Science versus reality

There is a video series on YouTube titled, The Arrogance of Creationism (I’ve linked to video 4 here).  It’s hosted by a belligerent evolutionist who posts under the name, King Crocoduck.  By the way, for the sake of brevity, I’m going to be referring to King Crocoduck as KC.  

For those who might not be familiar with the term, a crocoduck is an imaginary creature made popular by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron to highlight evolution’s glaring shortage of transitional forms.  It’s a hypothetical critter that is ½ crocodile and ½ duck.  I’m fairly certain the word was made in half-jest but evolutionists have seized upon it and now tout it as an example of creationists’ supposed lack of understanding of evolution.  But I’m not really going to talk about Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or even King Crocoduck for that matter.  Instead, I’m going to talk about a point KC made in his series, namely that science is the best tool for examining reality.

KC begins the video with this thought: You know, the most remarkable thing about science is that it works.  It consistently produces reliable results that have revolutionized our species in a way that no other way of thinking ever has.  

Hmm.  I will grant that science has made great contributions to our way of life - obviously - and science benefits us in different ways than things like theology or philosophy benefit us.  But does he mean science is the best way to understand reality?  Why, yes!  That’s exactly what he means.  He says it overtly later when he says, Theology and philosophy simply cannot compete with science if the goal is to construct accurate models of reality.  I literally laughed out loud about 58 seconds into the video when KC says, Science works. Hate the method for being so rigorous – hate the conclusions for not conforming to your expectations – but do NOT deny its power!  He sounds like a supervillain.  

KC exhibits a trait common among evolutionists; it’s the flaw of scientism. PBS.org defines scientism this way:

“Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc [sic] worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.”

I’m sure evolutionists would reject themselves being compared to religious fundamentalists but if the shoe fits….  Frankly, I find it hilarious that zealous evolutionists can’t see the religious nature of their faith-like science.  As a world-view, scientism suffers from many flaws.  I can’t touch on all of them in a single post but I will touch on some of the most obvious difficulties.  

Let’s start with morality.  Is there really such a thing as morality? Certainly the universe doesn't care what we do. Science can only describe what happens but can't say if a thing is right or wrong. What some might call “murder” is just one animal killing another. It happens all the time in nature and it's no more wrong than an apple falling from a tree. Theology and philosophy are far better tools for examining the reality of good and evil.

Also, does something like beauty exist?  Science can study how a person responds to things we say are beautiful but - again - is anything objectively beautiful?  A fiery sunset, a snow-capped mountain, or a starry sky are all just things that animals likely don’t even notice.  Yet we look at these things and see they are sublime.  Why?  To even begin to answer, we must resort to philosophy or - dare I say -  regard the Creator!

Science is also limited when examining history.  Pick any person from history and try to prove – scientifically – that he really lived.  Is there scientific evidence, for example, of Washington crossing the Delaware?  The best evidence we have for people or events of antiquity is what has been written down about them. The evidence we have for the life, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus is the same type of evidence we have for Columbus having sailed to the Americas.

Speaking of miracles, scientism is also at a disadvantage when examining miracles. At about 6:27 in the video, KC says, “The bottom line is this: scientists don't interpret evidence in a manner that fits an a priori conclusion.” KC is wrong. Secular scientists do have a bias – an a priori commitment to naturalism.  Here’s a quote I’ve cited many times before:

“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002

Now, there is no scientific reason to believe every phenomenon must have a natural cause. It's an assumption – a tenet that cannot be observed anywhere in the universe. So, if a miracle has occurred in reality, evolutionists would have to deny it happened on no grounds other than a religious-like faith in scientism.

The worst thing about scientism, though, is that it retards critical thinking. Skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of scientific inquiry. Once a majority of scientists accept any particular conclusion, it becomes, “settled science.” Any expression of doubt about the conclusion is met with ridicule, insults, and the label of being a “science denier.”  In the Bible, when Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, he sought to end their engagement (Matthew 1:18-19).  He did this because he understood how a woman gets pregnant.  If he had stubbornly clung to that belief after the appearance of the angel, he would not have been denying science - he would have been denying reality!!

KC is talking about using science to construct accurate models of “reality.” That's a pretty tall order because reality includes EVERYTHING including morality, history, beauty, emotions, and miracles. If Jesus walked on water, fed the multitude, healed the sick, and rose from the dead, that's reality even if we can't study it scientifically.  I'm less interested in studying things scientifically and more interested in learning what is true!