| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Science is Wearing Blinders for Miracles

Page history last edited by pinkhamc@... 2 years, 8 months ago

Science is Wearing Blinders for Miracles

or How vs Why

 

The first title of this essay is not pejorative, though it may seem so. It is descriptive.

 

Although the scientific method may begin with a single, anecdotal observation, that observation demands further investigation and testing. Further investigation and testing require controlled experiments with adequate sample size. Miracles simply do not accommodate these methods. Miracles are events which are remarkable because they are singularly unique. One cannot set up controlled experiments replete with replications to test miracles.

 

Hence, the caveat of science proffered by the Director of the National Center for Science Education, Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, “Science requires testing of explanations against the empirical world, and requires explanation through only natural causes” is not intentionally stacking the deck against unnatural causes (miracles). It is simply acknowledging the limits of the scientific method.

 

Science is, then, as once famously observed by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a “Majesterium.” Dr, Gould went on to assert that the Majesterium of Science is eternally separated from the “Majesterium” of Faith. This concept is abbreviated NOMA for Non-Overlapping Magisteria. Nevertheless, each is equally important for understanding our world. This separation may or may not be true. That is a topic for another day.

 

If they are both essential, why, then, is there such an obvious clash between the two? Scientists frequently denigrate religion and religious clerics frequently denigrate science. Some of the warfare is media hype. Some is real. All is unnecessary.

 

Yet, it is undeniably “out there.” It is “out there” because we are focused on the more easily answered questions of, “How?” found in the realm of the Majesterium of Science and not on the more challenging questions of, “Why?” found in the realm of the Majesterium of Faith. We do this because at this point in the evolution of our knowledge, answering the “easy” question of “How?” is a daunting endeavor and we feel we are doing enough when we seek it. The deep, critical and creative thinking that goes into the research, lectures and presentations by our gifted faculty, students, and invited speakers, forces all of us to push our limits. It is exhausting just to keep up.

 

Nevertheless, what we also need is the courage to have an open, respectful, and thoughtful dialogue about the “Why?” Higher education is a bastion where truth is sought, no matter where it may take us or how challenging it may be to go there. And if we do go there, we may be surprised to discover that Dr. Gould was wrong, there is overlap between the two Majesteria and Science does have blinders on. Nevertheless, although the blinders restrict us to looking straight ahead where the facts revealed by scientific inquiry lay, these same facts may help us fathom the answers to the question, “Why?

 

Here are some of the facts that science needs to consider:

1) Paleontology does not lend itself to the scientific method any more than history does. Yet no one would argue that paleontology is not a science and the methods used to explore it are not scientific. Why then do we argue that historical/archaeological studies are not science? Recently the line between the two is being blurred as more rigorous and scientifically based and technical methods are used to explore them. For example, the rigorous methodologies of crime scene investigation and archeology support many of the major events of the Old and New Testament. A good read on the latter is "Cold Case Christianity."

 

2) Predictions (prophesies) were made in the Old Testament about the Messiah (Anointed One). Some of these predictions were very specific. Jesus has fulfilled almost every one of them. A good read on this is Messianic Prophesies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Granted, there are arguments against some of these (e.g., the use of the Hebrew word "alma" to denote a virgin) but many of them are not in dispute.

 

3) The emergence of man (Homo sapiens) around 200 thousand years ago was the result of processes in cosmological, chemical, and biological evolution that over and over reflect eight phenomena that suggest a Creator and I have only scratched the surface with the examples presented.

 

4) The similarities between how the world works and the gospel message that suggest both were authored by God explored in Natural Revelation.

 

5) The rest of the evidence found in The Evidence for Belief, some of which are included above with more specific references or links.

 

return to Mentiscopia

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.