It seems that when a lot of conservative Christians say “secular science,” they really mean metaphysical naturalism, which is genuinely at odds with the Christian worldview in some respects. The problem seems to be that many people confuse metaphysical naturalism with the methodological naturalism that is employed in science. What I have found somewhat surprising, though I really shouldn’t be surprised considering the experience a lot of scientists have had with conservative Christians unfortunately, is how many non-religious scientists appear to have the same simplistic view of the relationship between science and faith, but on the opposite side. They are surprised that someone can both be a scientist and embrace a religious worldview. This seems to show that there is a genuine problem with a considerable number of scientists being secular or identifying with metaphysical naturalism, which makes it all the more important that those of us who are scientists and people of faith show that this doesn’t need to be the case.
More generally, claims of alignment tend to be far too simplistic. The reality is that historical views do not perfectly align with any modern position; there are varied points of agreement and disagreement. For example, both YEC and unbelieving sources commonly equate historical views that have a “young” earth with modern YEC and those with an “old” earth with modern geology. But the eternal cycles of human life on earth in Hinduism and Deism bear no resemblance to a history of the earth based on geological evidence. Dal Prete points out that early church and medieval commentators sometimes used “young”-sounding terminology merely to mean “not eternal”. Modern geology developed out of the approach of chronologers like Ussher taking all the available evidence to build a history of the earth, even though Ussher had much less available data and so couldn’t push the age back as far.
Good observations in general, appreciate the thoughts. I wonder if I might humbly push back on this one point, however…
Consider two historians examining the record of Jesus and his miracles… the first is absolutely committed to excluding miraculous or supernatural from consideration absolutely. The second, while generally adhering to general historical principles, remains open to concluding that certain aspects of Christ’s actions are in fact attributable to supernatural power.
The first would be doing what we might call “secular” history, and as such, would indeed be operating by different “rules” than the second. And if indeed Jesus had done what he had done by means beyond those accessible in the natural world, then “secular” history would in fact be an untrustworthy method.
This was much of C. S. Lewis’s point in his book “Miracles”… He classified scholars into what he termed “naturalists” and “supernaturalists”, and observed that they did indeed follow different “rules” of historical inquiry. I can’t help but recognize that there is a similar appropriate distinction within the sciences as well.
There is one problem here.
As long as the researchers apply the basic rules of science or ‘science-minded’ historical resarch they end up in the same conclusion. They cannot say anything certain about the possibility of a supernatural intervention because they do not have adequate tools or methods to study that. They can analyze the available material and what the persons telling and writing were thinking that happened but cannot tell whether the beliefs of the witnesses or writers were true. They may exclude some beliefs or interpretations as being against the facts but not much more.
As individuals, the researchers may then make personal ‘guesses’ of what did happen, based on their worldview. That is something based on beliefs, not part of the scientific-minded work.
I am not an expert of historical research but I have the impression that many historians have not yet assimilated the basic scientific rules in their work. There appears to be many(?) who do not make a sufficient distinction between the facts and the interpretations about these facts. It is normal that historians have their pet theories but the expectations and hopes based on the pet theory should not dictate the conclusions made about the facts. If hopes and expectations based on pet theories distort the conclusions, it does not matter whether the historian is some sort of believer or atheist, naturalist or supernaturalist, the conclusions are simply wrong. How wrong is another question.
True enough - but to my main point, anti-supernatural or naturalistic bias will inevitably lead to incorrect conclusions in any case where an event was in fact caused by divine or other supernatural entity. This is true whether it is an atheist who is philosophically committed to naturalism, or a theist who is exercising a methodological naturalism due to a commitment to a certain method.
For obvious example, if the Lord’s resurrection from the dead was indeed a historical fact and was indeed caused by supernatural power beyond any natural cause, then anyone examining this event from a naturalistic perspective is bound to arrive at a false conclusion. Only someone who is open to supernatural explanation (both philosophically and methodologically) would be able to arrive at the correct conclusion. Anyone committed to naturalism in any kind will insist on a naturalistic (and hence erroneous) explanation.
I’ve seen this time and again in my own biblical studies, just as Mr. Lewis did; and I hence I think the same difficulty can exist within the scientific sphere - hence why I’d think it a valid and appropriate distinction between “secular” science (which either philosophically or methodologically rules out, a priori, supernatural causation), and science which examines facts according to rules of science but which remains open to the possibility of divine intervention as an explanation.
A secular approach, which is the approach my New Testament professor and Christian took when I was at university, is to just report what was described in the gospels and believed by Christians of the time without taking a position of whether the miracles actually happened. We could do the same with other cultures like ancient Greece. With a secular approach we can try to understand what the ancient Greeks believed, how belief affected their culture and daily lives, and the attributes of the Greek pantheon. You don’t have to believe in the existence of the Greek pantheon in order to do this, nor do you have to reject the possibility that the Greek gods were real.
I would say that the best strategy is to be open to objective evidence, and if lacking this evidence we don’t form an academic conclusion one way or the other. At the same time, this approach can happily live side by side with a faith based belief that the resurrection did happen.
This is exactly the general approach I have seen many believing scientists take, and Evolutionary Creationism is a perfect example of this approach. We have what we can conclude scientifically which can live happily next to faith based beliefs.
I think the important concept here is that secular doesn’t mean “reject all supernatural claims”. Baseball is a secular sport, but no one requires baseball players to give up any religious beliefs they have. Secular in this context means demarcating what you can demonstrate regardless of religious belief and what conclusions that can lead to. The miracles in the New Testament are an article of faith, and that’s just fine. What we can do with a secular approach is learn about the Christian movement, how it spread, and the historical context of Christianity’s theology.
Hmm.
Note several issues:
- There are no biblical references or arguments.
- There are abundant, unhelpful generalizations, such as the following:
There is science based on a biblical worldview–God’s Word, and science that is based on a materialistic worldview–man’s word. The result is that the evidence from nature is interpreted in different ways.
There is cosmic evolution, etc. It is legitimate to use the term evolution in many other scientific endeavors. And these generally refer to unguided, purposeless natural processes.
Another generalization. Of course, in any group of millions of people you can find all kinds of approaches. But many YEC folks encourage students to pursue science. Evolutionists discourage non evolutionists by cancelling non evolutionists.
First there is the assumption that non evolutionists are teaching incorrect, misleading and confusing “things.” What would that be? Vestigial organs, junk DNA, that nature can select? Artistic renditions based on the slimmest fossil evidence? Evolutionary science has no peer in all things incorrect, misleading and confusing.
So how does not being an evolutionist keep people from doing good science? The truth is–it doesn’t.
Jeffery Williams is a retired NASA astronaut–and an excellent scientist AND young earth creationist who has spent more time on the international space station than any other American. How did YEC hinder his scientific endeavors? Please tell us what scientific studies are hindered by not embracing biological evolution. I think that list would only include the study of biological evolution. And that seems to hinder the study of biology in general. And Jeff is only one of many prominent scientists that are not evolutionists. The only way that hinders their career advancement is through unwarranted discrimination and cancelling.
Another example is Dr. James Tour, who now advises young non-evolutionists not to be open about their beliefs because that will often hinder them from even getting into an advanced degree program.
Both science and the Bible were written by humans.
It goes deeper than that. In science, you start with the evidence and discard conclusions that don’t fit the evidence. In creationism, you start with the conclusion and discard evidence that doesn’t fit the conclusion.
Can you name a Christian university that is actively pursuing YEC within their science department? All of the Christian universities I know of with a healthy biological research program accept evolution.
How does being a flat earther keep people from doing good astronomy?
Can we see a list of his published research in geology and biology? Can you show us the research he has published on YEC?
I have no doubt that you can be YEC and work in a scientific field where YEC has no impact. However, if you decide to throw out the scientific method any time the evidence leads to somethign you don’t like, it could be a problem.
Any evidence of this?
One example that comes to mind immediately is Kurt Wise. He got his PhD under the infamous Stephen Jay Gould, and was openly YEC during those years. Gould had no problem getting Wise his PhD.
Mary Schweitzer also comes to mind, the infamous discoverer of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. She was openly YEC when she went back to school and was gladly accepted by her professor. However, the evidence she was faced with during her time in school changed her mind.
Cedarville does, but they mainly teach health sciences, I think. (My wife went there). They have, I believe, had a conference on YEC, though.
Appreciate the quote on Mary Schweitzer. I was not nearly so forward as she, but had wonderful profs who kindly taught me and helped me gently with coming to the truth.
Cool. Let’s say you wanted to demonstrate Ohm’s law. How would you go about this Biblically, and then based on a materialistic worldview?
Scientists engaged in tree ring dating, varve accumulation, radiometric dating, and many other areas of science which have nothing to do with evolution of any sort, are commonly referenced by YEC as evolutionist.
Your coffee cooling off is an unguided, purposeless natural process. Does accepting that make you an evolutionist?
There is only one Biblical reference or argument that you need, Craig. It’s one that I’ve quoted time and time and time again on these forums:
13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16
It boils down to one thing: you must tell the truth. You must obey the Ninth Commandment.
If you’re viewing them as generalizations, you’re missing the point completely.
They aren’t intended to be a description of things that all Christians say. If I thought that anyone was taking that out of my post I would be grieved, because there are many fine Christians who do not express any of these attitudes.
On the contrary, they are more a note of caution. They are saying, “You may be claiming to be pro-science, but if you are doing any of these things, then you are expressing anti-science sentiments, possibly without realising it.”
That is not science. That is philosophy, metaphysics and theology. The layer of interpretation you are talking about is something that may be informed by science, but it is not science itself.
Science is simply a set of procedures and methodologies for figuring out how things work in ways that are systematic, disciplined, rigorous and reproducible. The rules by which it operates have nothing whatsoever to do with “biblical worldviews” versus “materialistic worldviews.” They are the same no matter what worldview you adopt. They are rules such as these:
- You must have accurate and honest measurements.
- You must report the evidence accurately.
- You must interpret the evidence in ways that are mathematically consistent and coherent.
- You must correctly account for sources of error such as contamination.
- You must neither exaggerate nor downplay the extent or significance of sources of error.
- You must avoid logical fallacies.
- You must not quote mine.
- You must make sure that your findings are reproducible by other researchers.
- You must take steps to account for and eliminate cognitive biases.
- You must keep accurate lab notes.
Far too often, when I hear people using the expression “secular science,” it is constraints imposed by these specific rules that they are objecting to. Usually because these specific rules completely exclude things that they are trying to peddle, such as a six thousand year old Earth or independent ancestry of humans and animals.
These rules are simply the rules of getting your facts straight. If you are not prepared to stick to the rules, you are anti-science. Period.
Yes and no.
Yes it’s legitimate to use the word “evolution” in other scientific disciplines. For example, in quantum mechanics you’ll hear talk about “the evolution of the wavefunction.” But it is not legitimate to use it to mean “unguided, purposeless and natural.” In rigorous scientific discourse, the word “evolution” simply means “change over time.” Nothing more, nothing less. It does not convey any philosophical, metaphysical or emotional connotations whatsoever.
This is very different from the way it gets used in practice by people who are anti-science while trying to claim to be pro-science. Far too often I hear the word “evolution” used simply to mean—or at the very least, to imply—“I don’t like it.” In particular, the word “evolutionist” itself conveys this impression no matter what context you are using it in. If you are using the words “evolution” or “evolutionist” to convey any form of disdain for scientific findings, whether those findings concern biological evolution or not, you are anti-science. Period.
It’s not intended to be a generalization. It’s intended to be a note of caution: “Make sure that you are not doing things such as these.”
For what it’s worth, I’ve rarely if ever heard this attitude spelt out explicitly. But I have encountered quite a lot of negativity towards university education in general. Enough of it that, by the time I got into my late twenties, I was actually starting to feel ashamed of having been to Cambridge. There is one pastor I know who regularly tells parents in his church not to send their children to university for fear of losing their faith there.
This attitude also crops up in much more subtle ways that appear quite benign or even praiseworthy. Science-minded students in the Church are often nudged in the direction of applied sciences, engineering, medicine and the like. Skills that can easily be used in a church context or out in the mission field. But there’s not a lot of encouragement to pursue careers in scientific research and I think that’s a bit of a shame.
It’s not an assumption, it’s a statement of fact.
What would that be? How about:
- Claiming that rock formations are not fractured when in actual fact they are.
- Presenting soft tissue decay products as if they were actual soft tissue.
- Dismissing contamination from modern carbon-14 in ancient samples as a “rescuing device.”
- Claiming that mutations can not produce new information without coming up with a coherent explanation of what you mean by “information” and how it can be measured.
- Claiming that the Bible’s demands for accurate and honest measurement e.g. in Deuteronomy 25:13-16 do not apply to evolutionary science.
- Exaggerating the extent and significance of discrepancies, error bars or fraud in evolutionary science or geochronology.
- Presenting perfectly legitimate forms of measurement as if they were fudging or circular reasoning.
Young earthists and evolution deniers need to stop doing things such as these. Period. Only once they have cut out such bad arguments and falsehoods can we start to discuss the extent to which discrimination and cancelling has any role to play in their failure to get their ideas accepted.
It doesn’t happen in every case, but bad arguments for a young earth or against evolution do have the potential to cause problems in this respect in two ways.
The first is by undermining people’s understanding of the core basics of science. Whenever I address young earth or anti-evolution arguments, time and time again I find I am having to address very basic, fundamental points that apply to every area of science, both “operational” and “historical.” Many young earth and antievolution arguments show an almost total disregard for the elementary basics of how measurement works, for example. This causes problems for other areas of science because it sows confusion in areas that are common to both the creation/evolution debate and to the skills and practices that many of us need to do our jobs properly.
The second is by encouraging, or even demanding, that students approach their science degrees as if they were on some sort of “ammunition gathering exercise.” This is a recipe for misunderstanding things. If you’re going into lectures looking for sound bites to trot out in sermons, you’ll end up latching onto offhand comments from your lecturers, misunderstanding them completely, and missing important things that you need to understand in order to succeed in the subject.
Been there, seen it, done it, got the T-shirt.
People such as Jeffrey Williams and James Tour are no doubt capable of compartmentalising things in this respect. Either that or they just don’t examine the claims concerned very closely. But not everybody has that ability.
I too have seen this sentiment crop up in the last decade, fueled by a partial misconception, among other things. The grain of truth found in it is that it is true that many have “lost” their childhood faith when they entered their university years (whether or not they spent those years at a university, incidentally! - at least I think I’ve heard statistics to bear that out, but that may be subject to correction.) But then what is left out (here’s the ‘misconception’ part of it) is a bigger picture perspective that it is natural for young people to be questioning everything during that time of life as they are emerging as adults in their own right, and a great many of those whom would register on surveys as questioning or even “losing” their faith in that season of their life often end up returning to something very much like it on the other side - and this time probably more robust (more ‘experience-tested’). In fact, it would seem it’s those who shunned any further education or continued learning that end up being the most vulnerable to much more serious and long-lasting loss of faith in later years if their childhood faith remained in its protective bubble too long and calcified then into something much more brittle and fragile in their adult years.
This isn’t to say that university education is for everyone or is necessary for later healthy spirituality. It is to say, though, that a continued attitude and posture of learning/externally-imposed humility is necessary to any well-adjusted, spiritually stable adult life. And universities (at their best, and even not-so-best) typically provide this quite well. Adults in other work-life settings will have to be much more intentional about cultivating this in and for themselves. God help the ones who find what they think of as “success” too early in life and traded away their humble posture toward life and continued education for early financial success. They are the most vulnerable - who’ve sold their souls to gain the world. And when it looks like they may have actually ‘caught it’ (for those that do), the trap is sprung and the conquest of their souls nearly complete - seemingly irreversible.
Such as? And in which instances are artistic renditions actually of relevance to arguments? The taxa which I have previously seen such claims about are Ambulocetus natans, Rodhocetus, and Nebraska Man. The last is the only one which legitimately qualifies as rather slim evidence, and was retracted in 1927.
I’ve quoted a Pew survey to that effect, and here is another article where education is associated with religiosity in a positive manner. It also reflects the resurgence of more men going to church. Unfortunately, that probably is due to some churches being a refuge for misogonists, as I see it.
Interesting trend, but if you look around your church pews, you will probably see it represented there. I see mostly college educated people around me in Sunday School, even in the semi-rural area of Texas where I live. Those who are not college educated are largely successful business owners or manager level employees, not blue collar construction workers. I am sure that there are a number of smaller Bible churches where that is not true, but for most bigger churches, suspect it is the case, as taking off work and going to church is a luxury that many cannot afford. Now, it may well be that church attendance is not a good marker for being Christian, but if the issue is “university education drives our kids out of church,” I think we can confidently say that is not the case.
Slender evidence, or tiny samples with huge error bars, is not necessarily bad in and of itself. It can be used to fill in fine details in a scientific theory, for example, by adding an extra significant digit to the age of a rock formation or by showing that species A evolved from species B rather than species C as was previously thought.
What slender evidence cannot do, and should not be portrayed as doing, is overturn a theory that is supported by large amounts of much more robust evidence. As a general rule, if you want to overturn a scientific theory, the evidence that you present against it must, at the very minimum, be of comparable quality to the best evidence in support of the theory.
Young earthist arguments frequently present tiny samples with huge error bars as if they presented a significant challenge to deep geological time or biological evolution, while at the same time creating a lot of noise about anything and everything they can find from evolutionary science or conventional geochronology that also consists of tiny samples with huge error bars. But in doing so, they ignore vast swathes of much stronger evidence in support of evolutionary biology or conventional geology where the sample sizes are much larger and the error bars are much more tightly constrained.
The gold standard in evidence for evolution is comparative genomics. If you want to challenge the theory of evolution, the standard you have to match is endogenous retroviruses, not Haeckel’s diagrams or Nebraska Man. Similarly, if you want to challenge radiometric dating, the standard you need to meet is cross-checks between different methods on Solar System meteorites, not amateur and biased efforts by propagandists to carbon date traffic cones and samples soaked in preservatives.
Whose biblical world view? Yours? King David’s? Jesus’s? Paul’s? Martin Luther’s? Mary Baker Eddy’s? Ellen White’s? Kevin De Young’s? Benny Hinn’s? Søren Kierkegaard’s? Desmond Tutu’s? Galileo’s? Bill Johnson’s? Katherine Pickstock’s and John Millbank’s?
Nor samples that are guaranteed to be filled with contaminants, like if I tried running 14C dating on the fossil shells–there is enough plant debris, modern groundwater, human, and animal contact with the samples to make it likely to give absurd values (e.g., less than a few centuries old).
True enough, so long as one explicitly keeps within those limits… but that limitation severely limits intellectual inquiry, no?
in other words, as soon as any scholar takes the next logical step into the obvious question, “Did the resurrection actually, literally, historically happen or not”, then at that point they have an inevitable decision to make… Will they:
- Reject the possibility of supernatural agency from consideration, and only explore those explanations that are strictly natural and materialistic in nature?
or will they
- Leave the possibility of supernatural agency on the table as a potential, legitimate conclusion of their inquiry?
If the first, then they are doing “secular” history in a way that is categorically different than those who remain open to supernatural agency, no? And if in fact the resurrection, or whatever other miracle, was indeed accomplished via supernatural agency, then the first method is guaranteed to arrive at an erroneous conclusion, no?
Hence to James (@jammycakes) main point, I maintain that there is genuinely such a distinct thing as “secular history” that differs from history as examined by Christians… and that the same principle can indeed apply in the scientific realm.