This attitude however could support the accusation, for this is suggesting that there is no difference between the claims of science and the claims of theology. The things in science are demonstrable. Science provides written procedures anyone can follow to get the same result. That is what makes the evidence and claims of science objective while the claims of Christianity and philosophy are not.
In fact this would be the basis of an even worse accusation, that we are anti-science. And I haven’t heard anything suggesting that Biologos is any such thing – quite the opposite. Its principle goal seems to be the promotion of science in the Christian (particularly evangelical) community.
According to Wikipedia, “scientism” is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. Frankly, at least according to that definition, this sounds excellent. What after all is an alternative? Shoving Christianity down everyone’s throat and making Christianity the state religion? That would have my complete and violent opposition. It is bad for society and bad for Christianity – history demonstrates this!
But there are other definitions of this term… from this site
Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them.
This version of scientism is another matter. I would argue that this claim is, in fact, demonstrably incorrect. It is not the only way of answering such questions. Missing is the adjective “objective” and the talk of what should be socially normative. What can actually be demonstrated by science is not that much and limiting what we push on others as normative should definitely be limited to what can be demonstrated in an objective scientific way. Anything else would look like a theocracy. There is certainly a difference between…
- limiting what you push on others to what can be demonstrated with objective evidence.
- pushing on others the idea that truth and reality is limited to what can be demonstrated with objective evidence.
More than the difference between “demonstrable” and “provable,” this is where we need to draw the line because it is the difference between science and the philosophical choice of naturalism. I can see how Dennis would be tempted to think accusing Biologos of pseudo-science smells a bit of pushing naturalism on people.