Very few people are unfamiliar with the term "science." But what does this term really mean? Science, as a discipline, grew out of philosophy. In general terms, both are the search for knowledge and an attempt to explain or understand the world. However, while philosophy is founded in the abstracts of logic and reason, science seeks a more physical ground. Through time, a very effective system for uncovering fact and increasing knowledge in science has developed. Known as the "scientific method," the main purpose of this system is to lead the scientist to draw a conclusion that is based on a solid foundation of observable evidence, rather than on philosophical conjecture.
The scientific method is comprised of three parts. First, an observation is made of some phenomenon. Second, a hypothesis is formed that attempts to explain the phenomenon. A hypothesis is basically a guess or supposition. Finally, the hypothesis is tested by experimentation to determine whether or not the supposed explanation may be considered correct. It is this third step that ultimately separates science from philosophy.
The scientific method is intuitively very simple and is something that most people practice unawares on a daily basis. For example, suppose that you attempt to start your car one morning; but when you turn the key, the engine doesn’t turn over. You might guess that perhaps your battery is dead, so you check to see if the lights work in the car. You find that the lights do work, so you conclude that your battery is not dead, and that this explanation does not adequately account for your engine’s failure. In this everyday situation, you have made an observation (your car doesn’t start), suggested a tentative explanation for this observation (or, formulated a hypothesis), and performed a simple experiment to test whether or not your hypothesis might be correct (it was not). This is, in essence, the scientific method. In science this process has simply been further developed and refined.
It is important to note that in biology hypotheses are rarely proven. Rather, it is much more typical for hypotheses to be disproven. Using the malfunctioning car as an example, your experiment is able to tell you that the problem is not the battery. However, it is not able to tell you with certainty what the problem actually is. (I now ask you not to continue this analogy any further. As all analogies, this one is imperfect; and this is where it begins to break down.) This point is very significant. While we may formulate a hypothesis that seems to adequately explain all of the known information, the possibility always remains that the hypothesis is actually false and that some other explanation is the truly correct one. Such occurrences are common in the scientific literature. Even well-established, generally accepted ideas may be suddenly overturned by a new observation, one that shows that the current explanation cannot be correct. It is for this reason that science is said to advance not through proof, but rather through disproof.
If a hypothesis is continually supported and never denied by experimental evidence, then it may eventually be elevated to the status of a theory. In science, the term “theory” is used with much greater strength and stringency than it is in common language. A theory is, in principle, a hypothesis that has been so overwhelmingly supported that it is very probably, and almost certainly, true. Typically, the term “theory” also implies a broader perspective, such as a concept that incorporates many hypotheses and provides a statement that is far reaching, encompassing many ideas. It is not called a “fact,” because there is always the possibility that, despite all of our efforts, the accepted explanation is still not the correct one.
It is in large part because of the rigors of the scientific method that science has achieved an image of objectivity, of a pure and unbiased quest for the truth. However, despite this, poor science still exists. Often the questions posed are difficult to answer, good hypotheses remain elusive, and the ability to design an appropriate experiment does not yet exist, or has not yet been conceived. But perhaps the greatest problem is that scientists are human, prone not only to human error but also to human prejudices, preconceptions, and pride. When a question is encountered that is difficult to solve, it is natural for humans to speculate about the answer.
A great danger in science is that of developing a speculation that is so appealing to the scientist, so intellectually and philosophically pleasing, that he or she simply wants it to be true. When this occurs, there is a powerful tendency for the investigator to disregard the principles of scientific investigation and skepticism and for rational, objective thought to be compromised. The conclusion may be accepted in advance of the evidence, and therefore data may likely be misinterpreted to support the foregone conclusion. At this point, it is no longer science that is being practiced, but rather personal philosophy, masked under the guise of science.
Nowhere is this attitude more prevalent in the scientific community than in the unwavering acceptance of evolution. The conclusion is accepted, despite admissions that the processes by which it might occur are in doubt and evidence is lacking. I have often heard it said that evolution is a fact; it is merely the mechanisms by which it might occur that are in question. Such statements beg the question: Is evolution philosophy, or is it science? Does the theory of evolution stand up to the scientific method? The next article in this series will examine this question more closely.
Spiritual science
Perhaps it is easy for us to see the benefits of fostering objectivity, rationalism, and a directed, regimented method of study in science. It may be more difficult for us to see how these principles rightly apply to our spiritual walk as well, how they relate to the science of salvation. Nonetheless, it is true that the lessons learned through science have profound implications for our spiritual life.
We as Christians have a desire to walk more closely with Christ, to more fully understand His word, His ways, and His plan for us. This requires that each of us investigate Christ for himself or herself. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.” John 5:39.
The history of science shows that, when investigating, it is important not to form false theories that one tenaciously holds to despite the evidence. Rather, one should always maintain a receptive, unbiased, teachable mind as he openly observes, thoughtfully poses questions, earnestly seeks the evidence, rigorously assesses his findings, and honestly bases his beliefs on the data that is available. In other words, we should employ the scientific method, as did the bethren at Berea, of whom it was written: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts 17:11.
Of course, there is a personal risk: “Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.” –Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 37. While it is true that we should always maintain a firm foundation of belief, it is not a sign of weakness to change one’s mind when frank self-investigation reveals those beliefs to be inconsistent with the evidence. Rather, it is a sign of strength to be willing to investigate one’s own beliefs, and it generally takes great courage and humility to admit to being wrong.
Such willingness honestly and actively to search out and investigate the truth is not merely commendable, but required. We must know with surety why we believe the things we do, and we must know with certainty that our beliefs will withstand all tests. We must also continually search for fuller understanding. “If, in the closing scenes of this earth’s history, those to whom testing truths are proclaimed would follow the example of the Bereans, searching the Scriptures daily, and comparing with God’s word the messages brought them, there would today be a large number loyal to the precepts of God’s law, where now there are comparatively few. But when unpopular Bible truths are presented, many refuse to make this investigation. Though unable to controvert the plain teachings of Scripture, they yet manifest the utmost reluctance to study the evidences offered.” –Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 232.
“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.” –Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 35.
It is very clear that spiritually, just as in science, we should not hold to a belief simply because we like the belief, or because it is a long-held belief. We must test every belief against the evidence of Scripture. However, science has shown us that before we can search the evidence, we must have questions to investigate! Of the three steps in the scientific method, it is in the second, the formation of a hypothesis, that scientific genius is expressed. It takes a great deal of insight and intuition to assess an observation and from this to infer a hypothesis that points the investigator in the right direction.
The same applies spiritually, where this intuition comes from the leading of the Holy Spirit. Often we are faced with a moral dilemma or doctrinal question that is new to us, and we must draw on our experience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to bring us into the right course of investigation. As we move through life, we must often make ethical decisions on the spot, acting on a hypothesis of what we believe to be right. In these instances, it is extremely important both that our hypotheses are formed under the influence of the Holy Spirit and that our actions are guided by Him!
The field of science has more to offer us spiritually than just an approach to investigation, however. It can also reveal God directly. This may seem odd, as most people equate science with discerning the physical world, and religion with that of the supernatural. But is there really such a distinction? The Bible provides some interesting examples of science being applied in a way that clearly unites the natural with the supernatural.
Gideon was arguably a scientist at heart (see Judges 6:36-40) who used the scientific method to verify the will of God. After observing that the dew fell on the fleece but not on the ground, in accordance with the sign he had asked for, he realized that perhaps other explanations were possible. It occurred to him that his observation might not be a sign from God, but rather merely a coincidence based on some other natural phenomenon. To eliminate this possibility, he performed the same experiment, but this time he asked for the opposite results. His experiment confirmed the hand of God in human matters.
King Hezekiah (under direction from God Himself) also asked for a sign that could not be explained by any natural means. 2 Kings 20:8-11. When the sun traveled backwards along its course, the world must have taken notice! It may have been this sign that brought the Babylonians, known historically for their scientific and especially astronomical knowledge, to seek out the king and to inquire about his God.
Elijah used elements of experimental design when he proved the power of God on Mt. Carmel. He devised an experiment to determine which of two hypotheses was correct: Was God or Baal the true living God? 1 Kings 18:21-39. To increase the power of the experiment, he stacked the odds against his own hypothesis, and like a good scientist appealed to the burden of proof. When the results of the experiment were in, there could be no objection to the proof of the power of the true God of Israel!
The connection between the supernatural and the natural, between God and ourselves, may also be seen indirectly through science. “God is the author of science. Scientific research opens to the mind vast fields of thought and information, enabling us to see God in His created works.” –Ellen G. White, Mind, Character, and Personality, vol. 2, p. 739.
”Rightly understood, both the revelations of science and the experiences of life are in harmony with the testimony of Scripture to the constant working of God in nature.“ –Ellen G. White, Education, p. 130.
If we truly believe that our God is a real, physical, living, personal God, we too should have the faith and courage to make Him the center of our science. “The cross of Christ will be the science and the song of the redeemed through all eternity.” –Ellen G. White, The Faith I Live By, p. 361.
Let’s all strive to be great scientists of Christ!
–Mark Demarest, U.S.A.
Comments or questions? Write Mark at info@imssdarm.org.
PART 2: DARWINIAN SELECTION
“True science and Inspiration are in perfect harmony. False science is something independent of God.” –Messages to Young People, p. 190.
The two most widely accepted views explaining the origin of life on earth are evolution and divine creation. These two explanations are also polar opposites, with evolution representing a natural, chaotic origin and divine creation suggesting that life has arisen through a supernatural, directed plan. Evolution is considered to be the view forwarded and embraced by science, while creation is associated with religious faith. But is this assessment really fair? Is a belief in evolution really any more scientific than a belief in creation? This article continues an investigation of the question: How scientific is evolution?
Origins of a theory
In Part 1 of this series, we looked at the scientific method and posed the question: Does the theory of evolution stand up to the scientific method? This question is difficult to answer, because in many ways the theory of evolution lies outside of the scientific method. A question of origins deals with history, and unfortunately we do not have the ability to perform experiments that will determine exactly what occurred in the past. However, we are able look at what is occurring in the present and from this gain an insight into what might conceivably have occurred in the past.
Ultimately, it was by this sort of reasoning that the theory of evolution developed in the first place. In many ways, the theory certainly predates Darwin (elements of evolution are found as early as the writings of Aristotle), but it was the work of Darwin that finally brought the philosophical idea to the scientific community as a viable argument for the origins of life. Darwin proposed a general process by which evolution might occur, based on his observations of what is occurring today. To illustrate this process, he described a classic example in chapter 17 of his book, The Voyage of the Beagle. During this voyage, he observed that different species of finch on the Galapagos Islands are very similar but differ in a few key characteristics, most notably size and shape of the beak. He proposed that all of these finches derived originally from one type of finch, and that the emergence of distinctly different types occurred through a process he called natural selection, or survival of the fittest.
These finches, now known appropriately as Darwin's finches, have been the topic of much research. One popular scenario for how natural selection may have produced the different species involves pressures due to competition for food. Suppose ten finches arrive on a new, uninhabited island. They discover two types of seeds to eat on this island; one is very large, and the other is very small. The ten finches are not exactly the same; like all animals, they exhibit some variation. Specifically, some have slightly larger bills than others. It is a struggle, but the birds with the largest bills are barely able to eat the large seeds, and with great difficulty the birds with the smallest bills are able to eat the small seeds. The birds with average-sized beaks, however, are in an unfortunate circumstance. Their bills are too large to handle the small seeds, but too small to crack the large ones, so they are unable to eat and starve to death. The surviving birds reproduce. Two birds with large bills mate and produce offspring with even larger bills. Two birds with small bills mate, and produce birds with even smaller bills. However, if a bird with a large bill mates with a bird with a small bill, their offspring have medium-sized bills and can't eat, so they die before they can reproduce. This carries on and on, until eventually there are only two types of birds–those with large bills and those with small–and they never interbreed. Because they never interbreed, they are considered separate species.
This general explanation (which is presented in somewhat oversimplified terms here) seems logical, and to many people it is very reasonable and mentally satisfying. However (and this is very important), just because something seems reasonable does not necessarily make it true! In order to move beyond philosophy and into science, some evidence is required to ground the idea in reality. This requires defined, controlled, and reproducible experiments. As mentioned earlier, the best we can do to determine what might have occurred with the finches on the Galapagos Islands in the past is to make observations in the present and perform experiments that may infer what might have occurred in the past. Genetic analyses, for example, may provide some circumstantial indications of hereditary patterns and population dynamics. More significantly, we can perform an experiment in selection to determine whether it is even possible for such a thing as Darwin proposed to occur.
An ongoing experiment in futility
Conveniently, we have been handed such an experiment. I think it is safe to say that every person reading this article has had some contact with domestic cats, dogs, cows, chickens, and other such animals. And in the plant kingdom, we also have many domesticated crops, including all of the commonly eaten vegetables, fruits, nuts, and grains. Domesticated plants and animals have provided excellent experiments in selection. In this case, though, it is artificial selection, a process that is similar to natural selection but differs in that we humans have directed the selection. Through the years, we have chosen which traits we prefer in plants and animals–juicy melons, small seeds, floppy ears, for example–and allowed only the organisms with those traits to reproduce. This is also a convenient example, because it simulates Darwin's proposed mechanism of evolution but at a much faster rate. Because humans are actively determining which animals or plants reproduce, every generation is 100% selected, whereas in natural selection things are much less controlled (in evolutionary models, a reproductive advantage of only 1% is considered to be an exceedingly strong selective pressure). In other words, if natural selection can produce new species, we should be able to see evidence of such changes occurring in our domestic plants and animals.
What have been the results of this experiment? We can look around at the domestic plants and animals that exist today, and it is very clear that they are markedly different from those occurring in the wild. In time, the genes we have selected have become more common; and specific traits, ever more pronounced. Even more striking, we have created a great deal of diversity within a group. Perhaps the best example of this is the domestic dog. A quick flip through a dog book will indicate the vast diversity of domesticated dog that exists. Dog breeds vary enormously in size, shape, color, and even behaviors. There are dogs as small as large rats and as large as small horses. There are dogs with short, pudgy snouts, or long, skinny snouts; with stumpy legs, or wiry legs; with stocky bodies, or lanky ones. There are inherently peaceable dogs and inherently hyperactive or aggressive dogs. There are dogs with long hair, or short hair, or even those that don't grow much hair at all. Some shed profusely; others, sparingly. Indeed, the dog can be considered a virtual testament to the amount of variation and diversity that can be brought about through selection.
So, at a superficial glance it would appear that Darwin was correct! The results of our experiment would seem to indicate that selection can indeed cause change, that the process proposed by Darwin could conceivably occur. In fact, many experiments have offered similar results; and it is now fairly well established that plants and animals may adapt, that shifts in population genetics may occur (just as human populations vary genetically by different regions, and among different races). In fact, this very observation is often cited as proof of evolution.
However, to conclude that a shift in population genetics is proof of the entire theory of evolution represents a severe departure from objective, critical, scientific thinking, and rather belies a biased belief. To suggest that the existence of all life may be explained through such a process simply because a dog, a finch, or a watermelon may exhibit variable and adaptive traits requires a gigantic leap of pure faith! It is one thing to say that natural selection may have caused the Galapagos finches to deviate a bit from previous finches, but quite another to conclude from this that finches derived from reptiles, which ultimately came from a bacterium! It is in this extreme extrapolation that the majority of contention with the theory of evolution lies. Such a conclusion is completely unwarranted and far outside the scope of the experimental evidence.
To illustrate this point, let's look at the results of our experiment a little more closely and from a slightly different perspective. It is true that a great variety of dogs has been produced through artificial selection. In fact, this is probably very good evidence for adaptation, or a process known as microevolution. But does this really provide any evidence for macroevolution, or the development of all organisms through a line of common descent? Not at all! In fact, quite to the contrary, this is very good evidence against the idea! Through all of the wild variation that we have directed to occur in dogs, they are still dogs. A Chihauhua may be decidedly different from a Mastiff in many ways, but through it all they are both still very clearly and definably dogs and in fact are not inherently different from the wolves they are proposed to have derived from. Through all of our manipulations, no element of “dogness" has been removed; and no indication that they will ever be anything other than a dog has been produced. No new body functions have developed, there is no evidence that new organ systems are forming, and nothing in their basic design has changed. The process by which Darwin suggested life has arisen has done very well in creating new varieties but so far has proven completely futile in developing anything new.
73 gazillion years ago...
It is largely for this reason that evolutionists turn to the refuge of time. Time is something that cannot be reproduced, and we are only given a limited amount of it in our lifetimes. This makes time a convenient refuge in which evolutionists may find shelter from their dilemma. The process of evolution is very slow, they argue; and of course the changes will not be observed in one lifetime, or even in hundreds of lifetimes. The evolutionist would argue that dogs are in fact evolving, that just as we can see that a dog has changed a little over time, it is conceivable that, given a long enough time (say, another 100 million years), a dog will no longer be a dog. The only way to support or deny this hypothesis would be to travel 100 million years into the future, which is, of course, impossible, and therefore the claim is safe. Moreover, evolutionists might argue that the reason the dog hasn't changed in any inherent way is that we simply haven't provided the proper selective pressures to initiate those types of changes. Just as the creationist might argue that the results of the experiment are misleading because it was human directed (and therefore the result of intelligent manipulation, not random chaos), so the evolutionist might employ the same argument.
So, while the hypothesis of evolution has been weakened by our experiment, it has not been absolutely refuted. The evolution debate has basically remained at this philosophical impasse since its inception; while the hypothesis of evolution has clearly not been proven by the evidence (as hypotheses rarely are), neither has it been clearly denied, which is the key to the advancement of science.
However, new technologies have enabled modern science to develop fascinating new insights into life, insights that promise to finally unbalance the stalemate. In the last few decades, significant strides have been made into understanding the very molecular foundation upon which life is built, a foundation whose very existence was not even suspected or imagined at the time Darwin proposed his theory. This research has infused the debate with fresh vigor. Darwinian evolution requires that each successive change be an extremely small, nearly insignificant step forward, and that through this stepwise, incremental fashion life becomes more complicated. But what would happen if it could be shown that each tiny step to which Darwin referred actually requires a monstrous, inconceivably great leap forward, with each leap necessarily being comprised of dozens of smaller leaps occurring simultaneously? Darwin himself supplied the answer in Chapter 6 of his book Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
How much more damaging, then, would it be if it could be shown that not only is it impossible for organs to have developed in Darwinian fashion, but that even the very molecular basis of life could not have developed in this way? Darwin's challenge has remained in the realm of speculation–until now. In the next article, we will look at how today this challenge is being met.
