Home » Dorms » Student Lounge

A Form of ID: Identifying Paradigms

Where We Are At

In part two of this article series on intelligent design (ID), a variety of definitions for both science and faith were detailed. This was an important and often overlooked component of many discussions about ID. Without ensuring that the proper definitions are being used for the specific situation under examination, there is no assurance that a discussion — especially a heated one — will make any progress.

So, how can these definitions help us to understand the interrelationship between science and faith? To answer this, let's review the various definitions from the previous article:

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

Faith can be defined as:

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

The Arenas of Science and Faith

Ask anyone if an overlap between science and faith exists, and you'll get a range of responses. Often, people speak about science in the broad terms of definition (3) and faith, being considered synonymous with traditional religion, in a sense most closely related to (d):

• Science is the sum total of information known about a particular set of natural phenomena.
• Faith is an established system of principles, values, and practices that affects one's conduct.

Both definitions deal with bodies of knowledge authoritatively framed within commonly accepted historical developments and cultural understandings. In other words, a whole bunch of people — educated or otherwise — believe something to be true, so it has to be true. Using these definitions, it is easy to see why the average person has difficulty reconciling science and faith. They are mutually exclusive systems of knowledge operating in completely separate spheres of influence.

The Practice of Science and Faith

A number of modern scientists also adopt this view, acknowledging faith but putting it in its place. For instance, the American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould states in his book Rocks of Ages that science is factually and rationally based while religion (faith) is based on inspiration and tradition:

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values — subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.¹

Many modern scientists take this perspective a step further, arguing that the way science and faith are "conducted" are quite different as well. The predominance of this view is evident when we juxtapose the experiential definition (1) of science against (a) of faith:

• Science is the empirical investigation of natural phenomena
• Faith is an unquestioning certainty not based on material evidence or logical proof.

According to these definitions, science is based on observations and evidence that is rationally interpreted. Faith, on the other hand, is based on neither observation nor evidence but belief (even blind belief) beyond rational processes alone and sometimes in spite of them. You don't need to be a master of logic to see why there's no integration using these definitions either. Here, science and faith belong on opposite ends of knowledge and experience.

An excellent example of this type of thinking comes from an old adage, "Science tells us how the heavens go. Religion tells us how to go to heaven."²

Your Own Personal Jesus … and Einstein

Because scientists spend years of their lives on their scientific work, there is a tendency to personalize research and have ownership over it. For instance, a scientist might defend a set of conclusions by saying something like "My science is founded on solid data obtained from many experiments." This statement sounds strikingly similar to what a religious person would mean by saying, "My faith is founded on solid testimony obtained from many eyewitnesses." These types of phrases seem to employ definitions (2) and (b):

• Science is a set of natural phenomena targeted for investigation.
• Faith is a conviction or trust in the truth, actuality, or validity of a person, idea, or object.

Both of these definitions contain a component that implies personal interest by an individual. When used by an individual, this definition of science reflects specialization and focus on a particular set of scientific problems which can shape and even bias their view of science altogether.

If I say I am a nuclear physicist, it means I have studied intimately a small subset of natural phenomena. I haven't just read textbooks telling me what the principles of nuclear physics are, I've tried to prove them to myself directly. At the same time, my choice of this field of science means that I have not solved all of its problems; otherwise, everything about it would be known. Furthermore, my choice of a particular scientific field means that I am a novice in many other fields. In science, more often than not, one is faced with a knowledge set that is either "an inch wide and a mile deep" or its more popular converse.

Now consider definition (b) of faith applied to a relationship with another person. One might say it is a faith that is similar to the scientific approach. This is the kind of faith that is based on experience and observation. Since it seeks to avoid unquestioning blindness, it is a faith that involves studying the person intimately, not just taking someone else's word that the person is trustworthy. Still, one cannot know exactly what another person will do, although they can predict what they are likely to do. This kind of faith involves investment and time.

Personal Interest Becomes Devotion

A faith like that of (b) is one that can move beyond conviction to loyalty or allegiance as in definition (c). It is a faith that has placed huge amounts of trust in a person or cause to the extent that trust becomes implicit. This is the kind of faith of political and musical groupies. The saying, "They can do no wrong" is well-suited to this kind of faith. It isn't blind, but it may have its eyes closed.

Similarly, scientists can fall into this trap when their devotion to their specialization overshadows their ability to do the kind of science described by definition (1). It is easy to see that when a theory is accepted as true when an element of presumption is present, a deviation from a personal investment in science becomes a devotion, a commitment that assumes absolute certainty where it may not exist. This is the kind of science that fits definition (4) since it is one in which a commitment is made to an assertion — that everything in the universe has a natural cause only — that is fundamentally unprovable. Science is limited to the study of natural phenomena since only these phenomena can be subject to experimentation. This is fundamentally different than declaring that no supernatural causes can exist because science can't study them.

Side by side, the definitions of science and faith that reflect devotion are:

• Science is the explanation of particular phenomena on the basis of natural causes only.
• Faith is the loyalty or allegiance to a person or cause.

The Faith of a Darwinist

Definition (4) of science is held today by many prominent scientists and laypeople alike. Why is this problematic? Isn't this a reasonable definition of science since it excludes any proposed supernatural causes? If a scientific theory is going to be believable, doesn't it need to be based only on evidence from nature? This definition of science, though very appealing, makes the major assumption that humans can tell when supernatural causes are not operative. But how is that possible?

Consider your heart beating right now. Can you be absolutely certain that it is only electrical signals from your brain causing muscles to contract and relax that keeps you alive? It is one thing to be fairly sure but quite another to be absolutely sure. An absolute certainty excludes all other possibilities including supernatural ones.

So, what evidence excludes all supernatural causes from keep your heart beating? The evidence doesn't exist. Worse yet, the evidence is impossible to obtain through empirical investigation. Even the best explanation in science has a degree of uncertainty. Like all knowledge that derives from observation, there is a degree of uncertainty. The issue then is whether we choose to believe that something is absolutely true even though the conclusive evidence is non-existent. This choice can be made through a passive acceptance or a deliberate devotion.

Considering definition (4) of science again, it becomes clear that those who adopt this definition make a commitment to the belief that natural causes alone can explain the universe's phenomena. They hold this view not by evidence but by faith according to definition (c). One of the greatest examples of this kind of faith is demonstrated repeatedly by the British evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. His confidence in Darwinian evolution is so strong that he states:

Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory … we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.³

Dawkins asserts in this statement very openly that his loyalty and devotion to Darwinism goes beyond the evidence. If Darwin were a religious figure or a political candidate, this would not be an absurd statement. Devotion and unquestioning loyalty do occur in these arenas especially to larger than life individuals. But this is a statement by a scientist about a scientific theory, an arena in which faith has been banned. Dawkins, himself, has a very low opinion of faith:

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.⁴

Yet, this is the faith of a Darwinist.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What do you think about David's use of the definitions of science and faith to posit that many Darwinian evolutionists do hold to faith, despite their claims to the contrary?

Join the discussion!

Regardless of what scientists like Dawkins might say about faith, their actions speak louder than their words. They can define faith in a way that makes it easy to criticize, but in the end, they exercise faith in a point of view or a theory that affects the way they see the world. Unless scientists' loyalty and allegiance is balanced with open-mindedness toward opposing evidence, they run the risk of accepting false truth and becoming indoctrinated … the very thing that religion is accused of doing.

Episode IV: A New Hope

In the final installment of this series, you'll find out how faith and science have been integrated in the past. You'll also see how you can help the intelligent design movement advance in the arena of science and faith.