|
The Groundwork for God in a Secular World
by Steve Kozak Young students will describe textbooks in their science classes as primarily concerned with evolution and Darwins Theory of Evolution as a means of explaining the earth in its natural state and the humanity that occupies it. There is, of course, a problem with this; Darwins Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. I would assert the plausibility of a theory as a configuration of ideas contested or refuted by another configuration of ideas. In other words, there are many other theories to consider. Why is it, then, our children are learning of only one theory as opposed to many. It seems to be in the best interest of knowledge and education to, at minimum, explore the dominant schools of thought. After all, knowledge is not being told what to believe, or what is true. Knowledge is gathering all the evidence and discovering the truth for yourself. Instead of truly educating our children, political decisions are cramming incomplete and inaccurate schools of thought into their minds with the assertion that it is the best explanation possible. If contending theories are a reflection of real knowledge why are public schools neglecting to instruct students about both sides of the coin. Most notable and controversial in public schools is the issue of creation vs. evolutionary theories. Critics of creationism site various arguments for the negation of its teaching in public schools. Most notably is the argument regarding creations lack of scientific method and evidence. Much of the secular academic sphere regards science as defined by the study of things natural; tangible objects and ideas. Thus a supernatural power that can not be explained by hypothesis and experimentation is not a matter of the scientific method. In the case of evolution, scientists argue for an element of objectivity in study; resulting from the use of the scientific method, negating any philosophical or religious assumptions. For natural science, the objective search is the primary method of answering the question; where do we come from? The objectivity of the scientific process is lost when evolution attempts to answer the question of where humans come from without the existence of God. The inability to answer this effectively suggests that evolution science leans in the direction of philosophy, not scientific fact. That would mean, according to theologian and author, Greg Koukl that evolution, in order for it to be factual, life must have come from non-life. This raises the interesting question of how life got started in the first place. What premise of creation is life based on without the existence of life to begin with? Scientists have ideas about how creation of life may have happened; however nothing firm in the way of evidence. This concept is only the surface of many surmounting problems for the evolutionary argument. If science can not explain how naturalistic evolution happened, how is it possible to determine that has happened? This problem forces the science of evolution to assume a starting point. People are here, therefore evolution must have happened. This argument is circular reasoning and indicative of a philosophical one rather than what naturalistic scientist define as science. Critics of creation site that such a theory is not welcome in public schools largely due to its lack of scientific methods and exploration. Yet students spend ample amounts of time mastering the so called scientific assertions of evolution, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. Examination of the evidence clearly illustrates a lacking argument. Somehow critics refuse to assert creation as an element of theology, a science that once explained the unexplained. Theology made sense of elements of this world that science could not explain. According to systematic evangelical theologian, Millard Erickson, theology can be upheld as a science, in accordance with a post-modern naturalistic scientific method; the methodology of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. First, theology has a definitive subject matter in which to investigate. Second, theology does not only deal with subjective feelings and matters of the Christian heart, it deals with objective matters. Third, as required by all modern science, theology has a specific methodology for investigating subject matter. Fifth, there is a method of verification of propositions. Finally, when theology is done properly, there is coherence among the propositions of the subjects. I do not believe that the term and method of science should be limited to the naturalistic view, however considering that standard, I believe that the theology behind creation could be held to a similar model, given Ericksons argument. Unfortunately, I can not see the use of a theological argument making its way into the hallways of our public schools. One of the greatest aspects of the United States also presents one of the greatest challenges. The United States is a huge melting pot, of ethnicity, religions, and social classes; the governments useless attempt to please all, has slowly eliminated religion from public schools. However dark and displeasing this all may seem, there is, what appears to be, a shinning light on what otherwise seems a massive defeat in the Christian community; the introduction of the Intelligent Design argument. Intelligent design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which drive education and research. intelligent design advocates and researchers are looking for ways to explain the creation and other naturalistic features of the universe by accrediting many aspects of it to a designer through objective research regardless of the outcome. Critics would point to the fact that this sort of conclusion simply is another way to point a supernatural explanation or to package and market God in a more appealing fashion. Critics also challenge intelligent design researchers to answer questions regarding the nature or identity of the designer. This application of intelligent design, according to the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, is a mischaracterization of intelligent design theory. The theory is not to discover the apparent designer; it is merely to assert that there is a designer. Advocates of intelligent design are convinced the numerous and vague research science performs in relation to natural evolutionary theories is unconvincing and irrational to assume that which is simply not known. However, intelligent design theorists have not all the answers either. Design theorists recognize that the nature, morality, character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy. There lies a common understanding among design scientists that intelligent design is not by any means an argument for God or even a god. Instead, conclusions come from data and experiments not theology or religious traditions. In this area design theorists fall short of a complete theory. The avoidance of God in a theory that supports the notion of a designer beyond this world suggests a gap in the theory. Intelligent design seems to be focused primarily on rebuking evolution leaving the rest to theology and philosophy. Both sides have accepted that not everything has been explained or will be explained in the future. While I do not assert that intelligent design answers questions for Christians about how the universe and humanity have evolved throughout the span of recorded time, I do understand intelligent design could be the seed that leads to something greater in the eyes of Christians. It may be undesirable for some to place God in the same sentence as intelligent design; no different is the combining of theology and science. This however should not be the focus of conversation. A persons desire should not affect true objective research. Evolution theorists negate God, but so do intelligent design theorists; however, not without the challenge of many critics. It does not seem plausible to claim that a designer, beyond our comprehension, smarter, and possibly infinite, created either the whole universe, or at least at minimum, the things that can not be explained by natural science. It is ignorant to attempt to remove the idea of God on the grounds of scientific credibility. Science or not, this is grounds for the existence of God. Intelligent design is picking and choosing which aspects of creation they wish to use science to explain, and others, which they have decided to, leave alone. Therefore, by leaving the issue of God for others to determine, design theorist have thereby advocated the possibility of an existence of God. In their attempt to avoid a stand on the subject, the decision was made when they recognized theology as a means of explaining what they can not, thereby giving theology authority. The given authority to theology lays the groundwork to ascertain the existence of God in creation in public schools, at the absolute least, as a theory to be educated on. If the United States is a melting pot of all nations that can live as one nation under one nation, then I see no reason that various theories of creation can be taught in public schools. Giving our children the chance to discover the truth on their own terms is a great gift to our future generation. Intelligent design is not the final complete answer; however it puts us on the right road, and perhaps opens the door for other truths that have been lost in secularism. For Further Study: MacArthur, John. Battle for the Beginning in Creation: Creation, Evolution and the Bible. Thomas Nelson, 2001. Behe, M.J., W.A. Dembski and S.C. Meyer. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. Ignatius Press, 2000. Casey Luskin. Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for God? . 2005. Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology, Second Edition. Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2004. Koukl, Gregory. Evolution Philosophy, Not Science. . 1996. Woodward, Thomas. Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Baker, 2003. Intelligent Design Network. . 2005. On the front lines of battle, I have entrenched myself. I stand for Christ, shouting praises, giving thanks and enduring all suffering only to reside with our God for eternity. For more please visit www.dailykozak.blogspot.com Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com |