Science and theChristian Faith

Brent RoyukJune 11, 2006

The Plan

• Week 1: The Nature of Science• Week 2: Ways to Relate S&R• Week 3: Creation/Evolution• Week 4: We’ll see

Why science in a Bible class?• God’s “other” book• Science is seen as defining reality for

non-Christians• Find out how Christian scientists view

their vocation• Discuss controversies, i.e. origins• Use scientific ideas to explore faith• Compare and Contrast• Curiosity- learn something new• My personal interest

Goals: Week 2

• Review a little bit of the NOS stuff fromlast week.

• Compare and contrast the twoapproaches to truth in S&R.

• Categorize and discuss several ways ofrelating S&R (the taxonomic approach).

• Caution: When discussing philosophyof science, keep in mind that there isno consensus on this stuff.

Last Week: Foundations of Science

• Curiosity• Reality• Order• Empiricism

Last Week: Doing ScienceThe Four Processes of Science

From Gil Daenzer

1. Observe Nature (Facts)2. Find Order (Laws)3. Build Models (Theories)4. Explain & Predict

Scientific Laws

• An observed regularity– Laws are simple.

• Scientific laws are descriptive,not prescriptive.

• Scientific laws are discovered, notinvented.

• God makes laws, not man.

Scientific Theories

• A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of someaspect of the natural world that canincorporate facts, laws, inferences,and tested hypotheses.” --NationalAcademy of Sciences

• Theories are the conceptual product ofscience

• God doesn’t make scientific theories,we do.

Final NOS Thoughts

• A law is not a proven theory, butdo theories ever become laws?

• Are there correspondingconceptual processes in religion?

Andy’s Question

• Isn’t evolution often presented asa fact? Since it’s a theory,shouldn’t it be presented withmore caution and provisionality?

Andy’s QuestionFirst Answer

• Metaphysicality vs. practicality– Relativity: It’s only a theory

• Even laws are metaphysicallyuncertain

• Contrast is sharp in the S&Rcontext

– And we’re not doing science here

Andy’s QuestionSecond Answer

• Even though theoretical knowledge is provisional, itcan still be certain, or at least pretty darn certain.

• Does the earth really go around the sun?• Do atoms really exist?• Is genetic information really encoded in DNA?• Does continental drift really occur?• Is the earth really 4.5 billion years old?• Are humans and chimpanzees really descended from

common ancestors?• Is space really 10 or 11-dimensional, with 6 or 7 of

the dimensions compactified?• These answers are all of the provisional, probabilistic,

what-have-you-done-for-me-lately variety.

Andy’s QuestionThird Answer

• Evolutionary Exceptionality• Some evolutionary scientists have done some very deliberate

category-crossing to counter creationist arguments.• Stephen Jay Gould, Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes:

– In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—partof a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory tohypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is"only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of thetheory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make uptheir minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?

– Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories aredifferent things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts arethe world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain andinterpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theoriesto explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, butapples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. Andhumans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin'sproposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Andy’s QuestionThird Answer

• Stephen Jay Gould, Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes:– Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final

proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from statedpremises and achieve certainty only because they are not aboutthe empirical world... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmedto such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisionalassent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, butthe possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between factand theory from the very beginning, if only because we havealways acknowledged how far we are from completelyunderstanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact)occurred.

Science and Truth

Does science find truth?• Are facts true?• Are laws true?• Are theories true?

God and Truth

• How do we determine truth inreligion?

• Scripture ⇐ Revelation• Why do we ultimately trust the Bible

as the revealed Word of God?• Faith

• How do revealed truths compare toscientific truths?

• Truth vs. truth

God and Truth

• Does God really exist?• Did God really create the universe?• Was Jesus really born to a virgin

mother?• Are we really born sinful?• Did Jesus really save us by dying on a

cross?• Are we really going to live forever in

heaven after we die?

truth vs. Truth

• Empirical vs. Revelatory

• Provisional vs. Absolute

• Tentative vs. Eternal

• Skepticism vs. Faith

truth vs. Truth

• So how do the two truths relateto each other?

• Truth is more important thantruth, right?

• Can Truth inform truth?• Does Truth trump truth?• Can truth change Truth?

S&R Models

• Let’s make a catalog of approaches

• We should try to:

1. Be fairly comprehensive.2. Include perspectives that people

actually have.

S&R Models

Ian Barbour, Religion and Science, 1997.

Four Ways of Relating:

1. Conflict ⇒ ⇐2. Independence ⇐ ⇒3. Dialogue ⇓⇓4. Integration ⇑⇑(Arrow symbols idea from Daniel Johnson)

S&R Models

Massimo Pigliucci

S&R ModelsRichard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith:

1. Natural Theology• Science Demands Christian Theology

2. Compartmentalism• Science and Christian Theology are Unrelated

3. Bible-Only• Christian Theology in Spite of Science

4. Science-Only• Science Has Destroyed Christian Theology

5. Scientific Theology• Science Redefines Christian Theology

6. Complementarity7. New Synthesis

S&R ModelsRichard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith:

1. Natural Theology• Science Demands Christian Theology

2. Compartmentalism• Science and Christian Theology are Unrelated

3. Bible-Only• Christian Theology in Spite of Science

4. Science-Only• Science Has Destroyed Christian Theology

5. Scientific Theology• Science Redefines Christian Theology

6. Complementarity7. New Synthesis

S&R Models