A Concise Statement of a Familiar Point

Cornelius Hunter at Darwin's God presents a new twist on an old objection to Darwinist views of origins.  Hunter's point is that there is an a priori assumption inherent to the mindset of most Darwinists that can logically prevent them from seeking truth.  Key paragraph is near the top.

Though evolutionists think of themselves as realists—ruthlessly objective investigators interested only in truth—their naturalistic constraint ultimately leaves them with only anti realism. This is because any a priori restriction of the answer might exclude the true answer.

The last line is worth repeating.  ANY a priori restriction of the answer logically may exclude the true answer.   (Read More)

In the issue Hunter's post deals with, the a priori assumption is that all life can be explained in terms of a succession of descent with modification using some combination of variation and natural selection.  It has been natural to think of evolution beginning with a single organism and descending in variations that can be analogous to the branches of a tree - as one species is differentiated from another, a new branch begins.  The problem is that recent theories of how evolution works and similarities between supposedly distant branches and dissimilarities between close ones has cast doubt on the tree analogy.  The clear lines of descent and the connections between branches have become difficult to maintain in the eyes of some.  This has become a controversial topic on numerous blogs.

Hunter goes on to quote one fellow who seems to say that though there is no "tree" it is ok to keep using the tree analogy because it is helpful in understanding evolution.  Obviously, to the contrary for Hunter, the point is that the very real difficulty with the evolutionary tree should at least open up the possibility that straight line descent with modification may simply be wrong.  But that is not acceptable because of the a priori assumption that descent with modification is settled.

I'll leave it to Hunter and his critics to hash out that particular example, but I will second the motion that a priori restrictions on answers may well exclude the true answer.

And I'll simply repeat that the central a priori assumption that must be challenged is naturalism itself.  If one accepts the definition of science that says all things without exception must be explained in reference to natural causes alone.  Very simply, any explanation that suggests a cause beyond nature must be excluded, even though that explanation might be true.

Which is why I remain puzzled by and opposed to the musings of theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists who seem to have made the naturalistic definition of science something of a creedal affirmation and imposed it on all discussions of origins.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.  Christianity is built on events that not only assume a cause outside of nature, but it is built on events that if explained in natural cause-effect terms would eviscerate central Christian doctrines.  The nature of Christ as both God and man is directly related to the unscientific notion that a woman who had never had relations with a man became pregnant.  This God-man died, was placed in a cold ancient tomb and Christians have affirmed for twenty centuries he came back to life.  All attempts to explain the death and resurrection in natural terms, that he merely swooned, that his body was stolen, are not mere attempts to understand "how God did it" but are clearly attempts to say God did nothing. If Christ was not born of a virgin, then the logical implication is that he is not God.  If he did not truly die and rise, then the resurrection of Believers becomes a hollow hope, a point one Paul the Apostle made forcefully long ago.  

And it was Paul who linked Christ with a first human named Adam.  Adam's disobedience brought death, Christ's obedience brings life.  Just as Hunter's opponent tries to say that the evolutionary tree is useful even if wrong, Christian Darwinists like Pete Enns are bold in saying Paul's use of Adam simply has to be surrendered as factually wrong but can still be maintained as theologically useful.  But what is at stake is the reality behind the theology.  A Christ who is "God" in some nebulous theological understanding is nowhere near as potent as an object of worship as a Christ who is truly God in the flesh.  Sin and death as theological ideas are very different things from sin and death as space time realities.  

The Nicene Creed opens with the statement "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth."  In the middle the creed cites a Christ who was "born of a virgin" and who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate (an historical figure) suffered, died and was buried.  On the third day he rose again."    These are events that simply can never have natural explanations.   Men do not come back to life spontaneously.  Virgins do not give birth.  Universes do not spring into existence on their own. The quest to understand how the natural world normally operates cannot be used by a few modern academics to completely redefine two thousand years of common belief.  Nor can Christianity remain Christianity without the possibility that these improbable events actually occurred.  Ruling out the supernatural may well rule out the truth.

So in what way does siding with naturalistic skeptics in ruling supernatural causes out of bounds in all questions about origins represent clear thinking - much less Christian thinking?