Boards Want to ‘Teach the Controversy.’ What Controversy?http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/17comm2.html
[6] Pearcey and Thaxton, The Soul of Science, 42. [7] Pearcey and Thaxton, The Soul of Science, 42.