Student Lounge

A Form of ID: Defining Science and Faith

part 2 of 4 by David J. Hill

Using the same words doesn't always result in communication. That's because, though we may be using the same vocabulary, sometimes we are using different dictionaries. David Hill clarifies terms within the Intelligent Design debate so that further discussion can be more fruitful.

Defining the Debate

In part one of this series, I described the Pennsylvania court case about intelligent design (ID) in the classroom. I also described two rather bold assertions:

Darwinists have faith.
Science and faith have been integrated for thousands of years.

But how can these assertions be true? Isn't Darwinism completely based on factual evidence? Haven't science and religion taken completely separate pathways in human history?

To address this issue, it is necessary to spend some time investigating common definitions of science and faith.¹ In the ID debate, the ways in which people use language to communicate can be so different that two people can be speaking about entirely different things and not be aware of it because they use the same words but with different definitions. Worse yet, people can even switch their definitions mid-stream in a conversation, thinking that they are speaking about the same thing.

People can even switch their definitions mid-stream in a conversation ...

For example, imagine that you and a friend are having a conversation when he says, "I read this amazing science article about these evolutionary biologists that altered a plant's DNA so that it could no longer reproduce with its own species. The scientists say that from the point of view of science, the plant is a new species. It's just another example of how science has proven evolution." Although this statement doesn't present a formal definition of science, it contains a variety of understandings of what science actually is. There are the results of a particular experiment, the interpretation of those results, and the collective body of evidence that makes up the field of evolutionary biology, including:

(1) the results of a particular experiment,
(2) the interpretation of those results, and
(3) the collective body of evidence that makes up the field of evolutionary biology.

You'll see what I mean below.

As is the case with any debate, clear definitions ensure mutual understanding of what is actually being debated. But if the debate on ID is to make strides toward resolution, everyone involved desperately needs to agree about the definitions of science and faith. Because I don't want this article to look like a bunch of dictionary entries, each definition will also be broken down to understand its implications.

The Definitions of Science

To begin this exploration, we need to define phenomenon. This isn't too difficult since the majority of people can agree that within common experience, a phenomenon is a thing, a relationship, or an event sensed by touching, tasting, smelling, seeing, or hearing.

Well, what isn't a phenomenon then?

A number is not a phenomenon because it is not something that can be sensed. We can see the symbol for the number, but the number doesn't actually have any physical existence. The key component of this definition is that a phenomenon must be directly observable or measurable as opposed to a concept or idea which is non-observable and non-measurable.

Definitions of science often range from what a scientist does on a daily basis to the collective work of all scientists throughout time.

A much more challenging task is to define science. Definitions of science often range from what a scientist does on a daily basis to the collective work of all scientists throughout time. By analyzing the ways in which people use the word science, it is possible to identify four common uses of this word, which I will further explain and illustrate.

Science can be defined as:

(1) the empirical investigation of natural phenomena
(2) a set of natural phenomena targeted for investigation
(3) the sum total of information known about a particular set of natural phenomena
(4) the explanation of particular phenomena on the basis of natural causes only

Science by definition (1) is the activity we see people in white lab coats doing in the background on a local news piece. It is also the methodological process that we expect in the use of the "Scientific Method." It is completely dependent on empirical — observed, experimental, collected or measured — evidence. Presumably, this investigation involves the identification of a problem, collection of data, conducting of experiments, analysis of results, and conclusion about the investigation of the problem. It aims to be an objective process that is verifiable while striving for accuracy and precision.

According to definition (2), science can be thought of as a program of research. It is the scope of both a professor's career and a weekend fossil hunter's hobby. Since the modern-day frontier of science involves expensive instrumentation, expertise in various techniques, and keeping abreast of new research developments, it is within this context of science that scientists become specialists in a very narrow set of research problems. Though the benefit of specialization is expertise, the detriment is often lack of breadth in scientific understanding. The Benjamin Franklins of the world can rarely survive in today's scientific playing field.

Science as expressed by definition (3) refers to the broader distinctions between scientific fields. When we hear a phrase such as "This has been investigated in life science," we know that an enormous body of data, experiments, experts and theories are being referred to. This not only encompasses what has been discovered and thought in the past, but what is currently being researched by scientists. Often, this definition draws on the authority of the scientific community, both dead and alive. Furthermore, this definition of science fuels the drive for the discovery of the next big breakthrough since the history of science shows an almost exponential track record of discoveries.

Finally, science as defined in (4) is a modern definition and the scientific community in general has committed to this definition on the broadest scale. It is focused on understanding a phenomenon by explaining it in a way that is consistent with all the other definitions of science listed. By framing phenomenon as the product of natural causes only, this definition ensures the same characteristics of (1); that is, objectivity, verifiability, and accuracy.

The Definitions of Faith

The last word we need to define is faith. This word is often used synonymously with belief and religion, depending on its particular use, but it should be defined in a broader sense.

Faith can be defined as:

(a) an unquestioning certainty not based on material evidence or logical proof
(b) a conviction or trust in the truth, actuality, or validity of a person, idea, or object
(c) the loyalty or allegiance to a person or cause
(d) an established system of principles, values and practices that affects one's conduct

Definition (a) is a common understanding of faith as a viewpoint arrived at and defended by a non-rational process. For instance, upon finding out that she is pregnant, a woman might say, "It's a boy. I just know I'm going to have a boy." Barring any possible heredity trends, environmental disposition or health issues that favors boys over girls, this is a statement of faith. One way to think of this is that it favors an outcome (a boy) when the probability of any of the possible outcomes (either a boy or a girl) is equally possible. It is not based on a rational conclusion, but on a feeling or an intuitive sense of belief. Often, this is labeled as "blind faith" since it does not point to conclusive evidence to support its claims. However, this judgment assumes that the pathway to truth is always rationally based.

Defining science and faith is the key to understanding the issues at stake in the ID debate.

Faith by definition (b) is a belief based in part on material evidence and logical proof. It is a faith that is not "blind," but arrives at its conclusion by a rational process. It is also the faith that makes it possible to believe that what other people say is true. For instance, history claims that there was a nation called the Roman Empire that no longer exists. This is based on archaeological evidence, historical records and expert testimony. Though it cannot be directly observed, the probability that it existed is very high. However, proving that a nation called the Roman Empire absolutely existed is impossible because it no longer exists. Though it is not directly observable, it is the best explanation for the evidence collected. Although high probability and absolute certainty are not the same thing, the gap between the probability of the Roman Empire's existence and the belief in its absolute existence is bridged by faith according to this definition. This is the same type of faith that all non-astronauts have that the Earth is round.

Definition (c) describes a faith in future outcomes based on past or present ones. It is not just about believing in someone's ability to do their job today, but faith that they will continue along the same course in the future. This is a projection from a previous track record, identification of potential, and analysis of their future plans. Performance is measurable over the course of time, but at the moment when placing trust in someone for future performance, faith is the element that makes that projection possible. This is the faith practiced by those who own stock and those who support a political candidate for office.

Faith as defined in (d) is most closely associated with the idea of religion or belief systems. The common context of this definition is a doctrinal practice of belief in some supernatural being, but it is not limited to this context since someone may call humanism their faith. In some sense, this definition fits our more current use of the word "worldview."

The Right Definitions for ID

C O F F E E S H O P

When it is claimed that Darwinism contains a component of faith, which definition of faith is being referred to?

Join the discussion!

Much more than an academic exercise, systematically defining science and faith is the key to understanding the issues at stake in the ID debate. Furthermore, identifying the definitions people use when they discuss ID can be challenging and enlightening. When someone claims that Darwinism contains a component of faith, which definition of faith are they referring to? What does it mean that science and faith were integrated in the past?

In part three of this series, you'll find out how these definitions make an enormous difference in the ID debate.

Notes

The definitions given here are adaptations from various dictionaries including the American Heritage and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. These definitions have been adapted to reflect broader usage of the terms in everyday language. Back^

About the author
David J. Hill is a freelance writer in science education and a copyeditor in medical education. His interests include cultural and Christian perspectives on science and technology. In his spare time, he can be found obsessing about why the Book of Job is not talked about more on Sunday mornings and whether or not he should start a book on the lives of 18th-century scientists entitled, Alchemy Rules!: When Turning Stuff into Gold Was the Topic at the Water Cooler. He attended graduate school in chemistry at the University of Illinois and did his undergraduate work at Point Loma Nazarene University. He and his wife, Angel, have three children.