While I was driving yesterday, I ended up listening to a Christian radio station. The hosts with a special guest pointed out how creationist students are persecuted by evolutionist professors. The special guest who was a former student in a secular university exaggeratedly related a story about a biology professor who would not write a recommendation letter for a student who did not affirm the truth of the theory of evolution. While I was listening, it dawned on me what exactly is the problem with the perspectives of fundamentalist creationists and dogmatic evolutionists. It appears to me that both of them are confused about the nature of a theory (especially a scientific one). I usually hear creationists claiming that the theory of evolution is a mere philosophical theory. So, they claim that it is not intellectually superior to creationism. On the other hand, evolutionists usually claim that the theory of evolution is actually a scientific theory, while creationism is a mere religious theory. For dogmatic evolutionists, a scientific theory (by virtue of being “scientific”) must be backed up by a bunch of experimentally acquired evidences, while a religious theory (by virtue of being “religious”) must be merely based on speculations, traditions, and superstitions. So, for dogmatic evolutionists, the theory of evolution is academically valuable, while creationism is not academically valuable. Let me propose a way to solve the tension. This tension is, for the most part, present only in the United States, considering that cultural and intellectual developments in the history of American Protestantism make such tension possible. American evangelicalism emerged from conservative / fundamentalist Protestantism in the early part of the 20th century that reacted to modernist tendencies of the academic culture in the U.S. The academic world, including mainline Protestant denominations, became open to scientific, philosophical, and political theories that were not friendly to Christianity as traditionally defined.
What is a theory? As far as I know, a theory is an explanatory model that integrates relevant and available data that are acquired through relevant and acceptable methodologies. Let me use examples from theology and science to illustrate my point here. In theology, doctrinal formulations can be treated as theories. A doctrinal formulation, for example, can provide a way to explain how God intervenes in human history or how God relates with humans. Relevant and available data for doctrinal formulation include the Bible, church history, historical creeds or confessions, or official decisions of ecclesiastical authorities. Relevant and acceptable methodologies for doctrinal formulation include critical exegeses of authoritative texts / traditions and critical engagements with the ever-changing cultures. On the other hand, in science, a theory provides a way to explain physical reality. Relevant and available data for scientific theorizing include experimentally acquired observations. Relevant and acceptable methodologies include appropriately designed experiments and correlations of the outcomes of experiments with widely accepted scientific theories, scientific data, and fundamental laws of nature. While the plausibility of a doctrinal formulation is determined by its faithfulness to classic ecclesiastical traditions, the plausibility of a scientific theory is determined by its explanatory and predictive powers. The explanatory power of a scientific theory, I suppose, is determined by the comprehensiveness of the scope of what it can explain, the coherence of all incorporated data, and the consistency of this particular theory with the fundamental laws of nature and other well accepted scientific theories and data. Its predictive power is determined by its productivity in making scientific predictions. It appears then that a scientific theory, unlike scientific data, cannot be confirmed as true through scientific experiments. If I am correct in my descriptions of theory-formation in the sciences, then a scientific theory is an act of piecing together independent scientific data. The act of piecing together is partly and inescapably a philosophical task. So, theory-formation in the sciences is not a purely scientific task. A philosophical task inherently involves interpretive tasks. In the case of theory-formation in the sciences, a theorist interprets the logical or structural connections among the relevant data, but it is not clear how such connections correspond to the actual connections that obtain in the external world.
The creationists are partly correct in pointing out that there is a philosophical element in the theory of evolution. Dogmatic evolutionists need to consider the philosophical element in the theory seriously in their explanations of such theory. So, dogmatic evolutionists incorrectly assume that the theory of evolution is purely scientific. However, creationists incorrectly conclude that the theory of evolution is a purely philosophical theory (so it’s not scientific at all). The philosophical element in such theory does not automatically disqualify it from being a scientific theory, considering that a scientific theory, according to my descriptions, includes a philosophical element. Evolutionists must emphasize not the truth of the theory of evolution. Rather, they must emphasize its plausibility based on its superior explanatory and predictive powers.
What is a theory? As far as I know, a theory is an explanatory model that integrates relevant and available data that are acquired through relevant and acceptable methodologies. Let me use examples from theology and science to illustrate my point here. In theology, doctrinal formulations can be treated as theories. A doctrinal formulation, for example, can provide a way to explain how God intervenes in human history or how God relates with humans. Relevant and available data for doctrinal formulation include the Bible, church history, historical creeds or confessions, or official decisions of ecclesiastical authorities. Relevant and acceptable methodologies for doctrinal formulation include critical exegeses of authoritative texts / traditions and critical engagements with the ever-changing cultures. On the other hand, in science, a theory provides a way to explain physical reality. Relevant and available data for scientific theorizing include experimentally acquired observations. Relevant and acceptable methodologies include appropriately designed experiments and correlations of the outcomes of experiments with widely accepted scientific theories, scientific data, and fundamental laws of nature. While the plausibility of a doctrinal formulation is determined by its faithfulness to classic ecclesiastical traditions, the plausibility of a scientific theory is determined by its explanatory and predictive powers. The explanatory power of a scientific theory, I suppose, is determined by the comprehensiveness of the scope of what it can explain, the coherence of all incorporated data, and the consistency of this particular theory with the fundamental laws of nature and other well accepted scientific theories and data. Its predictive power is determined by its productivity in making scientific predictions. It appears then that a scientific theory, unlike scientific data, cannot be confirmed as true through scientific experiments. If I am correct in my descriptions of theory-formation in the sciences, then a scientific theory is an act of piecing together independent scientific data. The act of piecing together is partly and inescapably a philosophical task. So, theory-formation in the sciences is not a purely scientific task. A philosophical task inherently involves interpretive tasks. In the case of theory-formation in the sciences, a theorist interprets the logical or structural connections among the relevant data, but it is not clear how such connections correspond to the actual connections that obtain in the external world.
The creationists are partly correct in pointing out that there is a philosophical element in the theory of evolution. Dogmatic evolutionists need to consider the philosophical element in the theory seriously in their explanations of such theory. So, dogmatic evolutionists incorrectly assume that the theory of evolution is purely scientific. However, creationists incorrectly conclude that the theory of evolution is a purely philosophical theory (so it’s not scientific at all). The philosophical element in such theory does not automatically disqualify it from being a scientific theory, considering that a scientific theory, according to my descriptions, includes a philosophical element. Evolutionists must emphasize not the truth of the theory of evolution. Rather, they must emphasize its plausibility based on its superior explanatory and predictive powers.
Comments