Wednesday, April 3, 2013

B.H.S. Biblical Historical Science: My philosophy of science

    Over the years I have studied the creation evolution debate.  Now, I see how it is just tip of the iceberg of the naturalistic and judeo-christian worldviews. In this debate I have slowly developed my own philosophy of science.  I have studied three thinkers most for this subject.

E.Y.Mullins)  Mullins is a baptist theologian and philosopher,  he was the primary architect for the southern baptist denomenation. ( he drafted the 1925 Baptists Faith and Message, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary(30yrs), designed the International missions board, was president of the sbc and baptist world alliance)

Gordon H. Clark) was a philosopher and later a theologian. Considered one of the greatest philosophers in the 20th century.  He mentored later thinkers such as Carl Henry, Ronald Nash and John W. Robbins

Henry M. Morris)  Founder of the modern creation science movement.  A scientist in the fields of geology and hydrology. Later a decent bible scholar.

Edgar Young Mullins)  Mullins might seem an odd pick in the since that he was not a young earth creationist.  However Mullins specialty was in the field of religion.  He expounded the baptist religion better than any other in his book "the Axioms of Religion."  And it must be said that in the 20th century the SBC best survived modernity better than any other mainline denomination.
  Mullins had 2 major argument on the issue of science and faith.
A. The religious experience is an empiracle proof of christianity.  Thus showing religious knowledge as valid knowledge.
B. That the Bible doesn't use scientific language.
  On one hand Mullins was weak in the since of defending the finer points of scripture, and allowing liberalism to creep in the denomenation.(though it was without him already.)  However his empirical case for religion related well to the common man.(as the song goes "you ask me how I know He lives 'He live within my heart!)
  Also understanding that the language of the bible is not scientific might seem elementary to some.  But it is one of the primary tactic in indoctrinating young students into the idea of the Bible being contradictory. 
For instance in the torah moses teaches that a bug has four legs. (sounds rediculous right?)
But He also describes a spider when they use their hands.  So when they are saying an insect has four legs, it is because they classify the first two legs as hands.  Also a record number may be a recorded number; or it may be an estimate.  These linguistic issues must be instilled into people before they judge the scripture for disagreeing.

Gordon H. Clark) Is both an influential and Isolated thinker.  His approach is more strictly philosophical. In his book "Religion, Reason and Revelation" Dr. Clark traces the history of Western Philosophy starting with the Work of Thomas Aquinas onward.  He evaluates each system since in light of the problem of authoritative certainty.  Whether it be Descarte,locke, Hume, Kant, marx, or neitzche every system of thought contradicts itself and is incapable of arriving at abosolute certainty.  Thus the worldview of nihilism envelops them all.  After the philosophical genocide, christianity is the only worldview left.
  In terms of the religion science debate. Clarks perspective is to philosophically disable the authority of science especially in terms of discussing eternal issues.
Clark's argument is as such. (my interpretation of clark anyhow)
A.  Our sense experience is limited.  We only observe so much.  We can not assume that everything is uniformly the same because we can not prove such an assumption. Even scientific law is waiting to simply be disproved. And on occaisions there are contradictions in assumed scientific knowledge.  Therefore, science simply does not have the authority to overturn scriptural eternal truth.(biblical revelation)
B. Clark would also spend time reconciling scriptural discrepancies.

The weakness of clark views comes in two areas.  It doesn't give a place for empirical truth. In other words there is no point of contact between the two systems. This is a common problem with presuppositional apologetics.  However, clark system is more rational than Cornelius Van Til's.(Van Til refuses to defend the bible against rational scrutiny.) Still there is a block as to how to get from a pagan world view to christian.  Certainly you could destroy the opposition, but that doesn't guarantee that they will affirm your view.  They will simply invent a new worldview.  Also Clark assumes religion to be his denominational creed.(Westminster confession of Faith)  When the christian world doesn't agree with this confession.(even fellow presbyterians)

Henry M. Morris) is not much of a philosopher as much as he is a biblical science ideolog.  Morris trust in two principles.  1st that the scripture is propositional truth. 2nd that general revelation will guide believers in affirmation of scriptural truths.
Morris has no handicapps that modern christians do when it comes to scientific objection.  He knows the evidence is out there, So he goes about gathering it.  While most Christians have to think inside the box, during the evolution debate, Morris is existing on a different plant putting the final pieces of the puzzle together.
Unfortunately Morris was not as strong in philosophically answering these issues.  While his creationist ancestors had a field day destroying evolutionary arguments,  they would often give up ground to the Intelligent design movement because they focus on their doppelgangers unique compromises. (paper beats rock!)

So Now I have tried to learn from these intellectual giants and gleam from them a more potent approach to the naturalistic worldview.  to add Mullins pragmatism with Clarks skepticism and morris' biblical science research and here is what I propose in B.H.S.
Biblical Historical Science




Propositions:
1.  The biblical Worldview is assumed as a result of the experience of the gospel through regeneration(born-again).
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

10 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"




2. Philosophy is then armed with Biblical logic.  There is criticism of other forms of knowledge in contradiction with the scripture.  Since this knowledge contradicts scripture, which is objectively true, it will contradict the truth in other ways as well.
2Corinthians 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ


3.The first way is in epistemology,  where no secular system has yet to defend the notion of objective truth, which is the foundation for all knowledge.  Until secularism can cling to an objective authority, suspicion as to it's truthfullness is justified.

Job 38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?  3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.  4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."
Ecclesiastes 1:1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. 3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. 5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.


4.  When we looked to knowledge, the next valid form of knowledge is history.  History is superior to science in the sense that science is observation of the present while history is observation of the past.  Even present science will become history!
Ecclesiastes 12:11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. 12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
  So scientific speculation of the past is inferior to historical record. Another point is that history must be utilized as evidence might be recorded which might not be revisited in the next generation or even impossible to reobserve.

5.  Scientific evidence is true.  However it is not objective knowledge. All interpretation of evidence is subject to revision.


6.  The softer sciences: metaphysics, psychology, religion, cryptozoology are understood as real.  Yet are not capable of full comprehension through scientific research.  These mysterious sectors should be left to revelation to interpret.


7. Politics should be informed through a biblical worldview.  In understanding a biblical Worldview, humanity has a natural antagonism towards the moral authority of Scripture.  As a result not only is this worldview rejected, but there is a great deal of propaganda used which christians should be wary to.
(darwinian fraudulent fossils, nazi/soviet corruption of science propaganda, environmentalist's global warming fraud, gay rights agenda(kinsey) etc.)
1Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;


8.  Creation Science evidences that are not directly referenced in the scripture are still subjective and can be overturned. (as well as theories may be altered) However established evidences which are overturned by a naturalist skeptic are subject to defense and/or further investogation.  Afterall their false presuppositions could be warping their acceptance or rejection.



2 comments:

Kobus Downey said...

Well said. Even creationists can hypothesise and get it wrong. However, it is important that we ALWAYS keep the word of God in principle as objective, absolute truth.

Pastor Matt Singleton said...

Thank you Kobus :)

Yes creationist can get it wrong and that's what makes them scientists! Evolutionist like to label creations science pure religion saying that we have no answers and no theories to test. In terms of the Gobal Flood creation scientist have proposed: the Water canopy theory, the vapor canopy theory, the catastrophic plate tectonic theory, the ice canopy theory, the tectonic hyrdoplate theory and the hovind theory!
It seems to me like we have lots of answers.
also i think that creationist have been lacking in terms of philosophy. For some reason there is a "great divorce" between philosopher/christian apologists and creation scientists. I understand this probably developed since christianity was a minority in academia and every idea must fend for itse'f. But as we draw near the end times it is time for us to pool our resources together as opposed battle with our little corners of truth.
As hopefully you will nottice in other articles how these religions do not stand up to a fully biblical worldview.