The philosophical basis of Science

Despite popular notions to the contrary, you can't do science without doing philosophy. The two are inextricably intertwined and connected.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'This is already evident from the fact that the science of nature, although it has in many respects the advantage over the mental sciences, still utilizes, and is compelled to utilize, all sorts of ideas which are not derived from experience, but are present from the very start. Ideas like " thing " and " property," " matter " and " force," " aether " and " movement," " space " and " time," " cause " and " design," are indispensable to natural science ; but they are derived from metaphysics.'' - Herman Bavinck [1.]

- Let's examine just one of these concepts; causation. People normally speak in terms similar to; 'X caused Y' and we normally accept such statements as meaningful or even conclusive. The question is why we should. We could easily ask, 'but what caused X?' or 'did x cause Y by itself or were other factors involved?' We just take it for granted that 'X caused Y' is a valid explanation, and don't see that this is a decision based upon philosophical ideas and theories. We accept as valid what is an arbitrary decision. We could demand the causal chain be extended several or many places. We could demand that the cause by presented in terms not of a single unit but in terms of systems. The point is that causation is inherently philosophical, and this makes science inherently philosophical.

We often hear in our day the claim that religion must be kept out of science. This sounds like a valid objection to some people, but they fail to realize that the claim really means we should keep metaphysics out of science, and I think I've shown that this can't be done. All scientific thinking is grounded in some kind of metaphysics, whether people realize it or not. The biblical creation that many Humanists object to is merely one kind of metaphysical view.

B. 'Haeckel once said that the eye and the ear are so marvellously constructed that they might seduce us into believing in a creation according to a definitely thought-out plan of construction. But he steels himself against the " seduction." And thus he betrays the fact that the so-called conflict between science and faith lies not in the realm of the physical, but in that of the metaphysical ; concentres not in nature, but in God. What nature is to us is determined by what we think of Godand who he is for us. [2.]

- In my opinion, when a Richard Dawkins speaks about the appearance of design he's admitting that he knows God. His rejection of god has nothing to do with the data, but solely with his aversion to God, and the 'horrors' he imagines have resulted from such a belief. When Charles Darwin spoke of the eye and the flower as making him sick to his stomach, he was admitting he knew god existed. (I take it he was sick all the time because so much of the world reminded him of god's existence.)

If men are 'seduced' into a belief in creation who is doing the seducing? If the answer is man himself, then we have the curious case of a bit of matter seducing other bits of matter to belief in divine creation. (If anyone is being seduced, I don't think it's those who believe in creation.)

The decision to accept or reject the design argument doesn't lie in the data, but in a decision based on metaphysics. The claim that the design argument is rejected on the basis of science is simply false. This claim depends upon a particular (philosophical) conception and definition of science. i.e. upon a particular methodology. This methodology is founded upon a particular metaphysical view. i.e. materialism. Materialism is not a scientific view, and in no way can it be proved.

Notes;
1. Bavinck - Philosophy of Revelation/88
2. ibid/103