Creationism is scientific!

It is very popular, especially within the scientific community, to contrast the theory of evolution with the fundamentalist’s interpretation of Genesis as a six-day (or six-epoch) creation, via the claim that the former is properly scientific while the later is pre and/or anti-scientific. In response to this Creationists will generally counter with the claim that they follow the scientific approach rigorously. Indeed there are numerous fundamentalist institutions which spend vast sums of money attempting to debate evolutionary biologists purely on the basis of scientific research while there is a whole industry churning out books attempting to reach people on the basis of scientific principles. In fact, ID theory has attempted to move away completely from any explicit claims related to biblical hermeneutics in its attempt to focus purely upon what they see as the scientific method.

 

In this science verses fundamentalism debate I have to say that I side more with the Fundamentalists in their claim that they follow scientific procedures (and for this very reason seek to distance myself from them). At a very basic level the fundamentalist affirms (1) the same ontological outlook as that expressed in classical scientific method (2) that their views can, in principle, be proved via the same empirical processes as those affirmed by classical scientific theory and (3) that their views can be accepted on the same epistemological level as those affirmed by classical scientific method.

 

This means that beliefs such as a six-day creation, a fruit tree with the power to bestow knowledge of Good and Evil upon eating from it, a snake with the ability to talk, the transfiguration and the new Jerusalem descending from heaven all exist on the same mundane natural level as a phenomena such as snow falling on a winters evening and are, in principle, able to be proved true (or false) on scientific grounds (truth here being defined as ‘actual material occurrence’, i.e. if a video camera existed at the beginning we could have recorded the snake talking to Eve). Indeed the fundamentalist will hold to the principle of falsification (as well as accepting the usefulness of the ideal of striving for verification). If evidence were needed that this is the case we can turn to the fact that Creationists have long claimed that micro-evolution does indeed occur within species.

 

More than this, the fundamentalist accepts and applies the scientific principles of detachment, disinterestedness and objectivity when looking at scripture (for a paradigmatic example see Charles Hodges three volume work Systematic Theology). At its core Christian fundamentalism is profoundly scientific in its outlook and embraces the tools developed and employed by the empirical realist philosophers of the Enlightenment.

 

Of course, the Creationist can be seen to engage in bad science, and this is perhaps what evolutionary biologists are reacting against (even though they generally articulate their frustrations incorrectly). My point in this post is not to show why Christian fundamentalists engage in bad science but rather to draw out their reliance upon underlying, classical scientific principles.

 

Instead then of saying that evolutionism (by employing the ‘ism’ here I am referring to those who embrace a metaphysical naturalism which claims evolution as a fact) and creationism are opposed to one another, one can say that evolutionism and creationism are intimately joined together by their belief that reality is empirical and thus in the view that the only good beliefs are those which are factual. In a sense people like Dawkins and Harris are thus profoundly religious in the fundamentalist sense and thus closer to their supposed enemies than they think. As such the two sides of the debate can be productively described as analogous to that of the ‘two’ sides of a mobius strip, which are in fact one and the same side (as one discovers as they follow its contours). See below,

(I Can't seem to import the image so you will have to look it up if you want to see it... sorry)

---

Comments:

Pete I feel I must dissent from the usual nauseating responses of support that you receive in your comments section and make just one criticism of your work which I can apply to most of your posts and to your book.

My criticism is that most of the time I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Without meaning in anyway to be boastful, I am not an unintelligent person, but I seriously cannot understand most of the time what you are trying to get at. I feel that you think that we all have a PhD in Philosophy or whatever qualifications you have.

As a result, I find myself asking do your posts actually mean anything, or are they yet another example of (what is seemingly common among "post-modern" "christian" commentators) a lot of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-Christian claptrap!


Posted by: fun_da_MENTAL on 21/01/07 at 15:37

Hey Fun... not sure what to say. I do not know you and therefore don't know your age, intellegence level, educational background or ability to think abstractly. You seem to suggest that your inability to understand me is my fault... however I am not so sure that it is. Mind you, I don't nessesarily think it is your fault either.



People communicate at different levels and I generally communicate to people who have wrestled for many years with theoretical issues (my guess is that you are quite young, and if you are under 21 then it is doubtful that you would understand what I say, even if you are intellectually gifted - although, as a general rule I suspect the intellectual ability of people who feel the need to say that they are intellegent, just as people who say 'I am crazy, me', generally aren't).



While I continue to speak to young people (for instance I have literally just returned from talking at a large youth convention in Perth) I use my blog to explore deep theological issues at a level accesible to educated people (although the complexity of the issues I explore requires a lot from readers who do not have post-grad education).



You could ask me why I post on Ignite if I am dealing with complex faith issues, and to be honest I wonder that myself... not because I don't love ignite but because I think that what I write is not accessible to teenagers. But I do it because I was asked to.



If ever you wanted to sit down with me concerning a particular post and chat it through I would be happy to do so. Although I must say that the somewhat harsh and accusing tone of your comment leads me to suspect that you do not really want to understand me.
Posted by: Pete R on 21/01/07 at 16:39

Pete my comment was borne out of the frustration at not being able to understand your posts. I recognise this is a two-fold process. I only made the comment that I was not unintelligent (as opposed to saying that I am "intellectually gifted" as you imply I said) so that my intellectual ability is exlcuded as a factor in my inability to understand you. Perhaps a better thing to say would be that I am not uneducated as that is a more objective term rather than unintelligent.

Regardless, I will admit that perhaps I am not well versed in the art of abstract thought and am certanily not educated in the aspects of philosophy of religion etc. that you are. Surely as an author and communicator however you have a responsibility to make yourself understood.

I think you highlight yourself a large part of what I think the problem is. Your posts I think are misplaced on this site, and I would argue that most people who read them have as much difficulty in understanding them as I do, they might just not admit it.

My final point would be to say, whilst I accept there is certainly some merit in discussing deeper theological issues, the main message I get from your posts is that the Christian faith is a highly complex faith that can only be accessed by those with PhDs and a background in Philosophy of Religion.

Thank God that is not the case.
Posted by: fun_da_MENTAL on 21/01/07 at 18:09

Pete - Thanks for adding some thickness to my own thinking that there is something in common between those who do the most ranting and raving about creationism vs evolution.



Wanted to know if you had read Alister McGrath's work on 'scientific theology' - seems like he has been trying to bridge the gaps between the camps in a way that includes both the hard material that we live in (where fact matters and impacts us) and the mystery that material came from and exists within (the things that confound us)? If you have read any of it what are your thoughts on his efforts?



Hope you are well - Nashville always has a welcome for you.



Trevor & Jenna
Posted by: Trevor Henderson on 22/01/07 at 00:16

Hey fun. Thanks for the comments. I do agree with your concerns over the place of my blog on this site, however I do hope that my writing both brings new people to the site and sparks interest in the people who are already on it. I came out of school with no qualifications and without ever having read a book from beginning to end. Only at the age of 18 did I begin to think seriously. Part of the change happened when I encountered people who spoke in a way that I did not understand. Most people are frustrated when they encounter things they don't grasp and react against it. But I found myself inspired, I wanted to understand, to engage, and thus began to study. Today most people read below their intellectual capacity, but I encourage people to read above it - this helps to bring us forward.



On your last point I both agree and disagree. I agree that Christianity is not about PhD's but I disagree insomuch as I wish it was.



Christianity is not brain surgery of rocket science, it is sooo much harder. I wish that it was about gaining a phd, then at least most of us, with a bit of study could get there... but Christianity asks that we do much more. Walking the extra mile, giving our money and possesions away, offering to others what we posses two of (like cars, TV's, and coats) etc.



How I wish Christianity was about study, but it is written in blood not ink.



Hey Trevor, nice to know you look in from time to time! Haven't seen McGrath on this, although from his other work I would have guessed that that would be his approach. My own thoughts are that empirical 'facts' and beleifs may at times overlap (indeed may overlap a lot), however religious beliefs operate at a fundamentally different level i.e. looking at Jesus being crucified requries an act of faith to move beyond seeing the execution of a person. Zizek once commented on Grocho Marx who got caught doing something he said that he wasnt going to and said 'what are you going to do, beleive your eyes or beleive what I say'. Concerning this he points out how belief is, in a sense, beleiving what is said rather that what one sees (scientific empicisim). When Anne Frank affirms the goodness of humanity amidst the horror of the Nazis she is doing something similar to this. The last chapter of 'How to Read Lacan' is good on this. Or 'The Third Reformation' by Raske is good on this - especially the first couple of chapters (although I think his conclusions are way off).



Would love to get over to Nashville again soon!
Posted by: Pete R on 22/01/07 at 08:13

PS Just to clarify... when I say that scientific 'facts' and belief often overlap I mean that they are often not in opposition- not that they affirm the same thing. Science cannot, I think, affirm religious beleif at its core because it beleives only its eyes. I think the word 'overlap' fails to grasp the nature of what I am referring to
Posted by: Pete R on 22/01/07 at 10:36

Thanks Pete. I agree that science looks to prove by what we see and faith more by what we hear (or read) more than other ways. However I think that there is an oversimplified view of science in operation in our general discussions. Scinece has to some degree come to terms with not strictly being empirical. The Stephen Hawkins' of the world are able to take their sceince into abstract dimensions of reality (I beleive he even said that God was the unknown quanitity in everything) and Francis Collins speaks often of how working on the human genome project reveals more of God to him.

I also believe that God has taken our tendency to believe what we see into account - the early stories of Jesus resurection it seems that he made sure to appear bodily, materially, even inviting explorations of his wounds.

I was reading an artilce by Oliver Sacks recently about those losing thier sight and their ability to compensate with other senses, but not only that, their ability to visualize through the exercise of the mind and imagination (use of the minds eye?) - to the degree that one blind man was able to go re-roof his house at night all by himself. It all has me thinking that our seeing is also more faith based than we sometimes admit and that some scientists have come around to that, somewhat. (unless you are Richard Dawkins)Maybe we are setting up a clearer divide between faith and science than there needs to be or truly is. Maybe science has done the same thing. Can empirical facts lead to discovering more of the revelation of God in the material world that He created for our eyes, ears and other senses? If so shouldn't we expand the overlap and explore it? Shouldn't faith be both challenged and affirmed by sight and sight by faith? Faith without some degree of sight runs the risk of drifting off the planet and not connecting to our created bodies and the created world, sight without faith risks losing the holy imagination that makes sense of what we see....i think that we are saying something similar however I feel like I have less of a sense of divide between science and faith am I reading you wrong? (Not to say that there is 'no' divide)

As usual loving the fact that you are out there and talking. The conversation is a good one.

Nashville always has a room ready for you.
Posted by: Trevor Henderson on 22/01/07 at 15:05

hello pete ... you ARE inspiring... man ever since i read your book i realized what a dumbass i was and started reading fevereshly ... it's not that your words are hard ...they are alive... fresh and authentic. I like your love ... i feel it. IT's poetic in many ways... I never had a great education... i was never thought i would be reading this much either... i never read a whole book in highschool... dunno this is my confession of love to you... I love you peter peter rollins LOL ...
Posted by: i am alive on 22/01/07 at 16:37

Hey Trevor. Thanks for the thoughts. I think you are right that theoretical science often seems to have a certain faith based element to it. Hence my use of the term 'classical scientific method' and my talk of 19th century philosopers. However I think that the 'hard sciences' still seek empirical justification and thus still fit to some extent within the scientific model... I think that some of the scientists you mention are doing a little philosophy when they come to talking in more abstract terms - not that the two should not inform each other or that science can't start in a very unscientific manner (often well established scientific theories start off as dreams etc.). I guess I am keen to affirm the Kierkegaardian idea that the Christian idea of truth does not rely, require or seek support from historical or scientific discoveries.



In short I am keen on the idea that Christianity brings life (being born again) and that life is fundamentally impossible for the sciences to explore (as Micheal Henry would say, science is the study of corpses i.e. science studies matter of various kinds but cannot reflect upon what animates it). Like the light from the sun which we do not see but which allows us to see, so life cannot be reflected upon in science, or philosophy, but is that which allows us to reflect in the first place. I think that the truth affirmed by Christianity is foreign to the Greek thinking we are influenced by today (God/nature as object, we as subject). Yet science is vital and I am all for it, this is not a rant against it at all.



Without wanting to proof text I like the way that Jesus often avoided giving apologetic answers to people - not offering wisdom to the Greeks or wonders to the Jews.



Hi there 'I am alive', a confession of love and I don't even know who you are!!! :) Thanks for what you wrote. I am glad I could perhaps be to you a little of what others have been to me!
Posted by: Pete R on 22/01/07 at 17:42

So are you saying that creationisn and evolution almost depend upon one another for their existence? And so they don't REALLY hate each other? This might give a humourous/sarcastic meaning to Jesus' suggestion that we love our enemies, i.e. suggesting what is in fact the case, rather than suggesting we do something or feel something. (do you have any enemies, pete?!) Well I think this applies for a lot of Jesus' so-called moral sayings, such as the beatitudes, for example.
Posted by: Andrew on 24/01/07 at 01:01

Hey Andrew. Interesting comment. I wouldn't say that they depend upon each other but rather upon a shared foundation... however there is a sense in which perhaps creationists would prefer to engage, and even hang out with, evolutionary biologists rather than Christians who do not use the same hermenutice. Indeed my own experience of creationists is that they have much more time for the former (taking their arguments seriously, debating with them etc.) than the latter (who they make jokes about and avoid).
Posted by: Pete R on 24/01/07 at 08:06

I, too, love you and your dangerous book, altho i disagree somewhat with more than a few points in your approach. You don't seem too hard to understand, even with my lacking education (didn't make it through the first year of college) but maybe i'm missing something and you can enlighten me, pardon the pun. It appears you are throwing the baby out with the bath water in your assessment of apologetics, science, etc. You expressed concern in this post and i agree that the creationists and evolutionists are too dependent upon flawed or lacking science/method. This may be true, but i've still learned from scientific creationists, learned more from evolutionists, and am learning the most from the ID theorists- not only in traditional science, but also in philosophy. It just seems that you need to take certain limitations into consideration when processing info from any of these camps. And the same could be said of their postmodern detractors. We're all dependent upon a certain level of (bad) logic and (flawed) analytical critique, no matter what our field. Personally, i believe all the different disciplines, academic or otherwise, have a lot more in common than most of their experts are willing to admit (but don't read too much structuralism into that comment.) But maybe this is an unfair assumption as you didn't explicitly condemn creation or evolution. I understand the arguments against modernism (i love the Raschke book you have "mixed feelings" about), so i don't think i need a primer, but maybe you could shed some light on these thoughts at your convenience, even tho this comment is quite late. Thanks!
Posted by: markbe on 29/01/07 at 12:12

Metaphysical naturalistic Geekdom



What is “metaphysical naturalism”? Pete Rollins in his blog on “Creationism is Scientific” says “Instead then of saying that evolutionism (by employing the ‘ism’ here I am referring to those who embrace a metaphysical naturalism which claims evolution as a fact)…”

Pete gets accused of using big words that obscure meaning, or should I say ‘obfuscation’ by fun_da_ment_al. I have to agree with fun!

I looked up metaphysical in the dictionary and got this :-



Metaphysical. adj 1 belonging or relating to metaphysics. 2 abstract. 3 supernatural. 4 (also Metaphysical) said of a poet: whose work is seen as belonging to a style termed metaphysical poetry. noun a poet writing in this style • the Metaphysicals. metaphysically adverb 1 in a metaphysical way. 2 in a metaphysical sense.



Then I looked up naturalism and got this:-



Naturalism. noun 1 a realistic, as opposed to idealistic, treatment of subjects in art or sculpture, etc. 2 the view that rejects supernatural explanations of phenomena, maintaining that all must be attributable to natural causes.



Combining these two what do we get?

Abstract realistic treatment of a subject or supernatural rejection of supernatural explanations in favour of natural causes.



Are you confused yet?

If not, why not?



Seriously tho’ – why do people who love academia speak such an odd language? Especially those who claim to be Christian! Didn’t the Word become flesh? Easy to see is flesh. Didn’t Paul say he didn’t come with big impressive ideas and words, rather he preached Christ crucified – a message he seemed to think was relatively straight forward.



In case you are wondering Pete about what age I am. Lets just say ‘life began’ a few years ago and I am educated to Postgraduate level in Theology. Despite knowing lots of big words I hate using them because people look at me as if I’ve swallowed a dictionary – What is the point of such talk. Words are for communication and clarification not for hiding meanings or appearing smart.

Yes I know that big words can convey complex ideas and often with great economy but if those same big words are not in common circulation then it is pointless to use them. One ends up becoming a geek, computer geek, science geek, philosophical geek, theological geek; a geek is a geek, living in their own insulated little world cut off from the rest of humanity – Geekdom.



Pete stay with the Kingdom of God the Geekdom somehow does not seem so attractive, or self-consistent.


Posted by: CiderVicar on 29/01/07 at 15:08

Hey Cider, thanks for the comments. I thought I had explained the core of metaphysical naturalism when I said that it is that which 'claims evolution as a fact'. Metaphysical naturalism is simply that which takes 'naturalism' as the way things are. I am not sure why people get so defensive when it comes to things that they do not grasp or understand. All I can say, again, is that I love it when people encounter something they do not understand in humility, as a challenge and as an oppurtunity to deepen ones thought. The problem is not 'big words' but rather how we feel when we encounter them... do we fear them, and wish to abolish them because we cannot understand them, do we ignore them or do they cause us to go away and think.



I think it is strange, but sadly common, when people choose the former... the result... people read below their intellectual ability and read only what they understand. I wonder what would happen if we told our children the above advice... if you don't understand some words that are too difficult it is because those who use them are geeks, instead stick to the words you understand! Thankfully kids would not listen to that because they are soooo eager to learn. It is sad when we lose this and become satisfied with the level of publishing we find today (which is very basic...)
Posted by: Pete R on 29/01/07 at 16:46

Great post, interesting discussion. I am not a teenager, by 22 years, but it's good to be challenged intellectually for a change. I was once prayed for in a Church something like 'please stop David thinking to much...'! I'm with Amy Orr-Ewing who says that faith needs to satisfy intellectually as well as spiritually.
Posted by: David on 05/02/07 at 14:25

Hey Peter

Enjoy your blogging as always.

Wondering your thoughts on the typical analytical philosophical response to the challenges of theism posited by atheists such as Dawkins and Dennett. An example is the recent response in Books and Culture by Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html


Posted by: peter b on 27/02/07 at 14:52

Hey Peter

Enjoy your blogging as always.

Wondering your thoughts on the typical analytical philosophical response to the challenges of theism posited by atheists such as Dawkins and Dennett. An example is the recent response in Books and Culture by Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html


Posted by: peter b on 27/02/07 at 14:52

+ Post your comment