Science and the need for special revelation

Perhaps the most fierce condemnation of Christianity we hear from the 'new atheists' is that it would limit the sciences in what they could study or determine, by forcing them to accept a Biblical view of creation.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'And the essence of this natural theology is that it attributes to the natural man the power of interpreting some aspect of the world without basic error.. Even though men do not recognize God as the creator and controller of the facts of this world, they are assumed to be able to give as true an interpretation of the laws of nature as it is possible fore finite man to give.' [1.]

- In the view of Cornelius Van Til, it's simply not true that man (natural man) doesn't need God's special revelation to be able to engage in valid investigation of the world, himself and the universe. (i.e. science). We can show this by pointing out that the very foundational claims of 'naturalistic' science are fallacious. The basic claim is that man, depending only on himself (we might point out that the self he depends upon is not who and what he claims it is), using only native reasoning powers, can come to an accurate view of the universe. From a Biblical viewpoint this is simply fallacious.

Let's look at a brief overview of the consensus model of reality as it's taught in our colleges worldwide. This is the idea the universe came into being from nothing and with no cause (let alone intelligent cause). A 'formless' gas somehow became formed into stars and planets. Something the textbooks refer obliquely to as 'life' somehow emerged spontaneously on earth, and this primitive protoplasm became a primitive organism which eventually climbed a ladder composed of insubstantial and theoretical rings (i.e. evolved) and became the class of mammals. Eventually (via much slipping and sliding upon said ladder) some unknown mammal became the noble creature we call man. According to Christian doctrine, this model of the universe is completely wrong; and since it is wrong it disproves the very foundations of the so called autonomous method.

This 'secular' model of reality is deemed to be so profoundly true that it can never be shaken. This isn't merely a theory, we're told, it is simple and basic fact... and only a madman would deny it. If however, it is wrong, it disproves the pretense at the heart of current secular thought that man can (on his own resources) come to an accurate understanding of reality. (This subject is complicated by the fact man never depends solely upon his own resources... i.e. upon an assumed independence and autonomy of human thought and knowledge.) The claim made by Van Til, isn't merely that the natural man doesn't give credit to God for what he does (in the area of science) but that he can't come to a true understanding of the universe without revealed truth. The whole model is wrong; radically, irremediably wrong.

Summary;
Not only is the idea that man can (via independent thinking) come to the truth wrong; the very idea that man's mind is a product of chemical transformationism is wrong. Not only is man's view of reality wrong, but his idea that reality exists or could exist apart from divine will is wrong. Not only is man wrong about what he thinks is true, his idea of truth is wrong. Not only is the autonomous man wrong in his scientific views, he's wrong about who (or what) he thinks man is. Not only is his wrong in his particular views of the universe, he's wrong about what the universe is. Not only is he wrong in his particular scientific views, he's wrong about what he thinks science is. Man is not only wrong in what he says about facts, he's wrong about what he imagines facts to be.

- Michael Johnson [frfarer -at - gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace/p.143
- Van Til is referring here to Roman Catholic theology specifically, but the quotes applies to most liberal and even 'evangelical' theology in our day. (As far as I know most Christian theologians would disagree with Van Til in his views expressed above.)
2. Not only is the scientist wrong when he says x or y happened by chance, but he's wrong in his idea that chance even exists. (If the God of the bible is true and only god, then chance does not exist.)
- The non-Christian complains that it is 'arbitrary' for god to 'intervene' in human experience, but the Christian view is that God never acts arbitrarily. i.e. not only is the Humanist wrong to charge God with acting arbitrarily in any particular case, but he's wrong to imagine the arbitrary realm exists.