Thoughts on origins: Part I - The Limitations of Science

This post is dedicated to P.B.F., who finally prodded me into writing another blog post.

A few months ago, I was sitting in the tearoom at work, in a conversation with some colleagues. One of them, who hails from Arkansas, lamented the state of science education in that state, with particular reference to former Governor Mike Huckabee's professed young-Earth creationism. I asked him how Huckabee's belief affected public policy; his memorable answer was, "It makes me think he's retarded."

About the same time, I was engaged in a discussion with a friend who once upon a time attended the same church I did in Australia, before we both moved in different directions, about whether the Scriptures really require young-Earth creationism.

Both these came against a backdrop of much uncertain pondering over the last few years, as I have sought to come to terms with the claims of Scripture and of mainstream science. It appears I'm not the only one who is thrown into confusion in this area; I know other believers who have admitted that the opening chapters of Genesis in particular present thorny problems, and so far as I know very few Protestant denominations maintain and enforce dogmatic views in the area of origins.

And, of course, I thought the time has come for a blog post - or, more accurately, a series of blog posts - on the subject.

I should caution any readers that if they hope to find a definitive statement of my views on the age of the Earth and the precise origin of mankind, they should probably think again! I fear that it would be foolish to be drawn on that subject. Perhaps I don't want any scientific colleagues of mine to start questioning my judgment, or then again I may not wish to pass a test of orthodoxy.

I thought I'd start with a recap of science, and some of its limitations.

The first question is what science is. My own perception is that it's the knowledge and understanding of the physical universe, and the entities therein, and the relationships between those entities - these relationships traditionally being called "forces". Science thus thrives on the spotting of patterns, seeking always to explain a phenomenon in terms of something more general. This ties in with the scientific method, involving an initial observation, a hypothesis which is tested, and the development of the hypothesis into a more general theory, which is distinguished from a hypothesis chiefly through its predictive power in cases outside the "test set". Some theories have succinct mathematical expressions at their core; these expressions are often called "laws", and if shown to be successful for a long time can come to be regarded as expressions almost of universal truth, almost at the level of, say, Pythagoras' theorem.

This method works very well for understanding how things normally work. In fact, this is science's specialty, and science is very good at its job, though now and again it can be corrupted by personalities; the checks and balances of the peer review process, though far better than nothing, do not guard entirely against corrupt, dishonest, lazy or rushed people. But the scientific method as such can say nothing about historical events. Now, it is certainly not the case that our understanding of the universe, brought about through science, can shed no light on the past. For example, if I say I had bacon and eggs for breakfast, and you cut me open and find cereal in my stomach, you could rightly infer that I had been dishonest. This finding would rely on our scientific understanding of the digestive process, along with principles such as the conservation of matter; but it would not, in itself, be a scientific study.

Even more, science can say nothing about miracles. I have seen a claim made that science is incompatible with miracles, because the claim of a miracle makes the result arbitrary and unable to be rationally studied. Some take it a step further and say that because miracles are against science, therefore miracles can't happen. The first claim has some truth; the second is completely false. It is true that a miracle (in the strict sense) can't be studied scientifically, because it involves something that wouldn't normally happen - a break in the pattern of the world. But most events are not miracles. I do believe that true miracles are rare events - after all, a miracle can only be understood as such if the beholders know what should have happened as well as what actually took place - and I further believe that a miracle always has a theological or spiritual context; they don't take place in a vacuum. In any event, God isn't known for deliberately messing up scientists' experiments; it is my firm belief that he intends to aid us in our understanding of this world, not thwart us.

The falsity of the second claim - that miracles can't happen - is also evident. There is no possible way to get from, "We understand that this shouldn't happen under ordinary circumstances," to, "This did not happen." No possible way at all.

I'll leave you with that for the moment, so you can await Part 2.