The need for a creation foundation for science

It's the claim of various Reformed theologians (as opposed to 'evangelical' or Roman Catholic) that Rationalism not only gets it wrong about God, it also fails to see the created world (nature) correctly. In this regard I want to look at a current example of getting things wrong.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'How can toads calculate? How can cells without a brain or central nervous system figure out a balanced diet? How can bugs navigate the wind for optimum flight time? These are some of the questions that can arise from observations of the living world. The more we learn about life, the more we find unexpected abilities in the most “primitive” of living things.

'The ameba seems like a lowly life form. How smart can it be? French scientists found out they are not only social organisms; they know how to obtain a balanced diet. Science Daily reported that “Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in a ‘smart’ manner. Experiments showed that amoebas thrive best with a ratio of two parts protein to one part sugar. When presented with a veritable grocery stand of nutrients, they went for the optimal ingredients on their own. “Social amoebae are thus capable of solving complex nutritional challenges, quite a surprising feat for a very simple organism lacking a centralizing system,” the article said. [1.]

- This is nonsense; the amoeba aren't 'solving' any challenges at all. The amoeba is acting in conformity to a designed (built in) program of instructions. It doesn't solve anything. The authors of the article speak as if it were solving this 'problem' because, as materialists, they assume that somehow this organism developed its own abilities. (e.g. like a person learning the skills of boat building or oil painting perhaps.) They work from a monistic worldview, and thus they get everything wrong. (i.e. apart from description.)

It's utterly mistaken to imagine these organisms somehow developed these abilities themselves. Clearly these abilities were programmed into them. (Does anyone imagine a computer programmed itself? or that a collection of metal fragments somehow programmed processing abilities into themselves? The idea is absurd; as absurd as the materialist explanation for life form functions.) Intelligence is simply not a property of inert matter.

These abilities are only surprising (as opposed to wondrous) if you're a Materialist who denies God is the creator of all things. The materialist admits that what he finds is hard to believe... but then suppresses the implication of that admission, and gives the credit to some mystical force called evolution.

Summary;
I agree with Calvin and Van Til that the natural man can't even get basic science right a lot of the time. [2a.]

The natural man (anyone working on the monistic principle) cannot see even nature correctly, let alone God. He may describe the world accurately (due to his god given abilities) but his view of the world is false because he doesn't portray it as created by god, and as a home for man. He sees it incorrectly because he doesn't speak of it as having been created for beauty and as a revelation of god's love, mercy and wisdom; nor does he portray it as having been created for the glory of God. On the negative side (as it were) he gets 'nature' wrong as he doesn't portray the world (or man) as fallen, and that this was caused by man's sinful rebellion against his creator. So although he gets it right as far as the physical details (of description) he gets the most important things wrong.

Notes;
1.Life Is Smarter Than We Know: Creation/Evolution Headlines 02/15/2010
2. Cornelius Van Til; some thoughts on creation, theology and science

a. 'With the entrance of sin, however, man cut his study of himself loose from god, and therewith also cut his study of nature loose from himself. For this reason all the study of nature that man has made since the fall of man has been, in a basic sense, absolutely false. As far as an ultimate point of view is concerned, the sinner has been mistaken in his interpretation of the physical universe no less than in his interpretation of god. The physical world cannot be truly known when it is cut loose from god. We may say that the phenomena cannot be truly known without the noumena.' - Cornelius Van Til/Systematic Theology/p.81
b. 'It must be maintained that nature must be related to man and when thus related is better shown for what it is as a revelation of god. Men can read nature aright only when it is studied as the home of man who is made in the image of god.' ibid/82
c. '...the natural man is as blind as a mole with respect to the natural things as well as with respect to spiritual things.' ibid
d. '...from an ultimate point of view the natural man knows nothing truly, but from a relative point of view he knows something about all things. ibid/83