The Tools of Integrated Apologetics Course 1.5.2
Analysis Of Scientific Truth
Dr. Johnson C. Philip Revised By Erick Venden
Chapter -2
The Bible And Science
A clear picture emerges in the light of the foregoing discussion. It is clear that scientific information is split up into many branches of science that have differing levels of reliability. They range from the most unreliable to the most certain kind of information. Scientists use different technical words to represent the types and reliability of this information. Some of these words are: hypothesis, conjecture, opinion, interpretation, school of thought, approximation, deductions, theory, observations, data, facts, laws, etc. Of these, categories like hypothesis and opinion might have no reliability at all, while data and facts might be reliable beyond doubt. In the matter of reliability the other categories would lie between these two extremes.
Since it is difficult to remember all the above categories, it is helpful to divide them into two categories: theories and facts. In the above division, all those categories of information that are not one hundred per cent sure are classified as THEORIES. All those categories of information that are reliable and beyond any doubt are called FACTS. Theories are often replaced by other theories, or are even totally rejected. Facts do not change with time. Obviously, unestablished theories cannot be used for questioning the Bible. There is no guarantee that the theory itself is right. Only the FACTS and LAWS of science can be used for any meaningful dialogue or interaction between science and the Bible.
The above condition must be used by Christian apologists in every place where they discuss Bible and science. They should never allow anyone to attack the Bible and the Christian faith on the basis of any theory or unestablished statement of science. When this is kept in mind, many of the problems will disappear. In fact, most of the attacks against the Bible and where the enemies of the Bible seem to win, are based on theories, and NEVER on facts.
Model-Making In Science
Model-making is a special activity of modern science that must be understood by every Apologist. This is because scientific models are often used to attack the Bible, though this is not a fully legitimate way of combat. To help us understand this subject we shall begin with an introduction to Models Of Science. Everyone has seen a globe. A globe is a miniature model of the earth that helps us to visualise what the earth looks like. Models are very helpful when studying phenomena that cannot easily be seen or handled. It is easy, using a globe to show the relative placement of various countries, and also that a certain country is exactly on the opposite side of the globe. No amount of flat-map study can be as enlightening as the study of the spherical globe. Thus, though the globe is not the earth itself, it is still a useful "model" of the earth. Various things can be studied, guessed, and investigated with the help of the model. This is precisely the function of scientific models. On facing a very complex structure (like the atom, or a molecule), scientists try to represent it with the help of a model. Then they study both the model and the reality, and try to modify the model so as to correspond as closely as possible to the reality. Such model-making has been very helpful in studying physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, etc. In fact, the universe and the things in it are often so complex that scientists cannot proceed in any subject these days without model-making.
Models are of two types: Qualitative and Quantitative. Both serve the purpose of research and investigation, but their scientific reliability is different.
QUALITATIVE MODEL (Descriptive Models): A model that is constructed merely on the basis of "description" is called a Qualitative Model. For example, when the four blind men who study the elephant, combine their observations and arrive at a mental picture of the elephant, this mental picture is a Qualitative Model. Having no eyes, they can never see the elephant in one glance, yet combining the descriptions of its various body parts gives them the capacity to guess what the elephant might look like. However, this guess can often be at variance with the original. Historical, Legal, and Logical reconstruction of past events is, in fact, a kind of model-making. Here researchers or investigators construct various descriptive models, and then rule out all those that are impossible. In this way they arrive at a few (or even a single) model that is closest to reality. This kind of investigation is very important for Archaeology, History, and the Law Courts of every country.Qualitative Models often help researchers, but their use is limited. The more complex phenomena in the Universe have to be studied with the help of the Quantitative Model.
QUANTITATIVE MODELS (Mathematical Models): A Quantitative Model is a model that has a definite mathematical relationship with the object represented by it. Consider a map of our country, for example. Somewhere at the bottom there will be a number saying something like :100,000,000. This means that one part on the map is equivalent to 100,000,000 parts of the country. Thus the distance between two points on the map can be multiplied by this number to get the actual distance between those two points. Similarly, most globes would also mention the proportion, so that a rough calculation of the actual distance between two points can be made.
Then there are Quantitative Models that are represented purely by mathematical equations. For example, the equation x2 + y2 =a2 represents a circle or radius ‘a’. A great deal of information about this circle can be deduced from this equation. Not only geometrical shapes, but also particles in motion, the flight path of an artificial satellite, and even the weather of a country can be represented this way. Language, the way in which traffic flows on a busy day, the way in which global climate changes, can also be represented with the help of Quantitative Models. Quantitative Models of physical objects like atoms and molecules are often quite reliable. On the other hand, Quantitative Models of weather, language, sociological behaviour, etc. are still in their infancy. Perhaps scientists will never be able to represent these things fully with the help of Quantitative Models.
VALUE AND LIMITS OF MODELS: Model-making is an inseparable part of modern scientific endeavour. No progress is possible without this activity. However, a model in itself is not the "actual truth". It is only a representation of the truth. Further, in the case of very complex phenomena, a model is only a possible representation of truth. There might be many other possible representations of this same phenomenon. Thus the development of a model of any phenomenon does not mean that we have arrived at the final truth. Rather, all that one can decide is which model seems to be closer to the truth. Thus the Theory Of Evolution as well as Scientific Creation are both models of science. Both of them try to explain the origin of life and associated phenomena. However, evolutionists cannot claim that their model represents THE truth. Rather, they have to admit that their model represents one possible way in which things might have taken place.
For any further discussion on Evolution/Creation, both models have to be tested. The model that is able to do the following two things is considered the superior one (closer to reality):
1-It should be able to explain the maximum number of observed phenomena related to life.
2-It should be able to make the maximum number of predictions about phenomena related to life, but not observed so far.
Whichever model outperforms the other one is to be accepted as the better one, and closer to reality. The reader will be happy to note that in every way the Scientific Creation model turns out to be superior to the Evolution Model.
SUMMARY: Models are not truth in themselves, but only a representation of truth. Thus Christian apologists should be careful to emphasize the limits and boundaries of models. Further, they should remember that a model very popular today might seem like foolishness tomorrow. For example, the Big Bang Theory of the Universe was very popular in the sixties and seventies. Scientists started questioning it in the eighties, and it seems that very soon it will be rejected. Models have only a very limited role to play in the Bible/Science/Logic debates. Models do not represent the final truth, and thus they cannot be used to question statements in the Bible.
Analysis Of Scientific Truth
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats