“The cosmos is all that is, ever was, or ever will be.” These are the words spoken by Carl E. Sagan on September 28, 1980 with the opening episode of his, then new, series Cosmos. Since then, Sagan’s words have become iconic; for in them, Sagan captured something. “We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads,” he continues, “But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate. But, we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”
Interestingly, what Sagan captured in these lines has been the direction in which the philosophical man has trended ever since the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. Autonomy, skepticism, and the self determination to discover truth for ourselves, apart from revelation and religion, is a noble pursuit to the modern man. Such a noble pursuit that it has become a mantra to the scientific community; a commandment to the intellectual; and an admonishment to the Christian church.
This is why Bill Nye, a popular atheistic evolutionist, and prominent figure among the “scientific community” said in an informal debate, with Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and the ARK Encounter, on March 13, 2017, that, “Whenever you go back in time, in your worldview, (and) produce a ‘miracle’ then you’re not doing science.” Just moments before this charge, Nye claimed that scientists only make assumptions after they have taken an objective look at the “evidence.”
The unspoken presupposition behind the line of reasoning is that one can only rely upon knowledge obtained through the scientific method of investigation. That is, the objective collection and interpretation of raw data. Thus, one can only rely upon knowledge obtained through the autonomous man, as previously mentioned. When one frames the methodology of obtaining knowledge in such a way, science is immediately elevated to a position of authority. That position of authority is in turn used as a weapon against revelation, such as the recorded accounts of the Bible. “Obviously, you can’t trust the Bible,” the skeptic might say, “It has accounts of miraculous events. Since there is no evidence for such events, and in light of the evidence against the possibility of such events, you must merely believe such accounts based on nothing more than faith.” Of course, the term faith, in the sense which the scoffer uses the word, is not reasonable in light of the established authority- the scientific method.
This is the world we live in. Therefore, it is important for the Christian, who seeks to give an intellectual defense of the Scriptures, to first examine this disposition. To do this, we must first ask ourselves, “What is the nature of science?” Well, the word itself originated (etymology) from another word, Scientia, which is Latin for “knowledge.” Scientia is related to another Latin word, Scire, which means “To know; or to separate one thing from another.” Thus, it follows that our modern usage of the word, as defined by Meriam Webster, is, “The state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.” Webster also defines it more practically as, “A system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained through the scientific method.” Webster then explains the scientific method as, “Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”
Pay close attention to these definitions by Webster! “A system of knowledge…especially as obtained through the scientific method.” Then the scientific method is, “the collection of data through observation and experiment.” Does this not capture the same pattern of reasoning observed in Carl Sagan and Bill Nye? Obviously, the reoccurring theme is that science involves observations extracted from experimentation by scientists in the present. Through the scientific method we have made great discoveries, leading to advances in technology, medicine, and human knowledge about the world around him. All of these discoveries have been made from observation and experimentation. Hypothesis are created which are then tested and observed.
For example, the engine in a car was developed by observing the laws of physics and chemistry. Because gasoline was discovered (experimentation) to be a highly flammable liquid, a car could therefore be designed to ignite this liquid by mixing it with oxygen and introducing a spark. When these three elements come together (gasoline, oxygen, and ignition) inside of an engine, the result is combustion. A sort of controlled explosion which drives a cylinder(s) up and down (operating off of the observed laws of physics). This energy is transferred from the cylinder(s), through a gear box, a transmission, and eventually to the wheels. The steps that the energy goes through to get to the wheels is dependent upon what type of vehicle is being driven, and whether it is manual or automatic. However, the basic principle applies, that through discoveries in the fields of chemistry and physics, we were able to develop a mechanism to convert the energy produced from the combustion of gasoline, into a propellent which carries us down the road. Such discoveries would fit within the parameters set forth in our definition of science, for they are testable, repeatable, experimental, and observable.
But, how does this information apply to the debate on human origins? Well, we can see how physics, chemistry, and combustion engines fit into the parameters of science. However, the question which must be raised is, in what way does evolution fit within the parameters of science? Perhaps the surprising answer for you, and the unfortunate answer, for Bill Nye and Carl Sagan is, it doesn’t.
The reality is that no view of origins can qualify as science. This is because, as we have established, experimentation and observation are requirements for something to qualify as scientific. Experimentation and observation therefore are the limits of the scientific method. Now, how does one observe and experiment on the origin of the cosmos? How does one observe and experiment on anything which is buried under the past? The obvious answer is, they can’t. The fact is, evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory, since even theories must be bolstered by observable evidence. Since the issue of origins cannot be observed, neither evolution nor creation qualify as science.
Now, that having been said, it is possible for us to use the scientific method to support our ideas as to what may have happened in the past. This is what a forensic investigator does to recreate a crime scene. However, the use of science cannot be decisive in this matter, because there are certain assumptions that have to be made. The assumptions that are made, in the origins dispute, are nearly always contingent on a person’s worldview or philosophy about life.
This is where the line is often blurred. Evolutionists are emboldened in our day to erase the distinction between the observable fact, and the evolutionary assumptions that are asserted onto the facts. Evolutionary ideology is almost always mixed together with the objective data, and this is why evolution is thought of as scientific. This is to say that if we were to erase the speculation and look only at the raw data, evolution would disappear. Evolution is nothing more than a story which is created to explain the data, after the fact.
Carl Sagan was obviously ignorant of this, in claiming that “We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads.” First of all, his claim commits the fallacy of reification, as he personifies truth as though it were somehow able to lead people. It can’t! Rather, evidence is obtained through the scientific method, which is then interpreted by people. Those interpretations are only as good as the assumptions of the interpreter. This also means that objectivity is impossible. In other words, science does not interpret philosophy, philosophy interprets science.
Let me illustrate this principle. Several years ago, I took a trip to the majestic Grand Canyon in Arizona. While touring this park it was nearly impossible to miss the frequent references to the canyons old age. Tourists are reminded over and over that the formation of the majestic spectacle began millions of years ago and was slowly carved by the Colorado River which rushes along at the bottom. It makes me wonder how many of those tourists stop and question, “But how do they know this?”
They say there are multiple forces at work in the carving of the canyon. However, one of the most common ways that they come to this “deep time” conclusion is by measuring the rate of erosion. Every year the canyon continues to be carved deeper by the river. A miniscule amount, but a measurable one over time. After measuring the rate of erosion, they can then extrapolate back into the past and establish a rough estimate of how old the canyon is. Or that’s the story…
However, let’s now analyze this line of reasoning with the knowledge we have learned thus far. Applying the principles of observation and experiment, it is perfectly feasible and scientific to measure the rate of erosion carved by the Colorado. Both an evolutionist and a Bible believing, young earth creation scientist would agree on the rate of erosion. This is observable, testable, and repeatable. However, in order for this rate of erosion to be considered a natural clock, one would have to assume that the erosion rate has remained relatively constant for an estimated 5 to 6 million years. This is about how long evolutionists claim the canyon took to form.
It is upon this assumption that the creationist would disagree. Notice that it is upon the assumption that we disagree, not the observable science! Instead of assuming the erosion rate has remained constant for millions of years, creationist say that the Grand Canyon is rather evidence which confirms the event of the Global Flood described in Genesis chapter 6-8. The creationist makes this assertion based upon their philosophical convictions that the Bible is inerrant. On the other hand, the evolutionist makes his assertion based on his philosophical conviction that the Bible is not inerrant, and man is the ultimate authority in determining truth. Neither of their assertions are scientific. Science rests only in the data.
We are about to embark on a journey which will delve into these issues further. However, for now, here is the main takeaway, which I want you to receive from this chapter. There is a stark difference between the observable, testable, repeatable scientific truths, which develop technology, medicine, and increase our understanding about the way the universe works; and the professed beliefs that secular men hold to about the origin of said universe and life therein. There must be a line drawn between the observational data, and the philosophical interpretation of that data.
That is to say that, in reality there is no conflict between science and the Bible, because science has nothing to say when it comes to the main antagonist of the Bible- evolution. Which is also to say that when the debate is framed in this way, we must first step back and point out the incorrect bias that exists, and cast such bias down. Too often Christians are all to ready to rush into battle while accepting the charge that there is an antithesis (conflict) between science and faith, when no such antithesis exists. In rushing in to the battle this way, the Christian forgets the wise words of Proverbs 26:4, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”
