Science vs Creation.

Is science on trial? Is there a conflict between Science and the doctrine of Creation?

What do we mean by "science" or "evolution"? Definitions are important.

Creation or evolution is a once only historical event. Empirical science is repeatable, forensic science concerns unrepeatable events.

Empirical Science:

Physics, Chemistry, biology and biochemistry are all empirical sciences in that they are repeatable. If I write a scientific paper on an experiment I do in London then another scientist can perform the same experiment in New York and confirm the results of my experiment and write a paper confirming my results.

Forensic science:

Forensic science concerns once only events that are unrepeatable. Forensic science is about an unrepeatable event, a once only occurrence. A police forensic scientist will investigate the evidence left after a crime scene. The event is unique and unrepeatable. He will take the evidence and try to link the crime to a criminal. The jury will judge whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendant.

Paleontology investigates non-repeatable (historical) events, it is not empirical science.

Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution:

Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in the Laboratory, such as the evolutionary changes in bacteria to resist antibiotics. Micro-evolution demonstrates the ability of organisms to adapt to their environment. Are we correct to extrapolate from micro to macro-evolution? In other words are there limits to how far an organism can change?

We must distinguish between micro-evolution (which is repeatable) and macro-evolution which only occurred once and is not repeatable, we are dealing with history in the case of macro-evolution. Macro-evolution must explain the origin of the living cells and the history and development of subsequent species.

Macro-evolution concerns the origin of the species (and even the origin of life itself). Just as forensic science has to establish the link between the crime and the criminal beyond reasonable doubt. We should expect that our study of origins should be able to prove that macro-evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt.

In our study of origins we are studying ancient history.

While micro-evolution occurs relatively quickly, and is observable, macro-evolution occurs over many millions of years, it is not directly observable but must be inferred from the remaining evidence.

Abiogenesis

The origin of life itself, the first living cell is so far unknown, we are still speculating.

Young or Old Earth

This creationist is old earth, thus no conflict with science.

Methodological naturalism

An empirical scientist assumes that the laws of nature will prevail while he is doing an experiment and that God will not intervene and do a miracle. Both theists and atheists can hold this view. Micro-evolution comes under this heading also.

Naturalism

Naturalism is the philosophical view that nature and its laws are all that there is. There is no God and no divine intervention in nature (e.g. no miracles). Within this then evolution is the mechanism in which life was formed through the laws of nature, time and chance or random interactions. The logical outcome of this philosophy is the view that we are just a purposeless bunch of molecules and we find fulfillment by making the most of life (in various ways). The theist would object and say that the scientific laws are result of a creator who was intimately involved with creation to make humans who could relate to, enjoy and worship their creator and who would find purpose and fulfillment in their lives.

What is at issue in the creation evolution debate is the philosophy behind it. I do not doubt that micro-evolution is a fact, this is just methodological naturalism at work in an empirical context in the lab. Empirical science is not at stake, it is not an issue. It is true that forensic science, such as paleontology and the interpretation of its results are an issue.

Theism

For the theist, nature can have the appearance of chance, but he still believes in a creator. There is still also the appearance of design in the universe. The anthropic principle tells us that the scientific laws are "just right" to produce and sustain life in this universe. The biochemistry of the cell looks just too complicated and designed to be the product of just chance, although the laws of physics and chemistry could be so finely tuned to produce a cell in all its complexity. The theist can also assume that for God to be God he is also the God of chance and uses it for his own ends.

At first sight our own life is the product of the chance meeting of one of millions of sperm with a single egg. And the fittest sperm at that. As a result you and your brothers and sisters were all born - the result of chance. However that is not the whole story for there is a hugely complex biological and biochemical mechanism to get from that newly fertilised egg to a little pink screaming baby. To compound it all you were the product of a loving couple who wanted children; the result of a drunken night out; the family mistake -- he was too lazy to go to the draw and get a condom out; or you were the result of a vicious rape during a time of war. To all this the theist and particularly the Christian would say that God would say "before you were born I knew you and I have a purpose for your life". May we seek God and find out his purpose for our life.