Science and Metaphysical Presuppositions - Anonymous

The comment that was made the other day was that Christians do not use science to prove their beliefs whereas skeptics (atheists or agnostics) at least try to use science to provide evidence for their belief in origins, particularly evolution. In my attempt to answer this claim, I will address what modern science is, how it developed, the two divisions within modern science, the assumptions of evolutionary and creation science, and demonstrate the design in nature that can point to a creator (or a transcendent designer). Hopefully you will see that creation science is reasonable and plausible. After all, science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God or any other metaphysical being or precepts, but it can point to the direction of a creator (transcendent designer).

What is Science? How did Modern Science develop?

Science, which comes from the Latin word “scientia,” means to have knowledge. Modern science as we know it was developed in Europe by men who believed that God created an orderly universe and for that reason it was possible to attain knowledge of the natural world. If the universe was a product of random chance (no special creation as in the case of an atheistic universe), then there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Imagine if these men didn’t believe that God created an orderly universe; the basis for modern science would have never been established and there would probably be no modern science. Some of the most basic branches of modern science were founded and further developed by Christian men. Here are some examples:

Physics
Isaac Newton (father of physics and calculus), Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell.

Chemistry
Robert Boyle (Introduced the concept of Atoms) and John Dalton

Biology
John Ray, Carolus Linneaus (father of taxonomy), Gregor Mendel (father of genetics), and Louis Pasteur (helped establish Microbiology)

Geology
Nicolas Steno (founder of modern geology)

Astronomy
Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler

Mathematics
Blaine Pascal was the one who invented a machine to do calculations, which was an essential step to the development of the calculator and the computer.


Other
Sir Francis Bacon developed the scientific method.

As you can see, these were men who held a biblical worldview and believed that God created the universe and based on this presupposition, it was possible to attain knowledge of the natural world; it was possible to discover the natural laws which were created by God. Look at the major contributions that these people have made. Where would we be without them?

Modern Science

Modern science can be separated into two areas: Operational (or empirical) Science and Historical (or Origins) Science.

Operational (empirical) science uses the scientific method to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science. It is the kind of science that has made technological advances possible.

Historical (Origins) science attempts to discover truth in the past by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see. This is the area in which evolution and creation fall under. Every scientist has metaphysical presuppositions that they bring in before they conduct their study of origins. For example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.

So, the nature of the creation vs. evolution debate is not religion vs. science, it is religion vs. religion. Creation science begins with a biblical framework whereas evolutionary science begins with a naturalistic framework. These two frameworks are metaphysical and cannot be proven by using the scientific method. It is a faith that both sides bring in order to try to understand the origins of the earth and the universe. So the evidence does not “speak” for itself, it must be interpreted within the framework of one of these two metaphysical presuppositions.

A survey of Creation Science and Evolutionary Science

Based on the understanding that creation and evolution are both metaphysical frameworks based on biblical and naturalistic assumptions respectively, it is necessary to have a good understanding of these two interpretations of historical science.


Geological Assumptions

Evolutionary science is dependent on the earth being a few billion years old. Where did the idea of the earth being 4.5 – 4.7 billion years old come from? This is a position that relies on the assumption of uniformitarianism. This concept was developed by Charles Lyell in the early part of the 19th century. It states that the conditions and processes to develop geological formations have always been the same. By using this metaphysical framework, we can come to the conclusion that the earth is millions to billions of years old, ASSUMING THAT THESE PROCESSES HAVE ALWAYS REMAINED THE SAME. So if you are trying to figure how the Grand Canyon formed and how long it took to form, you can come in with this assumption and say that water has always been flowing and eroding the rocks at a constant rate, therefore it is millions of years old. The only problem is that you do not know for sure if the water of the Colorado River has been being flowing and eroding these rocks at the same rate. Perhaps there was something else that interfered with this slow process, thus causing it to form more rapidly. You see, this is where a “leap of faith” must be taken. In the end, you must believe that this process has remained the same.
Now, there is a method called “radioisotope (radiometric) dating” that is hailed by evolutionists to be the absolute authority in determining the age of the earth. They claim that this method is very reliable (carbon dating is part of this kind of method). So what is radioisotope dating? It is the process of estimating the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements. There are certain kinds of atoms in nature that are unstable and spontaneously change (decay) into other kinds of atoms. For example, uranium will radioactively decay through a series of steps until it becomes the stable element lead. The original element is referred to as the parent element and the end result is called the daughter element. Radioisotope dating is commonly used to date igneous rocks. These are rocks which form when hot, molten material cools and solidifies. Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava). The radioisotope dating clock starts when a rock cools. During the molten state it is assumed that the intense heat will force any gaseous daughter elements to escape. Once the rock cools it is assumed that no more atoms can escape and any daughter element found in a rock will be the result of radioactive decay. The dating process then requires measuring how much daughter element is in a rock sample and knowing the decay rate (i.e., how long it takes the parent element to decay into the daughter element—uranium into lead or potassium into argon). The decay rate is measured in terms of half-life. Half-life is defined as the length of time it takes half of the remaining atoms of a radioactive parent element to decay. For example, the remaining radioactive parent material will decrease by 1/2 during the passage of each half-life (1→1/2→1/4→1/8→1/16, etc.). Half-lives as measured today are very accurate, even the extremely slow half-lives. That is, billion-year half-lives can be measured statistically in just hours of time. Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element, however, the dating methods must rely on historical science. As mentioned before, this is where the metaphysical assumptions come in, and there are three critical assumptions that affect the results during radioisotope dating:
1. You must have an idea of the initial conditions of the rock sample.
2. You must hope that the amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample have not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope must have remained constant since the rock was formed.
Like the assumption of uniformitarianism, the problem is that you do not know for sure that the amount of parent or daughter elements in the sample has not been altered by other processes. Since nobody knows this for sure, then one must take a leap of faith to believe that this method is reliable. There have been numerous examples of this method being inconsistent. The most notable one is the Mount St. Helens eruption that took place back in 1980. A team of scientist recovered newly formed rock from this eruption and used potassium-argon dating to determine the age of this rock. When this method was being done, it was a few years after the eruption, so the age of this rock was already known, but for the sake of determining the reliability of radioisotope dating, this method was done and the results showed that the rock was 3.5 million years old! As you can see, this method is not as reliable as evolutionists believe it is, however, they could still choose to believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old if they want, but they must recognize that it is a leap of faith.

When it comes to determining the age of the earth for creation science, we rely on biblical assumptions (the account of creation and Noah’s flood) and an assumption called catastrophism, which states that geological formations can develop rapidly as a result of a catastrophe such as a major volcanic eruption or a major flood. There is evidence for such formations. The Mt. St. Helens eruption is a great example. This eruption has created layers of sediments in a very short time. If an eruption of this same type took place 1,000 years ago and was never recorded or observed, evolutionary geologists would probably assume that these sediment layers took millions of years to form. This eruption shows that it can form in less than a few months. There was also formation of coal after this eruption. Evolutionary geologists say that coal forms over millions of years. Finally, this eruption ended up carving up a canyon 150 feet deep over a day! Another example includes the formation of a small canyon in Texas back in 2002. There was a major flood on the banks of the Guadalupe River and after the waters receded, there was a “little” canyon that formed. Once again, if this happened 1,000 years ago and this event was not observed, evolutionary geologists would probably make the assumption that this canyon took millions of years to develop. These examples should be good enough to demonstrate that uniformitarianism is not as reasonable as some people think it is and that catastrophism is a plausible position. Now imagine what a catastrophe such as a global flood can do in regards to sediment deposition, development of canyons, and other geological formations. You see, it is not stupid to believe that the earth could possibly be 6,000 to 10,000 years old.





Biological Assumptions

The general theory of evolution states that all life is descended from a single-cell organism. This single-cell organism supposedly appeared 3.9 billion years ago. This single-cell organism contained DNA and proteins (organic molecules or living molecules). These organic molecules (molecules containing carbon) evolved from inorganic molecules (or non-living molecules) in what is called abiogenesis (or chemical evolution). So in essence, inorganic molecules randomly came together to form organic molecules, which eventually gave rise to a single-cell organism and through eons of time, one kind of organism evolved into another kind, thus giving us this vast array of biodiversity. In order for this to happen, new genetic information must arise so that more complex, higher forms of life can come into existence. The general theory of evolution falls under the category of historical science, not operational science.

Before addressing the biological assumptions of creation science, it is necessary to explain natural selection, speciation, and adaptation (which fall under operational science). Natural selection is the process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that have a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation. For example, let us suppose that there are two species of mammals living in the arctic region; one species has very thick fur, while the other has thin fur. Of course, the species with the thick fur would survive and produce offspring while the species with the thin fur would die off. Speciation is the process of change in a population that produces distinct populations which rarely naturally interbreed due to geographic isolation or other factors (or simply said: the formation of new species). The lion and the tiger, which both are of the cat kind (or the biological family of Felidae), are a result of speciation. Adaptation is a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics that gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment. A perfect example would be the natural selection example: the mammal with thick fur is adapted to cold climates.
Evolutionists and creationists agree with these three biological concepts; they are observable so there are no disagreements here. It is important to note that these three concepts don’t necessarily prove the general theory of evolution! Nobody has observed reptiles evolve into birds, or fishes evolve into reptiles, or apes evolving into humans! This is what the general theory of evolution tells us, yet it has never been observed. Natural selection, speciation, and adaptation doesn’t give us a new biological family; it already works within the family because it can only operate with the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new genetic information. When it comes to speciation, the genetic information that is already present is either shuffled around or lost; there is no new genetic information. So with the observational evidence that we have, there is hardly any support for the general theory of evolution. The only change that happens is within the biological family; that’s all that has been observed. If one wants to believe in the general theory of evolution, he/she has the right to do that, but they must be honest and recognize that it a metaphysical belief that falls into historical science. Unfortunately, most evolutionists ignore that and have evolution masqueraded as a part of operational science. They also have natural selection, speciation, and adaptation masqueraded as evolution. That’s academically unsound, yet it is widely done throughout the western world.

With natural selection, speciation, and adaptation being defined, the biological assumptions of creation science can be explained. When God created all living things, representatives of all kinds of families came into existence; from microbial organisms all the way to different kinds of fauna and flora. Each living thing had enough genetic information for speciation to occur. For example, domestic cats, lions, cheetahs, tigers, and panthers all descended from this original kind of cat that was originally created by God. It is reasonable to believe this because that’s what we observe. With the global flood that took place in Noah’s time, all the land animals died which is why we have many fossils buried deep within the rock layers. All the animals that were preserved on Noah’s ark were representatives of each kind, which had enough genetic information to have speciation occur once they left the ark. When these animals left the ark, they migrated to different parts of the world and were able to proliferate. With the incredible amount of genetic information they had, speciation was able to continue thus giving us this vast array of biodiversity that we see today. Of course, with each new species that formed, they either had their genetic information reshuffled or lost (most of the time they would lose genetic information). I guess you can call creationists “devolutionists” in a way.

Design in nature

When one studies biology, you cannot help notice that there is some sort of design in the physiology, in the cells, and in the molecular biology of living things. Perhaps the best example of design may be the molecular structures within a living cell. Dr. Michael Denton, who is a molecular biologist, said this back in 1986:

“Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced twentieth century technology appears clumsy… It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.”

Even the atheist and zoologist Dr. Richard Dawkins said that “We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.”

In the area of molecular biology, scientists have found thousands of “biochemical machines” within the cell. All of their parts have to be within the cell simultaneously or else the cell cannot function. All living things are built on these “machines” and the idea that all of these came to existence by the blind forces of evolution seems untenable. The biochemist Dr. Michael Behe refers to this as “irreducible complexity,” in which he says:

“… systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in recent times who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.”
The bacterial flagellum is a good, specific example of this kind of irreducible complexity. The flagellum is a corkscrew-shaped, hair-like appendage attached to the cell surface, which acts like a propeller, allowing the bacterium to swim. The most interesting aspect of the flagellum is that it is attached to—and rotated by—a tiny, electrical motor made of different kinds of protein. Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane. If a structure is so complex that all of its parts must initially be present in a suitably functioning manner, it is said to be irreducibly complex. All the parts of a bacterial flagellum must have been present from the start in order to function at all. In the evolutionary scheme, any component which doesn’t offer an advantage to an organism will be lost or discarded. How such a structure could have evolved in a gradual, step-by-step process as required by the general theory of evolution is a difficult obstacle to evolutionists. The design of the flagellum is remarkable.
So now the question is, as we all can recognize design to some extent in the natural world, WHO designed all of this? Was it aliens from outer space as Dr. Richard Dawkins believe it is? Of course, if it were aliens, then we would ask how they came into existence. There must be an Uncaused Cause and an Ultimate Intelligence. It is very reasonable to believe that the ultimate intelligent being Himself, God, is responsible for all of this. The design of the natural world points to a designer, it doesn’t directly prove the existence of a transcendent designer, but atheistic evolution is not adequate enough to explain it.
Conclusion
So the question of whether Christians use science to support their beliefs has been adequately answered, however, it must be emphasized that modern science (particularly operational science) neither directly proves nor disproves the existence of God or any other metaphysical entity or presuppositions, it can only provide support (or indirect proof). Empirical science does not deal with immaterial substances or being. So Christianity, Agnosticism, Atheism, etc. cannot be directly proved by modern science. This essay should have expressed an introductory understanding of what science is and how metaphysical presupposition is intermingled with it. The division of modern science (operational and historical science) is a very important distinction to know. Evolution is usually equated with operational science which is academically unsound. Evolution and Creation are part of historical science; therefore the metaphysical presuppositions affect the interpretation of the evidence. All view of origins must be respected! Unfortunately, dissenters of evolution are mistreated and disrespected. It is as if the evolutionists are now becoming the Inquisition of the 21st Century. There are many intelligent scientists who do not adhere to the general theory of evolution. I respect those who are evolutionists. Those who resort to insulting those with different aspects of origins are insecure with their own view. If we are to debate this, let it be done with academic honesty and respect. I do not believe evolution is absurd or stupid, I just think that it is untenable and insufficient. I hope someday that evolutionists can have that same kind of respectful disagreement for our view of origins; there are some evolutionists that are like that, but the majority is not like that. I hope that you can see that believing in creation is not absurd.