CHAPTER 4: HOW DOES SCIENCE REVEAL THE MECHANICS OF GOD’S CREATION?

Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding. Job 22:23

My experience shows that Judeo-Christian scientists generally express markedly less reluctance to accept religious truths compared with some Judeo-Christian non-scientists who experience great difficulty acknowledging scientific truths. Much of the unnecessary confusion about, and even overt hostility between, religious and scientific truths stems from misconceptions about Biblical inerrancy(1) and a failure to recognize that Holy Scripture does not function as a scientific textbook. Holy Scripture gives us information about the who, what, where, and why rather than the when(2) and how of creation, two subjects within the purview of science.

USEFUL DEFINITIONS

The following definitions intrinsic to science may help clarify how scientists go about revealing the mechanism (i.e., the when and how) of God’s original and continuing creation.

Science

The term, science, refers to comprehensive or extensive information on any subject but particularly in reference to the physical universe, including biological processes. To be considered a science (e.g., Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Physics), a body of knowledge must be based upon careful observations, controlled experiments, precise measurements, mathematics to the greatest extent possible, and replication by independent observers. Accordingly, science seeks reproducible and predictable explanations for natural events.

Scientific Method

Modern science rests upon the scientific method, which proceeds through observations of natural events and/or experimentation designed to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. That is, the scientific method incorporates an objective process to find solutions to problems in numerous scientific and technological fields, as opposed to religious subjects. I firmly believe the scientific method constitutes an example of Holy Spirit-inspired revelation. The scientific method comprises the following steps: observation, hypothesis, theory, and law.

Scientific Hypothesis

The first step in the scientific method occurs with collection of empirical(3) data from careful observations of natural phenomena (e.g., astronomical observations) or from controlled experiments typically, but not always, conducted in a laboratory setting. Based upon these initial data, a model may be formulated in order to describe, in a logical fashion, what has been observed. As more data become available, a scientific hypothesis can be formulated. This hypothesis allows predictions to be made that can be tested by further experiments or observations. Importantly, scientific hypotheses must exhibit two fundamental characteristics: (a) generation of valid predictions and (b) capability of falsification, that is, additional data might show the hypothesis to be false. An hypothesis that does not allow valid predictions or that is shown to be false must be discarded or, at least, modified.

The falsification requirement eliminates the scientific validity of many truths within Holy Scripture. For example, God created all that exists, seen and unseen, precludes scientific verification because the hypothesis cannot be tested and shown to be false with the tools available to science. This lack of scientific verification, however, does not in and of itself invalidate a belief in God as creator. We may accept the truth of this Biblical statement on grounds outside the scope of science through non-rational(4) but nevertheless valid considerations.

Scientific Theory

A scientific hypothesis that survives extensive testing may be incorporated into the framework of a scientific theory, which generally includes more than one hypothesis to describe a large grouping of phenomena. the term scientific theory carries markedly more weight with scientists than the term, theory, as used in the non-scientific world. A scientific theory comes from the rigorous application of scientific methodology and by no means conveys or derives from a fanciful or “blue sky” suggestion or supposition. Much of the controversy concerning evolutionary science and the Genesis story of creation results from this semantic difference between scientists and some non-scientists concerning the use of theory.

Scientific Law

A scientific law arises from a scientific theory shown to be valid through a large number of predictions and empirical observations. Thus the procession, always based upon empirical data and valid predictions at each stage, sequentially involves:

Observations/Data

Model

Scientific Hypothesis

Scientific Theory

Scientific Law

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE


The following characteristics fundamentally define science and the scientific method.

Iconoclastic

Icons are sacred religious objects or conventional presumptions in secular society such as the death penalty leads to a decrease in the murder rate; “God hates queers”; God favors the Republican Party; the Democratic Party best expresses the Gospel message; the United States was founded as, and remains, a Christian nation; heavier objects fall faster to earth than lighter objects when dropped from the same height. Iconoclasts are persons who break sacred objects. Scientists by temperament and training become iconoclasts because they always ask questions and question answers.

Data-Driven and Hypothesis-Generating

The scientific method discussed above illustrates this characteristic.

Probabilistic

Predictions of high statistical probabilities, but not certainties, establish scientific laws. A detailed discussion of this probabilistic characteristic, which derives from the null hypothesis, lies outside the scope of this book. A simple example, however, may illustrate the point. Suppose a clinical scientist wishes to determine if Drug(5) A is more efficacious (i.e., works better) than Drug B in lowering blood pressure. For the sake of this illustration, we may focus on systolic (i.e., the upper number) pressure. The relevant statement of the Null Hypothesis in this case would be: Drug A is no better than Drug B in lowering systolic pressure. The Alternative Hypothesis would be: Drug A is better than Drug B in lowering systolic blood pressure.

Why proceed on what appears, to non-scientists, an arcane approach to this question of efficacy? The white crow/black crow problem provides the relevant answer. We can make two statements that might appear to be equivalent:

A All crows are black.
B There are no white crows.

For statement A, we need only examine a sufficiently large sample of crows in order to assess the validity of the proposition with a high probability, typically 95%. For statement B, however, we must examine all crows on earth in order to assess the validity of the proposition. Obviously, one could never be sure that all crows on earth had been examined and that, therefore, no white crow had escaped our attention. This foundational principle, which I term statistical “theology”, generated many conversations between my statistical colleagues and me.

With this simplified background in mind, we understand that our clinical scientist will endeavor to test the systolic blood pressures of a large number of persons, randomly assigned to receive either Drug A or Drug B in a double-blind fashion (i.e., neither the scientist nor the test persons know the drug assignments) prior to and at intervals after administration of the test drugs. If the resultant data, within appropriate statistical parameters, show a lower average systolic blood pressure for persons who received Drug A compared with those who received Drug B, we may reject the null hypothesis (Drug A is no better than Drug B in lowering systolic pressure) in favor of the alternative hypothesis (Drug A is better than Drug B in lowering systolic blood pressure). Critically, the conclusion is probabilistic (again, typically with a 95% confidence level) because (a) while we know the average blood pressures differed between the two groups, we can only attribute, rather than absolutely prove, this effect to Drug A with a high degree of probability and (b) the clinical scientist did not examine all persons on earth in this trial. The confidence level rests upon the number of persons in the trial, the precision of the blood pressure measurements, and the variability of those measurements.

Although this example provides a simplified explanation, the point remains: Predictable events of high statistical probability, not certainty, establish scientific laws.(6)

Temporal

Scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws exist in the present moment and must be changed upon collection of contrary, i.e., falsification, data. Time dependency, therefore, characterizes the findings and conclusions of science. A common example illustrates this point: In the past, tobacco inhalation was not considered harmful to the health of a the majority of smokers; however, based upon current data, we now understand the deleterious effects of tobacco. The temporal nature of scientific conclusions perplexes, even frustrates, many non-scientists who wish for certainty at all times.

Self-correcting

By its very nature, science is remarkably self-correcting. If errors, intentional or unintentional arise in science, the scientific method eventually will reveal and correct them. This self-correcting characteristic explains in part why scientists consider reproducibility a requisite feature in assessing scientific conclusions.

Devoid of ethical, moral, religious, or mystical content

Science deals only with objective data that can be quantified. For example, because reliable scientific data cannot be obtained, science will not deal with what existed prior to the initial act of creation. Similarly, science will not add God, as creator, to any explanation of how life began and changes over time. No reason exists to write divine influence into any equation, hypothesis, theory, or scientific law. We may understand this point by looking at a straightforward example, a physical, chemical, or biochemical process that combines A with B to yield C, written in shorthand as:

A + B = C

Once we add in conditions for temperature, pressure, catalysts, etc., the equation thoroughly defines the process. It would be irrational to say something like, If God isn’t included, the transformation from A and B to C cannot occur because we can identify all the parameters necessary for the reaction to take place without putting God into the equation. Importantly from the perspective of science, unexplained phenomena do not serve as “proofs” of God’s existence and miraculous power but, rather, pose fertile areas for future scientific research.

A PERSONAL ACCOMMODATION

How do Judeo-Christian scientists reconcile the characteristics of science, particularly its refusal to include God, with religious principles? I can only offer my own accommodation. I previously stated that I was born into and have remained within the Community of Believers. I also am a trained scientist, with a doctorate in Biochemistry, who spent twenty years in basic biomedical research in laboratory settings and another twenty years working as a clinical scientist in the pharmaceutical industry. I experienced no great difficulty in reconciling my religious proclivities with my scientific career because, at the expense of repetition, I understood the differences in focus: Who, what, where, and why for Judeo-Christianity versus when and how for science. Thus, separate foci, investigative tools, and evaluative parameters produce separate but complementary answers about creation.

In this context, I am often asked, “Do you believe in prayer, do you pray in the laboratory?” The answers are “yes” and “yes”. I accept that prayer may be our natural status or primary method of communion with God; however, I would never pray for the results of my experiments come out in a specific way. Such a prayer fundamentally violates God’s natural laws, attempts to manipulate God, and denigrates human curiosity and intellect. On the other hand, I often prayed for the inspiration to design my experiments and to interpret the results in a logical fashion that would illuminate some aspect of God’s creation.

REFERENCES

1 Chapter 1

2 The Genesis descriptor, In the beginning, does not specify how long in the past the universe began.

3 Information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment, as opposed to suppositions. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company.

4 I employ the following definitions: Rational or empirical - information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment; Non-rational – information deemed to be valid even if outside the realm of rationality (An example would be the phenomenon of falling in love.); and Irrational – propositions that negate logic and reason, which have no place in science or religion (the idea that planets and stars influence our fate, the benevolent powers of crystals, the fallacy that we can communicate with the dead, and that God manipulates the minutia of the universe through violation of natural laws).

5 A legal pharmaceutical agent rather than an illegal substance.

6 The basic uncertainty inherent in science will be addressed again in Chapter