Doing science in the clouds

We often hear the charge that biblical creation is inimical to science. In an essay written some years ago John King did a good job of refuting this claim.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Apart from the biblical doctrine of creation there can be no science since a unified theory of scientific knowledge becomes impossible in the absence of a created order or a receptive human mind.' [1.]

- Apart from the biblical doctrine of creation there can be no unified theory of scientific knowledge, as materialism separates the human knower from the known universe. Only in the biblical model are man and universe parts of an integrated whole; as the One who made man made the universe, and He blessed man with the ability to know the universe. The materialist definitions of man and universe make the universe [theoretically] unknowable. i.e. if all were in fact mere matter in motion there would be no one to know, and nothing to be known; there would merely be various bits of matter. (Does one rock know another rock?) The universe and man were made as hand and glove for each other; and man was blessed not only with a transcendent capacity to understand and comprehend, but with the desire to do so.

In the materialist model both man and universe are mere accidents, wildly improbable incidents without cause or meaning; and neither was made for the other. It is a wild improbability that the accident man even exists, and he has no inherent (or integral) connection with the world or with the universe. Materialist science thus has no unified theory of scientific knowledge. This makes their typical definitions of 'science' inadequate at best, as they want to define science without giving us a unified theory of scientific knowledge. Lacking such a theory their definitions are bit more bits of matter circulating in the void. If all is matter in motion so are definitions; if matter has no cause, truth or meaning neither do definitions.

Man only has the ability to understand the universe because he had/has a creator who transcends the universe; our ability to transcend matter comes from a creator who transcends matter. I see no other explanation for this, and no other explanation for science. While the materialist likes to laud science over biblical faith, he has no explanation for its very existence or for man's ability to understand. Materialism as an explanation stands as far beneath creation as an adequate model as the monkey stands beneath man. It's a gross and gibbering thing, a mere howling at the moon. It can't account for science any more than a chimp can account for itself.

2. '...since knowledge must be grasped by a knowing mind it is a personal concept and, thus presupposes a cosmic personalism. [1.]

- In our day we forget that all knowledge is (on one level) personal, as it is always knowledge grasped by a personal being. This makes all knowledge personal knowledge. The materialist presents us with a picture of an impersonal universe, and thus creates a chasm between man the personal agent and an impersonal universe. So great and wide is this chasm that the materialist usually turns his back on it and walks away. Since he can't deal with it he ignores it. Biblical creation (I hesitate to call it a model) on the other hand gives us a personal universe, and thus we don't have the radical divide between the personal knower and the universe.

The materialist struggles to give us an explanation for how we can have personal agents in an impersonal universe. I find all the stories on how this could have happened implausible. By any common reading of the laws of physics personal agents have no right to exist, and should not exist... but yet they do, and yet here we are. The materialist likes to focus his science on the material because he can't comprehend what looks back at him in the mirror. He thinks he understands the known but he can't understand the knower; but in that case how can he be sure he knows the universe. i.e. if he doesn't understand himself how can he be sure of what he claims to know? Knowledge doesn't exist in a void; it is always knowledge held by a personal agent. Apart from biblical creation, the biggest threat to materialism is always skepticism.

3. 'Van Til has repeatedly argued the only alternatives to christian theism are fate... and flux...' [1.]

- i.e. all is the fate of physical cause and effect or all is chance. The materialist must found any unified theory of scientific knowledge on either fate or flux. (The usual thinker flip flops between these alternatives and fails to give us a consistent account.) If all is fate then no freedom of thought or action is possible, and thus no true science can exist, as man can only say what he is fated to say. If all is flux truth doesn't and can't exist, as there is no objective reality only the subjective perception of an ever changing parade.

All men are presented with the choice between a personal (infinite) being and fate or flux; and all science (all scientific endeavors) must be founded on one of the three views of the universe. We thus have the science of fate, the science of flux or the science of the personal.

- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Creation according to the scriptures; a presuppositional defense of literal, six day creation edited by Andrew Sandlin (Ch. 10. Creation and science - John King p. 103)
- available free online at Chalcedon.org
2. Materialism always has the challenge of explaining rationality in an irrational universe (of personality in an impersonal universe, of intelligence in a non-intelligent universe; of morality in an amoral universe; of life in an inert universe). Since the challenge materialism faces is so daunting its advocates much prefer attacking Christianity than defending their own position :=} One can hardly blame them. I certainly wouldn't want to play Sisyphus for them.
3. Many materialists like to call creation a myth, but the biblical view is that it is materialism which is the myth. Van Til saw the idea the world and man can come from the collisions of atoms as a great myth. It's surely the most implausible idea ever to tumble from the forehead of man. He saw Naturalist science as founded on the the myth of materialism. ("One day a fish walked out of the sea and uttered a syllogism..." or "One day a big fish washed up on the seashore and out walked a philosopher...")
4. Since Van Til believed the bible to be the infallible word of the creator God he claimed that modern (naturalistic) science was doomed to failure, and that the bigger its claims the more fallacious they would turn out to be. The bible and materialist science cannot both be correct about the origins of the universe, of the world, of living organisms or of man himself. He was of the opinion materialist science would never find the answers to the big questions. The textbook science of our day is only correct to the extent it restricts itself to being descriptive. (If man were truly good, as the Humanist usually insists he is, he would, in humility, restrict himself to empirical description. Any description of the creation is at the same time a word of praise to its creator. Any science that denies to God the 'ownership' [authorship] of the universe has gone from praise to blasphemy and idolatry.)
5. The biblical model' of reality is dualistic, while the materialist model is monistic. I don't see how these can both be correct. We thus have two models of science; the dualistic one (of c. theism) and the monistic one of materialism. (i.e. if all is matter in motion, all is one) We thus have a transcendent realm in the theistic model and have none in the monistic model. This means the materialist model (being monist) can't ever get outside or beyond itself .
- in the Naturalistic model matter somehow (we can't imagine how, but we only know it did) managed to transcend itself and become man; become a personal, intelligent, self-aware consciousness. There is no explanation for how this might have happened; nor will there ever be. It's simply held by apostate man as an article of faith. It defies any expectation of we can have for physical matter. (We base our lives on an expectation matter will NOT transcend itself; for our lives would be impossible were this to happen on a regular basis :=} For this to happen matter would have to act in a way matter has never be known to act; it would have to defy its own constitution.
6. Since man can only understand what is rational, it follows that the universe must be rational for man to understand it; and for it to be rational it must have been created by a rational being in terms of a rational plan or design. If there were a godless universe, if such a thing were possible (and let's posit one for the sake of argument) it would be an irrational chaos and thus unknowable. I can't imagine a rational creature existing in such a universe, but if we were to drop one into it he would be able to understand nothing, for you can't understand the purely irrational. If any creature were to emerge in such a universe it would itself be irrational, and thus you would have an irrational creature trying to understand the irrational.
- Having said this I can't imagine an irrational universe nor any kind of intelligent creature in it. I see no way there can be intelligence in an irrational universe, and the fact we are intelligent creatures is evidence to me ours was created a rational universe.
7.
116. 'In addition to a created order, however, science requires a receptive mind.'
- i.e. is man capable of understanding reality? is he willing to accept the truth? etc. The bible tells us that man is not willing to accept the truth of his situation, and that only the gift of grace will allow him to do so. (The poets more readily admit this than scientists; ''Man cannot bear too much reality..'' as one of them has written.) It's a hard thing to admit the verity of a proposition you 'naturally' hate.
- when King speaks of science he means a true science; one rooted in reality.
8.
117. '...ethics and knowledge are intimately related.'
- We can say that all knowledge is both personal and ethical; as all knowledge requires an honest submission to the truth. As far as the ethical basis of knowledge pertains to science the questions are this; does something called the truth exist, can we know it, and are scientists able and willing to submit to it?
(If God does not exist, facts do not exist, and we're reduced to fighting over access to Tiamat's bones.) Truth requires a truth teller; and if there is no transcendent creator God, we are all sub gods engaged in perpetual conflict over the right to tell stories to the masses.
- secular thinkers like to counter the c. claim that the Fall has affected science by turning him into a rebel that can't affirm God by saying ''science is self-correcting.'' This means that even if c.s were correct in their views science as a whole wouldn't be affected as the continuing community will eventually weed out false ideas... even out of a miserly, self-serving spirit. How true is this? If all the scientists in a group are unregenerate and rebels against God will they ever correct the errors this mindset has caused them to make? We can't equate all errors, as some have deeper spiritual significance than others. e.g. will atheists ever correct the 'truth' of materialism? will atheists ever correct the 'truth' of cosmic evolution? Since science is only an abstraction and not a personal being it can't transcend the fallenness of natural man.
- the secular scientist assures us all that his motives in research are solely good. We need to worry about a lot of people surely, but not about scientists as they are the snow that falls upon and covers the soil and refuse of humanity, turning it from foul to fair. We need to be naive indeed to accept such a self-congratulatory and self-covering [defensive] message. This message contradicts what we are told in biology textbooks of course; where we are presented with a view of life that features an amoral struggle of all against all for survival and prominence. If the Darwinian message is true the claim of a messianic science cannot be.
9.
118. '...in the Babylonian account man is basically created from an evil substance (Kingu's blood) by evil gods. Evil is thus a metaphysical problem, built into the fabric of the universe, and thus an unalterable quality.'
- In the modern Darwinian account man is the descendent of apes and thus the 'evil' he does stems from his animal ancestry. (How it is man is far worse in the evil he does is rarely explained.) Evil is thus seen (as it was for the Babylonians) as a metaphysical problem not an ethical one. When people see evil as a metaphysical problem they provide 'technical' solutions to evil, not ethical or moral one, and this tends to mean they recommend statist solutions rather than personal; the solution then becomes political rather than spiritual. To make evil metaphysical is to bring the nose of political tyranny into the communal tent.
- Materialist science is inherently statist, and we see this working out of its potential all around us. e.g. since all evil is metaphysical all problems are technical problems and this thus requires a statist solution; and statist solutions require abandoning individual liberty and conscience. Despite the claims of its apologists, naturalistic science doesn't offer an escape from metaphysics, only an escape from Christian metaphysics. (There is no escape from metaphysics.) People have a choice of liberty under God's law, or tyranny under man's law; and this applies as much (or more) to science as it does to everything else. Since the secular scientist agrees with the statist policy makers he deludes himself into thinking he's free to do science as he pleases, but he only needs to look at the biblical creationist to see how free he really is. (There's no such thing as science outside a worldview or model; we either do science under the 'model' of biblical creation or under some other model; and since models are made by persons there can be no neutral model or any neutral science.)