Science and Religion

Science and Religion: Building with Unsound Timbers

Christians must not use or accept unsound arguments and faulty logic to support their faith.

By William W. Watts, Ph.D., who is registrar, director of institutional research, and associate professor of physics at The King's College, Briarcliff Manor, New York.

 

An influential portion of the present human population operates from within a supposedly scientific world-view which denies any super natural elements and readily dis misses the possibility of divine creatorship.

Why is this? Some Christians may appeal to the matter of sin and its blinding effects upon man's mind. Certainly the prince of this world is actively using any means possible to turn men and women from the faith. But this is only part of the answer. Another part involves the unsound timbers sometimes used to support Biblical views of science.

Many zealous Christian writers, despite their good intentions, actually help perpetuate unbelief by sprinkling their discussions of science with faulty logic and unsound arguments. The nonscientifically trained layman needs to be aware of the most common of these mistakes often found in tracts, articles and books dealing with scientific issues. Christians should not use or accept unsound timbers to sup port their faith!

These are the ten most common unsound defenses of creationism that I see:

1. The ad hominem approach. Sometimes an author will attempt to discredit a scientific theory on the basis of negative information about the scientist who devised it. For ex ample, he might reject a finding in psychology because the scientist is an atheist, or a law of sociology be cause the sociologist was an adulterer. Or he may try the reverse and claim the validity of a theory be cause the proponent is a Christian.

An interesting twist to the ad hominem approach is the tendency to label people. By labeling others, we can subtly attack their position, while not logically refuting anything they say.

Without fully realizing what they are doing, some writers (and speakers) may divide people into two camps—the good guys who agree with the author, and the bad guys who give us "modern evolutionary chronology," "evolutionary rocks," and "the geological age system." In actuality, the apparent ages of rocks may be estimated independently of evolutionary or nonevolutionary theories.

Truth is more important than the motivation or morals of the author. All truth is God's truth, no matter where it is found. God uses both the just and unjust to accomplish His will for man and nature (see Matt. 5:45). The fundamental issue must be: What is the best theoretical system for correlating the data of science and Scripture?

2. The misuse of humor. Some writers find a statement of a scientist that is incorrect or otherwise untenable and point to its stupidity. Or a writer may find a consequence of a theory which seems highly improbable, such as creation by random chance, and then say how foolish it is to believe such a low-chance possibility.

Such an error is one of the central thrusts of a widely distributed book in which the authors tell us that "part of our purpose is to laugh evolution to death." 1 The concluding section of this book is titled "Miscellaneous Evolutionary Humor," in which the authors make one last attempt to convince us that evolution is hilariously funny. Such mockery and sarcasm is not consistent with the Biblical life style. The authors would be well advised to rewrite their book in the light of 1 Corinthians 16:14, "Let all that you do be done in love" (R.S.V.).

Christians are caught in their own traps if they use such ridicule. Are Christians not dust too, and do we not say things which we later regret? Then too, aren't Christians commit ted to belief in some rather lowprobability events, such as the In carnation and the Resurrection, to name but two?

3. Verbal chicanery. We need to recognize that often a word used in the Bible will have a slight (or even major) difference in meaning when used in science. Examples from various sciences are the words light, creation, earth, will, law, anger, and so forth.

For example, the Bible says, "God is light" (1 John 1:5). But let the layman beware of writers who would reduce God to the physicist's definition of light, either as undulations in the ether or as little chunks of energy traversing space. The consequences of such an approach may prove to be absurd.

The gifted astronomer Kepler made this type of mistake nearly 400 years ago when he tried to fit the sun into his theology. Thus he referred to the sun as "he," and somehow associated mystical powers with this heavenly body. He even went so far as to find the whole Trinity in the heavenly spheres. In doing so, he carried Biblical concepts too far from their intended meanings.

A recent effort to relate the physicist's concept of light to the statement in 1 John 1:5—"God is light"—contains the following: ". . . when we change our orientation from the material world to the spiritual world, the experience can be likened to the conversion of material to energy by the formula E=mc2 . The little that we are in ourselves is multiplied and then squared by God's Constant Jesus Christ." 2 This is at most a harmless little object lesson, but it in no way relates science to faith. The reader should bear in mind that the terms of science have restricted definitions, and that these definitions may differ from those applicable to the same terms or words in Scripture.

4. Scientific isogesis. This error involves picking a scientific theory out of its proper context. A common example of such procedure occurs when a writer removes the second law of thermodynamics* from its scientific context and misapplies it in an attempt to disprove evolution.

This mistake continues to appear in several recent books, all of which were published after the appearance of an article which raises some serious questions about using the second law of thermodynamics to refute evolution. 3 The sort of argument used in these books, if correct, could be used to disprove the possibility of life, birth, growth, springtime, resurrection, and any other form of creativity. The goal of such authors is admirable; the method is faulty.

Lifting an idea from one context and carelessly transplanting it to an other does not always work. The body of science is a complex, inter woven system of interdependent concepts which does not readily yield to such fanciful attempts. If a writer selects one theory or fact from science, he need not accept all the rest, but he must accept some of the rest—or he loses his integrity before the truth. Beware of those who pick and choose.

5. Biblical isogesis. This error is the theological parallel to the previous scientific mistake. In this case, a writer may isolate a verse, or even a word, from its Biblical context, in hopes of proving an assertion, either in science or religion. Some writers have referred to Revelation 10:6 (K.J.V.) in a discussion of Einstein's relativity theory, with the claim that this verse illustrates time dilation—the slowing down of processes as reference frames move with speeds that approach the speed of light. 4 To con tend that Revelation 10:6 says time will stop is an example of improperly lifting a verse from its context to support a preset viewpoint. The original language and context of Revelation 10:6 point to a better translation: "There should be no more delay" (R.S.V.).

6. The black-and-white mind-set. Almost everyone enjoys the security of certain absolute knowledge, and undebatable fact. The human tend ency is to split people into two groups and affix permanent mental labels—"good vs. bad," "conservative vs. liberal," "creationist vs. evolutionist." Such categorization tends to polarize people and set those whom we wish to reach in a defensive mood rather than an open frame of mind.

Science does not dispense absolute truth. Its findings are tentatively held, continually open to refinement, modification or abandonment. Science deals largely with regularities in nature, and not with unique events, such as miracles. Scientific methodology has its limitations, seeing but one small part of the natural world.

A realization of the limitations of science should not lead the layman to demean the work of the scientist; on the other hand, neither should he fear the "awesome power" of the non-Christian scientist. The Christian must realize that neither the non-Christian nor the Christian scientist can absolutely prove his position.

7. The growing-edge syndrome. Perhaps the easiest place for a Christian to attack a non-Christian scientist is at the growing edges of knowledge, where unanswerable questions abound, where there most likely are some falsely held notions, where theories are still at a low level of confirmation, and where few scientists have covered the ground.

The dangers of ''the growing-edge syndrome" are at least twofold. First, this tactic often skirts more fundamental issues; second, almost anyone's answers are seemingly as good as another's, so we are left with no basis for sound judgments. The layman needs to be wary when he hears that items far from the mainstream of science have recently overthrown some theory. It is better to wait awhile.

A recent discussion of discoveries made from the Apollo moon flights begins by saying, "Space exploration has stirred more questions than it has answered," 5 as though this were some strike against evolution. The "questions" raised in this discussion are not evidences against evolution so much as they are a very healthy indication of the nature and excitement of science. As new discoveries are made, the scientist expects the unexpected. In God's in finitely complex world, we should never expect to have every scientific question answered; we can't even hope to know what all the questions are.

8. Shadowboxing with straw men.

Some writers set about to attribute certain features to a position, and by attacking these features they hope to discredit the position. In cases where the features don't rightfully belong to the position, this amounts to shadowboxing with straw men.

This approach is frequently en countered in treatment of the age of the earth, the solar system and the universe, in Christian literature. Such literature often misrepresents scientific practice with respect to age determination, and frequently leads the uninformed reader to serious misconceptions regarding the use of certain phenomena as an indicator of time. 6 In fairness it should be stated that in many cases this defect may be due to lack of understanding on the part of the author.

9. Straining at data. The word data is plural, and data (plural) are needed to confirm a scientific theory. Although one properly measured and interpreted datum may disprove a theory, tons of positive data may be required to confirm the same theory.

One widely read article recently stated that "dinosaur footprints have been located in the same strata with human footprints in Glen Rose, Texas, and elsewhere in the United States." 7 According to the author, this is one of the main evidences that man and dinosaurs were contemporaneous. This datum is limited for at least two reasons—it is an isolated instance, and the interpretation of the "footprints" is debatable, even by numerous Biblically conservative Christian scientists who have studied the evidence firsthand. It is doubtful whether writers who strain at data would admit this type of questionable treatment by a non- Christian scientist, especially if the result tended to support a long age for man. Until much clearer and much more data are found, the use of the footprints in Texas as support for man and dinosaurs being con temporaries is dubious.

The layman should question a writer who points to an isolated or questionable piece of information to prove or to disprove a theory. Large-scale theoretical schemes re quire a good amount of supportive data.

10. The abuse of reason. In addition to some of the questionable tactics mentioned above, the writer on science and faith may go astray in yet other ways. Many of these fit under the umbrella of failure to reason properly. Perhaps most common is the mistake of proving what one has assumed—circular reasoning.

Fortunately, not all writings contain these common errors. There are some in which such shortcomings are almost nonexistent. To make a list of good writers and bad writers or good publishers and bad publishers is not appropriate here. Only as the layman begins to discriminate and to demand writings of greater scientific and Biblical integrity, will Christian writing on science and faith make significant gains before non-Christian scientists.

Note:

* [The second law of thermodynamics deals with the pervasive tendency for organized forms of matter to reduce gradually into lower and lower levels of organization. Editors. ]

1 Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 97.

2 James W. Reid, "Light, Constant and Timeless," Eternity, May, 1971, p. 28.

3 John A. Cramer, "General Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 23:20-21 (March, 1971).

4 Reid, op. cit.

5 Harold Slusher, "Space Probes: New Threat to Evolutionists," Moody Monthly, September, 1975, pp. 59, 60.

6 See for example Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Wheaton, 111.: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), chapter 8.

7 Kelly Segraves, "Whatever Happened to Dinosaurs," Moody Monthly, November, 1975, pp. 117, 118.


Ministry reserves the right to approve, disapprove, and delete comments at our discretion and will not be able to respond to inquiries about these comments. Please ensure that your words are respectful, courteous, and relevant.

comments powered by Disqus
By William W. Watts, Ph.D., who is registrar, director of institutional research, and associate professor of physics at The King's College, Briarcliff Manor, New York.

June 1978

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

The People in the Parsonage

The people in your parsonage are the most important people of all to you. Here are some suggestions for keeping them that way.

Patterns of SDA Church Growth in North America

A study of 3,217 members in 28 churches across the Lake Union indicates common denominators for both church and individual growth.

What Does Hebrews 4 Really Say?

Not what some Adventists have concluded, says the author.

ASK THE EDITOR

Why don't the editors of Ministry have more to say on the current discussions regarding the nature of Christ and righteousness by faith? Where do you stand on these issues?

Marriage—A Quaint Ceremony From the Past?

Isn't tracing "I love you" in wet sand with the big toe of the right foot enough of a ceremony, if a couple is really in love?

The Numbers Syndrome

Symptoms of this ancient disorder are not lacking in the church today. Watch for questions like, "How many baptisms?" and "How much money?"

Unevangelized Cities

Cities . . . thousands of them. . . . People by the millions. . . . People ignorant of God's message for our day. But there is a way they could be reached.

Redating the New Testament

Bishop John A. T. Robinson, the man who wrote "Honest to God," now comforts the conservatives.

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - SermonView - Medium Rect (300x250)

Recent issues

See All
Advertisement - SermonView - WideSkyscraper (160x600)