I have been following the review of Steven Meyer's new book "Signature in the Cell" at Jesus Creed and, while the conversation there has been frustrating and at times heated, I have come to one clear conclusion. I find that it is impossible to see intellectual consistency in belief in orthodox Christianity while holding to the standard secularist definition of "science".
If that sounds strong or harsh, hear me out.
Secular science as defined by Judge Overton, insists on a uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. That is, since science can only examine natural phenomena, one can leap to the conclusion that every detectable effect found in nature must therefore have a detectable natural cause, explainable by natural law alone. Any appeal to something other than nature, it is asserted, violates the definition of science (and is sufficient cause for ridicule, insult and questioning the worthiness of one’s PhD.) Theistic Evolutionists like Meyers’ reviewer, do not assert there is nothing beyond nature, only that science, by definition, must never appeal to something beyond nature.
But for anyone who accepts the New Testament as a description of real events, this is a huge problem. If one is an orthodox Christian, one must affirm the creedal statements regarding the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. Those are the rock bottom central assertions of Biblical Christianity, without which there is nothing left of historic Christianity. And those are events which are asserted as verifiable within the natural world, seen by eyewitnesses, but which by definition have no natural cause.
For example, one need not have required access to modern scientific instruments, had one been present, to follow the events of the death and resurrection of Christ with a fair amount of accuracy. One could have been present at the foot of the cross and verified that the body of Jesus had no pulse and that respiration had ceased. If one had the instruments, one could have verified a lack of brain activity. If the New Testament accounts are true, then Jesus was dead by any standard of death, and this fact would have been a detectable scientific reality in the natural world.
On the third day, if the biblical accounts are true, one likewise could have stood beside Thomas and examined the wounds. One might have been able to take a pulse, listen to the breathing and taken note of the alert mind of a risen Christ. Again, these would have been phenomena that would be detectable in every meaningful way - one might say valid scientific observations. Christ was alive.
Now here is the problem. The resurrection was a detectable effect, we are told that real men saw, heard and touched the risen Christ in the natural realm. But what of the cause? Would science have been able to find any cause within the exclusive confines of natural law to describe how the resurrection occurred or what natural mechanism was used? The reviewer of Meyer’s book, anonymously blogging as RJS, asserts frequently that she firmly believes God works within natural law in the process of evolution. Would she impose the same limitation on the resurrection? What natural law process might account for the resurrection? Is the resurrection a supernatural event? Is it historical? What is the implication for science?
To say the resurrection is in the realm of faith, and not science, is to undercut the New Testament insistence on the eyewitness accounts and the tangible events. Thomas touched the wounds. Peter ate fish with the risen Christ. Yet to insist on a natural mechanism for how the Resurrection occurred is to destroy the clearly supernatural meaning of the event and its link to our resurrection and eternal hope. If it was accomplished by a natural mechanism, was Deity even necessary? What then is the meaning of the resurrection?
As a second example, think of the virgin birth. Science could have determined that Mary was indeed pregnant at one point when she had not been previously. Science might have even been able to sample the blood type of the child and examine the genetic code of the Christ in utero, had such tools been available. But the claim of Christianity is that "the Holy Spirit overshadowed" Mary and that the child in her womb was not the product of normal human conception. Christianity is dependent on the idea that Christ did not have a human father. The cause of his conception cannot found in natural law and if it is, then the deity of Christ is called into question and Christianity is radically altered.
This reality of visible effects in nature for which no natural cause can be found is a central theme of all the miracles of the New Testament. The blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, all pointing to a very simple idea that a child can apprehend but no scientist can comprehend and no naturalist can allow - God is above nature and is not bound by its laws or by definitions of science imposed by secular jurists.
Now, presumably, most Theistic evolutionists accept the resurrection and virgin birth. To do so they must acknowledge in some sense that certain causes in the Biblical narrative are not within the reach of natural law. And here, they cannot seem to live consistently with their scientific commitment to naturalism. It seems most have put an impenetrable wall around the sacred pursuit of science, never allowing for the thought that deity might violate their naturalist code, yet they must allow a small space for the supernatural in their acceptance of the resurrection.
TE advocates have accepted the premise regarding origins that all causes of the development of life must without exception be explained in terms of natural law alone. One of the key objections to Meyer's book was that his argument for the intelligent design of the cell proposed no mechanism which would enable ID to work. Now if "design" is the result of nature alone, then a mechanism would in fact be needed. But if design is by nature alone, then design is no longer design. What natural mechanism designed a Rembrandt painting or a Shakespearian sonnet? To ask for a mechanism is to ask Meyer to abandon the very idea he is arguing for - that natural mechanisms alone may be insufficient to account for the level of complexity and functionality present. The blindness to the logical absurdity of asking one who denies natural mechanisms can produce cellular complexity to provide a natural mechanism is truly remarkable.
Now I do not say that belief in natural causes alone is necessarily logically inconsistent for an atheist. What I am saying is that to argue for natural causes alone in the realm of origins and then accept supernatural causes in life of Christ is logically inconsistent for a theist. The only alternative for one who accepts the rigid naturalistic view of science is to adopt that standard in both the realms of the lab and the realm of the sancturary and deny that the miraculous in the New Testament is possible. But they cannot be consistent in both realms.
That hard line approach TE advocates take toward ID and especially creationism is often condescending and occasionally venomous. It is as if there is a commitment made, that once one dons a lab coat, one must be rigidly committed to the modernist notion that human beings, beginning from reason alone, examining natural data alone, can unlock every secret of the universe. It is to agree with the non-theist that mystical notions like revelation and miracle must be sequestered away in the irrational realm of faith and to violate this rigid rule is a treasonous betrayal of establishment science, punishable by ridicule, ostracism and ad hominem attacks. Yet, when that same person takes off the lab coat and steps into the church building, the only realm in which faith in something beyond nature is acceptable, all is well once again. This is both unfair and schizophrenic.
I frankly find the Young-Earth Creationist position far more consistent, even if particular evidences and conclusions are incorrect. (I don't see the need to insist on a literal 24 hour day or a 6000 year age for the earth, for example) The Young Earth Creationist assumes nature has an order precisely because nature is created by an intelligent mind, therefore science is possible - but science is limited by the finiteness of man and the fallenness of man. The YEC advocate admits and insists that there is cause and effect built into nature. But if one believes in the Resurrection, and one is consistent, then one must allow that not every effect had a natural cause.
And that, again, is the crux of the Evolution debate. Are we to accept the naturalist definition of science, which limits all natural effects to purely natural explanations and which if held consistently makes belief in numerous events in the New Testament untenable? Or are we to reject that narrow definition of science and open the door to the possibility that many events in the origin and development of life on earth might be beyond the realm of natural causes?
Seems most of the folks at JC, Biologos and other places have chosen to toe the naturalist line, at least in the lab. That is their right. What is neither fair nor ethical, in my mind, is to impose that academic and thoroughly secular definition on every other person of faith who works in the sciences. Young Earthers, Old Earthers and ID advocates all see the inconsistency and elitism and want no part of it. Either let God be God in all of nature and all of earth history or give up the pretense one believes in the Biblical portrayal of God. But don't ask other believers to abandon belief in a God who is beyond nature simply because they don a lab coat and dare to participate in reasoned empirical observation of nature.
The TE position likes to portray itself as true to real science and RJS has often said her goal is to protect young students from the disillusionment of being confronted with the “facts” of science after being led astray by the wooden literalism of the uneducated. But I believe the false and dichotomous commitment to naturalism is far more poisonous to the faith than suggesting that the “apparent” design of the cell might be the result of actual design, or that the author of natural law might not be bound by it.
2 comments:
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences devoted its Plenary Session of 31 October-4 November 2008 to the subject: ‘Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life’. The Plenum was attended by 45 members of the Academy and by 14 invited guests. Lectures were given by 23 members and 8 additional lectures were given by invited experts. Ample time was devoted to discussions.
Summary
Christian De Duve
The Academy offered a unique setting and intellectual climate for the chosen topic, which is of burning interest – and an occasional source of dispute – for scientists, philosophers, and theologians alike, as well as for the general public. It was particularly valuable to have representatives of all major scientific disciplines and of philosophy and theology gathered together and exchanging views in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom and mutual respect.
There was little disagreement on major issues. The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories. They rejected as objectively untenable the so-called ‘creationist’ view based on a literal interpretation of the biblical account of Genesis, a view not to be confused with the belief, legitimately held by many, in a creator God. Benedict XVI in his opening address to the participants proposed a valuable approach based on a metaphysical interpretation of the creation clearly different from that of the ‘Creationists’: ‘A decisive advance in understanding the origin of the cosmos was the consideration of being qua being and the concern of metaphysics with the most basic question of the first or transcendent origin of participated being. In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be, and thus have come from nothing into being. It must be created, in other words, by the first Being who is such by essence.’
...Many discussions were devoted to the origin and evolution of life. It was generally admitted that all known living beings, including humans, descend from a single ancestral form of life that appeared on Earth several billion years ago. How this form originated is not known but is believed by a majority of experts to have involved special chemical reactions that were rendered possible, perhaps even imposed, by the physical-chemical conditions under which they took place. Particularly impressive in this respect is the recent discovery that a number of typical building blocks of life, including sugars, amino acids, and nitrogenous bases, arise spontaneously, together with numerous other organic compounds, in many parts of the Universe. Not all scientists, however, believe this remarkable fact to be relevant to the origin of life.
...On the other hand, no one, at least among the scientists, defended the recently advocated theory of ‘intelligent design‘, according to which certain evolutionary events could not have taken place without the intervention of some higher influence, of which no evidence can be found in nature. Several of the arguments cited in support of this theory were shown to ignore recent findings. In particular, the theory [intelligent design] was rejected as intrinsically non-scientific, resting, as it does, on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that certain events cannot be naturally explained. These views did not satisfy some theologians who stressed the role of design in creation, an affirmation which, in turn, raised the questions of where and how design is manifested. The issue was not settled during the meeting.
Key point: "the theory [intelligent design] was rejected as intrinsically non-scientific, resting, as it does, on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that certain events cannot be naturally explained."
My point: The commitment to naturalism rests on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that all events without exception must be naturally explained. This is inconsistent with belief in the virgin birth or the resurrection.
Whether particular evidences for specific "creative" acts are compelling is a separate issue.
Post a Comment