Research not proofs

 

Some of you know that I have recently completed work on a manuscript for a new book on the creation model, and if you haven't heard about it, you should check out the latest episode of Let's Talk Creation, where Paul Garner and I chat all about the new book.  The book is not just about the creation model, though.  Instead, we argue that the creation debate has become mired in simplistic, "gotcha"-style falsificationism and that a better way of thinking about the issues is the through a much broader-based model-building approach.  I'm especially aware of this because it's fundraising season at Core Academy, and I'm always sensitive to how I spend donor funds.  So why should we as Christians bother with the kind of research we do at Core Academy, and why should we think more deeply about the creation issue?

First of all, what's wrong with the way we think about creation/evolution questions?  A couple years' back, I was reading one of those four-views books on the historical Adam, and there was a young-age creationist essay in the mix.  In the response to that essay, proponents of old-earth positions brought up starlight and time as a decisive refutation of the recent historical Adam position.  I was kind of astounded at this.  What in the world does starlight and time have to do with the historical Adam?  Yes, many creationists believe in both a recently-created universe and a historical Adam, but there's no logical connection between the two concepts.  It's at least logically possible that we could live in an ancient universe with a recent historical Adam.  At the very least, the creationist essay hadn't mentioned anything about the age of the cosmos, so bringing up starlight struck me as kind of preposterous.

I've seen this in other contexts as well.  I was reading an internet article the other day that alleged that a theory must answer every question put to it, and it only takes one small problem to falsify the whole thing.  I suppose that's true in geometry or maybe logic puzzles like sudoku, but I am very much aware (after years of experience) that science doesn't work like that.

The problem is our limited understanding as human beings.  With logic puzzles or math, everything is very contrived, controlled, and fully known.   In these scenarios, you literally have all the information you need to make a judgment, and you can prove that certain solutions or propositions must be true and any inconsistency does indeed falsify the entire solution.

But real life (and real science) doesn't work like that.  We can never know everything we need to know to reach an infallibly correct solution.  Our models of reality will always be incomplete, and there will always be open questions.  As far as I can see in the creation debate, every model has HUGE open questions.  Nobody has all the answers.  Nobody's model explains everything.  We've all just prioritized the things we're personally most concerned about and then adopted the models we see as resolving those anxieties.

That doesn't mean that models can't ever be falsified or abandoned.  In my view, there's not much reason to think about the "flat earth."  The biblical warrant is weak (at best) and there are very many observations that simply don't fit the flat earth scenario (including hundreds of people who've actually orbited the earth and have seen it for themselves) , so we can safely ignore it.  On the other hand, I do believe the young-age creation model explains the most data from scripture, theology, and science, but you'll have to wait for the book for a fuller explanation of that.

My point is that in this world where we don't (and can't) know everything, simple falsification just doesn't adequately deal with large models of reality.  The better approach then is to think in a larger scale when dealing with the biggest pictures of all, and if there are holes in your own model, that's where you need to work to fill them in.  The goal of such work is not to prove your model but to improve your model.  In other words, you want to leave the model (and the community working with that model) in a better place than it was when you started.

But why, you might ask, should we bother with any of this?  Why not just hunker down, spread the gospel, and leave the science to someone else?  Don't we have better things to do than worry about fossils or fish or far-away galaxies?

First, I think studying scientific questions does indeed have practical consequences that bear directly on ministry.  Our ability to treat basic diseases through medical missions not only follows directly the example of Jesus' healing ministry but also benefits from an absolutely enormous body of scientific research that has taken place over hundreds of years.  The same could be said for many other ministry-related activities, such as providing a rural village with clean water or controlling mosquito populations to prevent the spread of infectious disease.  Basic research made all of these advances possible, and they all not only enhance our ministry work but follow Jesus' example of providing physical relief to people in need.

The practical advantages go beyond just gospel ministry work though.  God's first command to humans was to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth (which we have done), and have dominion over it.  That entails stewarding God's works here, and to steward them wisely, we need to understand them.  I for one am very thankful to live in an age where we know so very much about illness and pollution that my life has been largely free from fear of infectious disease or environmental poisons.  Over the past two centuries, our population demographics have changed dramatically in the developed world, where infant mortality has plunged, and many more people can live full lives in relative good health.  That's made possible by centuries of basic research.  And I would argue, as we become more knowledgeable about creation and therefore better stewards of God's world, we can become better images of God.

And that brings me to my third point.  The scriptures are pretty clear that creation as the work of God reflects God's character and attributes.  We see this stated in both the Old and New Testaments.  We also find throughout scripture a call to worship God because of his greatness that's revealed in creation.  Studying creation is like studying the art of a great master.  You not only appreciate the art for its own sake but you gain insight into the artist.  And when the artist is God, that insight brings you to a greater place of worship.  The experience of creation, the study of God's works, is good for your soul.  It enriches your spiritual well-being, and it should make you more like your creator.

None of this should be taken as a blanket endorsement of everything called "science."  The work of science can be corrupted by sin and go astray from the actual truth, just like any other human activity.  But that error does not mean the whole of science is lost, just like our personal sin does not put us beyond Jesus' power to redeem us.  On the other hand, no amount of error can devalue science itself, just like sin doesn't change the reality that God loves us and wants to redeem us.

And that's why I love the work that I do and why I think what we do at Core Academy is valuable in itself.  If you want to understand more of this, keep following this blog and check out our book when it's published next year.

Thanks for reading! 

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com. If you enjoyed this article, please consider a contribution to Core Academy of Science. Thank you.

Have you read my book?  You should check that out too!