I took chemistry as a freshman in college. During the first semester, we studied the electron clouds that surround atoms. More specifically, we learned (or were supposed to learn in my case) about the various, different shaped electron shells. I was having a difficult enough time understanding it all when the instructor made the following statement, or words to this effect. "We don't really know if these shapes actually represent the probability of the electrons position. However, when we apply these probabilities to our mathematical models of how atoms interact, these shapes provide the best explanation of the behavior we observe." Me, I'm sitting in my chair, thinking, "I've just spent two weeks trying to understand this and now you're telling me, we don't even know if it's true!" I had no hope of understanding the issue. Eventually I passed chemistry--barely. But I never did understand those electron shells.
Why did I tell this story? Because it is a fundamental instruction in how much of the unobservable sciences proceed. We extrapolate our knowledge from models built to explain what we observe. As far as I know, no one has ever seen an electron, not with any available magification methods. What we do know is how certain atoms interact with other atoms and the streaks left behind in collision chambers when atoms hit each other at very high speeds. From these observations, we attempt to define models which explain the behavior we see.
In researching "myths" surrounding the science of origins, I came across a Scientific American article titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (Rennie, John, Scientific American. 18 June 2002.) At the end of his article, Mr. Rennie makes the following statement, "'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." In context of the article, the implication is that the universe must exist entirely due to naturalistic mechanisms because science cannot study any other means. While I agree with the stated boundaries of scientific inquiry, I do not agree that there can can be nothing beyond these boundaries, or even that anything beyond these boundaries is either unknowable or of no consequence to us.
Before I go further, let me remind the reader, that I do not wish to foment any dissension among the participants in this discussion. Though I disagree with many of Mr. Rennie's conclusions, his article is actually well thought out and well written. In fact, Mr. Rennie raises several legitimate questions that origins scientists should take very seriously. (More about this later.)
To dismiss creation science solely on the basis of its reliance on a supernatural creator is as unjustified as the creationist presumptions with which Mr. Rennie takes issue. But why are they unjustified? Since science by its very nature cannot determine anything of a supernatural being, isn't naturalistic mechanisms all we are left with or at least all we can know? Well, first, we must back up and realize that the previous question is misleading. In legal parlance, it "assumes facts not in evidence". (I watch a lot of TV legal shows.) Secondly, the ability to observe or prove scientifically does not automatically preclude the existence of a supernatural being.
Why is it assumed that science can have no opinion about the existence of a supernatural being? I freely admit, that science cannot directly observe, much less reproduce the effects a supernatural being might have on the world. By its very nature, the supernatural encompasses those things which actually (not just apparently) defy the laws of the universe. However, just as evolution though not directly observed can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; so too may science not only study the effects of a supernatural being, but in fact, infer something about the nature of such a being.
The challenge to scientists, is to produce reasonable and defensible evidence within the physical universe of an extra-universal beings impact. Our charge is to find the "fingerprints" of God.
For Christians:
Especially to the Bible-believing Christian, I want to point out that we should be more hopeful than any other at being able to find God's fingerprints all over the world. In Romans 1:20, we are told, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (New International Version). If this is true, then whether on a majestic or microscopic scale, we should be able to find God's fingerprints, pointing us ever back to Him. What an amazing privilege it is to pursue God by studying His creation!
