This page does not evaluate theories
of evolution and design.
Instead, it looks at the logical process
of evaluation.
7A. The many meanings of
evolution — how can we evaluate?
What is the scientific support
for evolution? This is a "trick question" that cannot
be properly answered,
because it is imprecise. Instead, we should ask about four evolutions:
astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological. Most scientists think
the scientific support is very strong for astronomical
evolution (in an
old universe) and geological evolution (on an old earth), but is much
weaker
for chemical evolution (of the
first life). For biological evolution the support varies when we
ask four
sub-questions, as explained
below. EVALUATION OF
EVOLUTIONS
Logical Comparisons
Is a theory proposing that "John
is an Olympic Weightlifter" supported if we observe that John
can lift a hat and place it on his head? No, because a plausible
alternative theory — "John has average strength" — also
correctly predicts the result. To justify a response of "Wow!" instead
of "So what?", the evidence must be relevant for helping
us compare the theories, like seeing John lift a heavy weight that's
close to the world record. To distinguish between competitive
theories, we must focus on their differences (they disagree
about John's ability to lift the near-record weight), not their similarities (they
both agree that John can lift the hat).
This principle of logic is
often ignored when evolution is evaluated, when scientists and educators
claim support for evolution because "it can lift hats" instead of asking
questions that are more useful for evaluation.
The Many Meanings of Evolution
We must define "evolution" before
we can evaluate it.
In general, evolution is any
process of gradual change. In biology, evolution (E)
is a change in the gene pool of a population. But "evolution" can
also refer to fossil-E progressions (in
the geological record), common descent (with
all species related by shared ancestors), micro-E within
a species, macro-E to produce new species
(with minor or major changes), neo-Darwinian subtheories proposing
that E occurs by specific mechanisms (including genetic variation, natural
selection, and more), or a Total
Macro-E claim
that all biocomplexity and biodiversity was produced by the cumulative
effects of macro-E. A nonscientific meaning of E is a claim
— made by some atheists (Richard Dawkins,...) and some Christians
— that
"evolution is inerently atheistic" so theistic
evolution is impossible.
Logical Comparisons of
Theories
This table shows whether each
of four "evolutions" is accepted in four
views of creation: evolutionary creation (by natural
evolution), old-earth progressive creation (by modification of
already-existing genes), old-earth progressive creation (by independent creation
of new species "from scratch"), and young-earth creation.
theories of creation:
For each E, does a creation
theory say yes or no? |
creation
by natural
evolution |
progressive
creations by
modification |
progressive
independent
creations |
young-earth
independent
creation |
micro-E and minor macro-E |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
old earth with basic fossil-E |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
no |
full common descent |
YES
|
YES |
no |
no |
natural Total Macro-E |
YES |
no |
no |
no |
Using four definitions of
E (by describing four related aspects of E)
— which is more precise than just calling it "evolution" — allows
logical comparisons:
All theories agree (YES YES YES
YES) about "micro-E and minor macro-E" so these are irrelevant for helping
us compare neo-Darwinian evolution (in "creation by natural evolution")
with the other three creation theories.
Evidence for an old earth (with
evolutionary fossil progressions) is not evidence against the two theories
of old-earth progressive creation, which say "YES YES".
Similarly, evidence for common
descent — such as homologous adaptations of previously existing
structures, vestigial structures, "molecular clock" analyses, and a sharing
of genetic code, Hox genes, and pseudogenes — counts against one
old-earth theory (with independent creations) but not another (with creations
by genetic modification).
To distinguish between any
two theories, we must compare them to see where they agree and disagree. Then
we should focus
on evidence about disputed components (where one theory says YES and
the
other says
NO),
not shared
components
(where
both say YES or both say NO). For example, the table shows
that much of the common "evidence for evolution" — for minor macro-E,
old-earth fossil progressions, and common descent — is not evidence
for natural Total Macro-E when it is compared with progressive
creations by genetic modification.
Shifts of Meaning
When using a word with many meanings, we should not
mix the meanings by shifting from one meaning to another, in either of the two
ways
below.
evolution-shifting: Often, scientific evidence
for a strongly supported meaning of evolution (micro-E, minor macro-E, fossil-E,...)
is shifted to a less strongly supported meaning (Total Macro-E) without carefully
analyzing the causal and evidential relationships between different aspects.
creation-shifting: Often,
scientific evidence against young-earth creation is shifted onto old-earth
creation. Also, the important scientific differences between
two old-earth theories, proposing independent creation and genetic modification,
are usually ignored. { What are the similarities and differences
between young-earth creation and intelligent
design? }
In each type of shifting, the shift
is not logically justified. Unfortunately, sloppy logic allows sloppy
claims, as in declaring that "evolution is a fact" without defining
the meaning of evolution.
For
example, common
descent is often defined as the essence of evolution, but even though
Michael Behe accepts common descent
he is often attacked as a "creationist" because
he challenges Total Macro-E with his claims about irreducible
complexity.
7B. Can we use scientific
methods to detect design?
Common
Ways to Detect Design
FAQ-6 describes four
types of design and explains that "design-action
by a natural agent... is accepted by everyone... and is obvious in everyday life
when we wake up in a house, listen to a radio, read a newspaper, or drive a car." In
these situations and others, we're confident that we are detecting the results
of design-directed action when we decide that observed "signs of design" could
not be produced by undirected
natural process.
Would you propose "design" if
you receive a radio signal — 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17,... — that
you recognize as a long string of prime numbers?
William Dembski, a prominent design
theorist, uses the concept of complex specified information to
describe signs of design. A short string of
prime numbers (like "2 3") is not complex, so it could easily
occur
by chance. A long string of random numbers is complex, but is not specified because
it has no pattern or function. But a long string of prime numbers is complex and
(due
to
its conceptual functionality) is specified.
Other types of specification due
to functionality occur when you read a paragraph and understand the meaning,
or when a combination
of metal is a "bicycle" you can pedal to the store.
Historical
Science & Common Design, and Controversial Design
Many arguments against design
are also arguments against some areas of conventional science, in areas
that study history (is historical science
reliable?) or propose unobservable causes or agency action.
In all examples above (house,...
bicycle) we infer "design-directed action" when we observe "signs
of design" even if the agent and action were not observed. This
logical principle is common in science, and scientists often infer an unobservable
cause — an electron (in chemistry), a thought (in psychology),
a volcano acting in the past (in geology), an agent acting in the past (in
archaeology),... — from the observable effects it
produces, in studies of current events or historical events.
In many historical situations
only undirected natural process was involved, so an explanatory theory with
only mechanistic action is adequate. But
scientists agree that in some situations, as when trying to explain ancient
cave drawings, a theory must include agency action as
part of a plausible explanation. The actions
of
an
agent (natural or supernatural) can be unpredictable, but a historical scientist
only
has to determine what did occur, not predict what will occur.
The examples above (house,... drawings)
are uncontroversial, and theories of design are common in everyday life and
in science. But questions arise when the design-action seems unfamiliar
(so it might be supernatural) and we're looking at design in biology. In
these situations the main concerns are religious, and a common criticism is
that a design theory is a creation theory. But critics also have methodological
questions:
What are the similarities and differences
between design inferences in a common context and controversial context? Is
an "argument by analogy" justifiable, in a claim that because scientists
commonly infer design in one context (for a house, radio signal, or cave painting,
when the agent and design-action seem to be natural) they should accept
the possibility of infering design in another context (when
we ask if design-action was required to produce biological functionality in
the first living cell, or in the DNA specifying a functional protein, biochemical
system, or whole organism, and when the agent and design-action might be supernatural)?
Scientific
Questions about Evolutions — Biological and Chemical
• For
each step in a total macro-evolutionary scenario —
and for the whole scenario — how
many mutations and how much selection would be required, how long would
this take, and how probable is it?
• Do
systems exist that are irreducibly complex because
all parts are required for the system's function? if yes, could
these systems be produced by a process of step-by-step evolution, if
there would be no function to "select for" until all parts
are present? { To understand irreducible complexity, think
about a mousetrap with five interacting parts: a base, hammer, spring,
catch, and holding bar. Each part is necessary, and there is no
function unless all parts are present. A trap with only four parts
doesn't just catch mice poorly, it doesn't catch them at all. / This
illustrative analogy is from Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge
to Evolution (1996) by Michael Behe. }
• Could
a nonliving system naturally achieve the minimal complexity required
to replicate itself and thus become capable of changing, in successive generations,
through natural selection in neo-Darwinian evolution? { Most
scientists think this would require hundreds of biomolecular parts, not just
the five parts in a simple mousetrap. }
These questions, and others,
are examined in EVALUATIONS
OF EVOLUTIONS.
Scientific Knowledge
about Evolution
Most scientists think neo-Darwinian
evolution could have produced all biological complexity. Loren
Haarsma & Terry Gray explain why: "We
know several evolutionary mechanisms that increase the size of a cell's
genome (e.g., gene duplication, horizontal transfer, polyploidy, endosymbiont
capture). Combined with natural selection, this allows information
transfer from the environment to the cell's genome. In addition,
the genomes of living organisms display redundancy and multitasking,
allowing for the evolution of novelty and interlocking complexity. (from Perspectives
on an Evolving Creation)"
And they recognize the
limits of current knowledge: Until the past few years, we knew
very little about the genomes of humans and other species. But
even when we "map the genetic sequences
of many species,... we will have only begun the work of understanding
the capabilities and limits of evolution. In order to know whether
or not some complex piece of biological machinery could have evolved,
we must know each species' genetic sequences, but also understand in
great detail how gene products interact with each other in living cells." They
think that currently "the jury is still
out" on design questions, but "it
seems most promising — both scientifically and theologically — to
study biological complexity expecting to find more evidence that God
designed into it the ability to self-organize." {more
from their chapter}
Can design be proved?
A particular feature
(a star, bacteria, whale, biochemical system,...) was produced either
by detectable design-action or by what appears to be undirected natural
process. These two possibilities, which I'll call design and non-design, are mutually
exclusive, so if non-design is highly improbable, design is highly
probable. And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design
(and thus design) can be decreased or increased by empirical observations,
so a
theory
of design is empirically responsive and
is testable. Based on a logical evaluation
of evidence, we can conclude that a design theory is
probably true (if all non-design theories seem highly implausible)
or is probably false (if any non-design
theory seems highly plausible).
A design theory does not claim that non-design is impossible and
design is certain, it only claims that design seems more probable. But proof is
always impossible in science. Instead, scientists try to develop a logically
justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory, and a high level
of confidence (not proof) is the goal. Therefore, it seems unreasonable
for critics of design to demand — along with radical postmodern skeptics
who challenge the credibility of all science — that if design proponents
cannot claim the certainty of proof, they can claim nothing.
Should
scientists consider all possibilities?
All current theories for a natural chemical
evolution from nonlife to life seem implausible, because what is necessary
(for life) seems greater than what is possible (by undirected natural process). Is
it rational for scientists to consider the possibility that carbon-based life
on earth did not originate by undirected natural process, but was the result
of design-directed action? The certainty of "proof" is impossible
because we can never propose and test all possibilities for non-design. But
could we develop a logically justified confidence that our search has been thorough
yet futile, and no promising possibilities remain unexplored?
What are the possibilities? Perhaps a feature,
such as the first life, was produced by undirected natural process that: • did
occur even though it was extremely improbable (so we should reject it as a scientifically
plausible explanation), or • would be improbable in a universe but
was highly probable because we live in a multiverse; or
did occur and was reasonably probable and can be described in a naturalistic
theory that • is currently known (even if this theory currently seems
inadequate) or • will be known in the future, or • will
never be known because the natural process was too complex or unfamiliar for
us to propose. Or maybe the feature was produced by design-directed
action, by: • natural design and construction, or • supernatural
design and creation. Should scientists ignore the last two possibilities?
False Negatives
and False Positives?
When evaluating a claim that a particular feature
was designed, a false negative — by concluding "no
design" when there was design — occurs when we are unable to detect
design-action. Sometimes this occurs when an agent wants design-action
to be undetectable, as in the actions of an illusionist, criminal, plastic surgeon,
or a movie-maker's "special effects," or a divine guiding of natural
process.
A false positive — by
concluding "design" when there was no design — could be caused
by a wrong conclusion about current science (saying "undirected
natural process could not produce the feature" when in reality it could
and did) or by wrong predictions about future science (saying "it
will never find a naturalistic explanation" when in reality it can and
will), or in other ways.
What might happen in
the future of science?
A major challenge in evaluating
design is uncertainty about the adequacy of our current science. Advocates
of non-design imply that future science, when it becomes more adequate,
will support their claims. But the change in support could go either
up or down. Will non-design seem more plausible because we have
discovered how a feature could have been produced by natural process? Or
will non-design seem less plausible — as with chemical evolution
since 1953 when the Miller-Urey experiments were "hot news" that
inspired naturalistic optimism — because we have learned more about
the limits of natural process?
What will happen? We
can try to predict improvements in current theories and inventions
of new theories, by using current knowledge (*)
plus creative thinking (to imagine what could be) and critical thinking
(to predict what is probable in reality, not just possible in our imaginations)
so we can avoid the extremes of insisting that "nothing new will
happen" or "anything could happen." / * For
example, we can "critically imagine" how future knowledge
might change our views about each obstacle to a natural origin of life: the
unfavorable chemical equilibria in reactions for synthesis of biomolecules,
the biocomplexity
required for life,...
Scientific Evaluation
and Philosophical Perspectives
Typically, scientific theories
are evaluated based on scientific evidence-and-logic combined
with philosophical perspectives that include deciding what to
conclude when the evidence is not conclusive. For every question
about design, scientists currently give non-design (the reigning paradigm)
the "benefit of doubt" and put the "burden of proof" on
design (as the challenger). But if the evidence-and-logic is not
conclusive, maybe saying "no conclusion" is the best conclusion. Instead
of thinking it's necessary to "declare a winner," can we just
say "we're not sure at this time" and continue searching, with
a humble open-minded attitude, in our efforts to learn more?
Should we ask the question?
Imagine a "super science" constructed
by trillions of super-intelligent space aliens who have studied biochemistry
for billions of years, have explored the universe searching for life
and environments for producing it, but have not yet constructed a plausible
theory for a natural origin of life. Even in this situation a denial
of design would be possible, but would it be rational?
Compared with this imaginary
super-science, in the near future the actual state of human knowledge
will remain much less advanced. For awhile, scientists will continue
to disagree about the plausibility of design, but this is healthy for
science when it stimulates thinking and discussions between advocates
for different points of view. Proof is impossible in science,
and it can be difficult to confidently answer the question, "Was
design-action involved in producing this feature?" Although
it should be easier to decide, "Should we ask the question?",
there are also vigorous arguments about this, as you'll see in Sections
7C and 7D.
Appendix to Section 7B:
Usually, non-design
and design are mutually exclusive. But sometimes — although not for the
usual questions being debated — there is a "gray area" when
defining design, so we may have to define types of design (or degrees
of design) based on a multi-dimensional system of criteria
that include intelligence and intention:
intelligence: The
Hoover Dam is a result of design-action, but what about a beaver dam?
or a bird nest or ant hill? There is action, but is it "intelligent" or
just the undirected natural process of creatures doing "by instinct" what
they naturally do? How much intelligence is necessary for intelligent
design?
intention: If
a company accidentally releases untreated waste-chemicals into a river
and changes its ecosystem, is this change a result of design-action? Should we say "yes" if the
results (in the river) cannot be explained without considering the "extra chemicals" that were the result of human decisions? Would our confidence in a conclusion of "design-directed action" be different if the pollution was an unintended surprise, or if it was predictable and (because the chemicals were dumped anyway) the pollution was intentional?
And what about other factors that might be relevant when we're deciding whether to say YES or NO to questions about design-action?
goals and abilities: Elliott
Sober claims that a basic design theory (which simply claims "design
did occur") can be plausible only if it is "supplemented
with further assumptions [supported by independent evidence] about
what the designer's goals and abilities would be if he existed. (source)"
But
sometimes a "logical inference to the best explanation of
observations" automatically includes inferences about goals
and abilities. For example, the mere fact that we are observing
a radio signal with prime numbers will justify a conclusion that
a "signal designer" must have the cognitive
ability to understand prime numbers, and the technological
capability and motivation to
encode these numbers into a radio signal.
competence and
compassion: Do
biological imperfections show that the designer is incompetent? And
does suffering in nature — due to predators, viruses,... — show
that the designer lacks compassion and morality?
These anti-design arguments
are much weaker if, instead of designing every feature of every
creature, God used a combination of natural evolution plus design-directed
action, as in progressive creation by genetic
modification. And theological humility is
often ignored, as in Stephen Jay Gould's claim that "God
surely would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned
for other purposes," as if he knew what God
would have done. But in the Bible, God's actions are not
always obvious or easy to understand.
And when we ask, "Why does God
allow
bad things to happen?", one part of a satisfactory answer is the incarnation
of Jesus, when God lived among us, sharing our joys and sorrows, pleasures and
suffering. |
7C. Is methodological naturalism useful in science?
Should intelligent design be allowed in science?
Currently, most scientists
use methodological
naturalism by including only natural cause-and-effect in
their scientific theories, when studying the current operation of
nature or the formative
history of nature. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion for every question
about the history of nature — no matter what is being studied, or what
is the evidence — must be that "it happened by natural process." But
these forced conclusions might lead to some wrong conclusions. If
we want
science to be more effective in our search for truth, one option is to replace rigid-MN with testable-MN in
which a scientific investigation begins by assuming "it happened by
natural process" but considers this an assumption that can be tested,
not a conclusion that must be accepted.
Should scientists search
everywhere?
Perhaps with rigid-MN
a scientific search for truth is occasionally futile, like trying to
explain how the faces on Mount Rushmore were produced by natural processes
of erosion. If scientists are restricted by an assumption that
is wrong — that does not match historical reality — their
finest creativity and logic will fail to find the true origin of the
faces.
Or think
about a man who is looking for missing keys in the kitchen when the keys
are on the front porch. No matter how hard he searches the kitchen,
he won't find the keys because they aren't there! They can be found
only by someone who is open-minded and is willing to search the porch. When
we're not sure where the keys are, instead of demanding an either-or
choice (by restricting the search to either kitchen or porch)
it seems more rational to search everywhere, in both kitchen and porch.
In science — when we're
using evidence-and-logic to search for truth about nature — is rigid
methodological naturalism a useful strategy? MN will probably be useful
IF its assumption about history (that it included only natural events) matches
the reality of history, since rigid-MN will help scientists avoid being distracted
by false theories about non-natural events. But IF non-natural events
really did occur in history, so the premise of MN is false, rigid-MN will force
scientists to reach some false conclusions, and this doesn't seem useful.
Since we don't know whether MN
matches the reality of history, what is our best scientific strategy? Should
we search with a humble attitude by refusing to assume that we already know — with
certainty, beyond any doubt — what kind of world we live in? Should
we assume answers, or investigate questions?
Is
methodological naturalism required by The Rules?
In natural science,
do we have to explain natural phenomena
and natural history by natural causes? No,
this claim is just circular logic that's camouflaged with verbal
ambiguity by using natural to mean both "pertaining to nature" (three
times) and "normal appearing" (once).
A
principle of methodological naturalism cannot
be derived from science (so it is non-scientific)
but is compatible with science (so it is not
un-scientific).
But if we define science
as "whatever
scientists do," and most scientists currently use methodological naturalism
(MN), doesn't this make it scientific? If those with power to make decisions
(about publishing, funding, and hiring) decide that MN is a "rule of science" that
is unwritten yet is enforced, does this settle the issue?
Is science a game with rules? This is an interesting
sociological perspective, useful for thinking about interpersonal dynamics and
institutional structures. But overall it seems more useful to think about
science as an activity with goals rather than a game with rules.
Let's compare "cheating" in
sports, business, and science. In a Strong Man Contest, if other contestants
carry a refrigerator on their backs, one man should not be allowed to move
it using a two-wheel cart because this is not useful for achieving the goal
of the game, for deciding who is the strongest man. But if the goal of
a business is to deliver refrigerators quickly, many times throughout the day,
a two-wheeler is useful.
Although it isn't the only
goal, for most scientists the main goal of science is finding truth
about nature. But rigid-MN might lead to unavoidable
false conclusions. When some scientists recognize this and
question the usefulness of rigid-MN, is it cheating or wisdom?
design and MN: A basic
design theory (which only claims "design did occur" *)
does not explicitly propose supernatural action, but — since
design-action can be either natural (as in genetic engineering) or
supernatural (as in miraculous biblical healings) — it implicitly
acknowledges the possibility of divine action, so design isn't limited
by methodological naturalism. {* it
does not try to explain the details of who, how, and why }
Can science investigate
the supernatural?
Can the logical methods
of science be used to study non-natural events? In some ways, no. But
in other ways, yes.
As explained in Section
7B: scientists can infer an unobservable cause (electrons,
ideas, historical events, actions of an unseen agent,...) if it produces
observable effects; sometimes agency
action must
be part of a plausible explanation, and historical scientists just describe
what did happen, they don't predict what will happen; design
inferences are common in science, but there are differences (and similarities)
between
this common
design and the controversial design that makes claims about
biological systems; design and non-design are mutually exclusive, so
scientists can evaluate design (which could be natural or non-natural)
by evaluating non-design using conventional scientific methods; when
the evidence-and-logic is not conclusive, instead of rigidly defending
the status quo (of non-design) against the challenger (design), maybe
the best conclusion is a non-conclusion, by simply saying "at this
time we're not sure."
Is design a science-stopper? Is
MN-Science more effective?
If scientists think "a
designer did it," won't this stop scientific progress because there
is nothing left to study?
No. This is unrealistic
because when most scientists hear a claim that "maybe a non-design
explanation doesn't exist" they will continue their non-design research,
probably with renewed vigor because they are responding to a challenge. Yes,
if the keys really are in the (naturalistic) kitchen, they probably will
be found by someone who believes "the keys are in the kitchen" and
is diligently searching there. Proponents of rigid-MN think that
testable-MN would lead to decreased scientific effectiveness, because of
decreased motivation (due to doubts about "where the keys are" and
whether diligent searching will be productive) or decreased funding of
research, or in other ways.
Currently, most biologists think
non-design research is more productive for helping us understand the history
of life. I agree, and I think non-design theories, especially the modern
synthesis of neo-Darwinism, will continue to be more fruitful in stimulating
productive research. But design can also be scientifically useful when
the perspectives of design and non-design are combined, with creative-and-critical
thinking (in non-design) supplemented by additional critical thinking (in design). And
a design perspective could also promote creative thinking
by its proponents and opponents.
We don't have to make an either-or
choice. We all share the goal of
finding truth, and proponents of design want
non-design research to continue and prosper so we can learn more, so in future
science we
can better evaluate the merits of non-design and design. Design proponents
want to supplement non-design research, not replace it. They want
to stimulate productive action and critical thinking, with invigorating
debates
between critics of a theory
and its
loyal defenders. This has occurred due to Michael Behe's claims for irreducible
complexity in 1996, even though the current scientific community does
not want to acknowledge or encourage this scientific stimulation, as you
can see in Mike Behe's Adventures
with Science Journals.
What difference will design make? It
will have little overall impact, because most areas of science are not affected
by controversial claims for design. But for some questions about origins
of the universe, first life, and complex life, maybe design deserves to be
viewed as a potentially useful idea, worthy of serious consideration and further
development.
Should science be logical?
Of course, everyone says
YES. But if there is a conflict between logical and natural, which
criterion should have higher priority? Should we let methodological
naturalism force us to accept a "scientific" conclusion that
is less logical, just because it is natural? Should we define science
as a search for natural explanations, or a search for logical explanations?
Bypass the Process,
Claim the Support
The
Conclusion of MN-Science — that (no matter what is being studied,
or what is the evidence *) "it
happened by natural process" — is actually
The Assumption of MN. The circular logic of MN is unavoidable,
and no science is needed to guarantee a naturalistic conclusion. Of
course, the irrelevance of evidence does not mean there is no evidence,
or that MN is leading to the wrong conclusion. But it does illustrate
a logical weakness of MN. Instead of acknowledging this logical weakness,
however, usually MN-Humility is ignored and there is an implication that
the naturalistic assumption is a conclusion of science, and is therefore
true. Strange as it seems, methodological naturalism provides a way
to bypass the process
of science and then claim the support of science.
* For
example,
despite the weak scientific support for chemical evolution the
prestigious National Academy of Sciences confidently asserts (in the second edition
of Science
and
Creationism, 1999) that "the question is no longer
whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological
components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might
have been followed to produce the first cells. (source)" Is
this
confidence
based on the process of science or an assumption of MN?
When is critical thinking
unscientific?
Are scientists "unscientific" when
they strongly criticize chemical evolution? What would make their
critical thinking unscientific: describing the inadequacy of all
current theories? claiming that future theories will also be inadequate? that
a natural origin of life is extremely improbable, maybe impossible? a
perception that this claim implies a non-natural cause? an explicit
proposal for a non-natural cause? But if strong criticism is accompanied
by a proposal for a new naturalistic theory, does this make it scientific?
Can scientists admit that "we
are far from finding the answer" but not that "maybe there
is no natural answer"? Consistent with rigid-MN, should we
control the thinking of scientists by removing their freedom to propose
that "maybe..."? Or should we let scientists use
the entire process of science, including a logical evaluation of all
competitive theories, when they are determining the conclusions of science?
7D. Methodological Naturalism: Can a Christian use
it?
What is it?
Currently, most scientists use methodological
naturalism by including only natural cause-and-effect in their
scientific theories, when studying the current operation of nature or the formative
history of nature. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion for every question
about the history of nature — no matter what is being studied, or what
is the evidence — must be that "it happened by natural process."
Can science coexist
with miracles?
The
Bible claims that God does miracles. If this is true and miracles
do occur, is science possible? Yes. Effective science
requires a world that is usually natural, but it doesn't have
to be always natural. Science would be impossible in
a world with constant "Alice in Wonderland" surprises and
no reliable cause-effect relationships. But if, despite occasional
miracles, our world usually operates with its normal/natural patterns,
science will be possible and useful. In fact, the logic of
science — which helps us recognize the usual patterns in nature — can
help us recognize when results seem to differ from these patterns,
when a miracle may have occurred.
Christians do not have to choose
between science and miracles. We can believe that science is a reliable
source of knowledge, and that miracles did occur in the Bible, do occur now,
and might have occurred in the formative history of nature.
Is
methodological naturalism theologically satisfactory?
A devout Christian who
believes "miracles occurred in salvation history" can evaluate
all available evidence and conclude that "formative history
was all-natural with no miracles." But should an all-natural
history be the only possibility that is considered during scientific
evaluation? In my opinion, Christians can view methodological
naturalism (MN) in two theologically
satisfactory ways:
In one approach, proponents
of an open search accept MN but consider
MN-science to be only one aspect of a broader "open search for
truth" that considers all possibilities, including miracles. Their
scientific search, but not their open search, is restricted by MN. Although
MN-science is respected as an expert witness, it is not allowed to
be the judge and jury when we're defining rationality and searching
for truth.
In another approach, proponents
of open science claim that — if we think
miracles do occur in salvation history and might have occurred in formative
history — we should not assume, as demanded by MN, that "miracles
never occurred" while doing historical science. They
think science will be more effective, in our search for truth, if they replace rigid-MN with testable-MN in
which a scientific investigation begins by assuming "it happened by
natural process" but considers this an assumption that can be tested,
not a conclusion that must be accepted.
In both approaches, a Christian
believes that natural process was designed and created by God, is sustained
by God, and can be guided by God, so "natural" does not mean "without
God."
Can science avoid the
possibility of unavoidable error?
Imagine two possible
worlds: one has a history of nature with only natural process,
while the other includes both natural-appearing and miraculous-appearing
events. When we ask, "Which type of world do we live in?",
we hope our science will help us, not hinder us, in our search for
truth. But in one of the two possible worlds, a science with rigid-MN — which
implies that we already know (with certainty, beyond any doubt) what
kind of world we live in — must inevitably reach some wrong
conclusions. By contrast, in either world a science with testable-MN — which
allows both MN and non-MN modes of thinking, by starting with an
MN-assumption but not demanding an MN-conclusion — will allow,
although it cannot guarantee, correct conclusions.
Two Limits for Science
Scientists who decide
to use methodological naturalism, which places a limit on what can
claim to be science, will automatically place a limit on what
science can claim to explain. Why? Because MN logically
requires MN-Humility to acknowledge the
possibility of unavoidable error: If the
origin of a feature actually involved a non-natural cause, then any explanation
of the feature's origin by MN-Science (in terms of only natural causes)
will be incomplete or incorrect.
The Rarity and Futility
of Humility
In principle, an open
search that combines MN-Science with MN-Humility seems logically
and theologically acceptable. In practice, a weakness is the rarity
and futility of humility.
MN-Humility is rare. In
the open phase of a search, Christian scholars rarely question
the authority of closed MN-Science by suggesting that it can err
(in general) or has erred (in a specific situation) by reaching a wrong
conclusion. And non-Christian scholars are even less likely to
be humble about the naturalistic conclusions of MN-Science.
MN-Humility is rarely effective
(in producing a "level playing field" for comparative evaluation
of naturalistic and non-naturalistic theories), even when it is acknowledged. Why? Think
about what happens when a "scientific" theory and a "nonscientific" theory
both claim to describe the same feature of history, such as the origin of life. The
nonscientific theory is not respected because most people assume that, for
a theory about nature, "not scientific" means "probably not
true." Due to the cultural authority of science, the scientific
theory is viewed as being more plausible, even if the scientific evidence does
not support it, as in a natural origin of life.
Naturalism is not Naturism
Confusion is caused by
the common use of "naturalism" with two meanings: in
a narrow meaning, naturalism is a specific
claim — which is compatible with Christian theism — of "only
natural process" for a particular event, series of events, or
period of history; in a broad meaning, NATURALISM (or naturism)
is a general claim — which is not compatible with Christian theism — that "only
nature exists" with matter/energy but with no God and thus no
divine action.
But when we're thinking intuitively
about "narrow" and "wide" we must be careful because a
wide range of people (including theists and non-theists) affirm the narrow
meaning, while a narrow range of people (only non-theists) affirm the broad
meaning. { This distinction makes sense when you think about it,
but you do have to think about it, to avoid thinking "narrow" means "accepted
by a narrow range of people." }
A naturalistic explanation (in
science) does not provide logical support for atheistic naturism (in
philosophy), since theists believe that God designed, created, and sustains
natural process, governs it and can guide it. Does "natural" mean "without
God"?
Do you see the two differences
between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturism?
Open Science is not Theistic Science
A theistic science is based
on the principle that theists should use all they have reasons to believe (including
their theology) when doing science, when constructing and evaluating theories. But
theistic science is not a single way of thinking, because our differences — when
interpreting the Bible (in theology) and nature (in science) and combining these
interpretations — can lead to different ideas about God, scripture, divine
actions, nature, and science, which can produce dogmatic rigidity (ranging
from extremes of young-earth geocentrism to evolutionary deism) or open-minded
flexibility.
But everyone, whether they are a theist or nontheist, has
a worldview that influences their science and their willingness to "follow
the evidence" to any conclusion.
An open science welcomes all
perspectives — including atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, and theistic
sciences with differing views about MN and about questions of age and evolution — but
is not restricted by the dogmatism of any perspective, so it can maintain an
open mind about a wider range of scientific conclusions.
Methodology can influence
Worldview
In principle, methodology
and worldview-philosophy can be independent, but in practice they
are mutually interactive and each tends to influence the other.
In principle, an open
search for truth (using MN-Humility) can prevent the naturalistic
methodology of MN-science from influencing our philosophical worldviews
of "the way the world is, what is and isn't real, what can and
cannot happen."
In practice, methodology
can influence our thinking because naturalistic assumptions automatically
(*) become naturalistic conclusions
about "the way the world is (regarding what can and cannot happen)
according to science," and many people are influenced by science,
as discussed in FAQ-1 (science
and worldviews) and FAQ-2 (science
and scientism). {* The
circular logic of MN lets science bypass the process of science. }