The problem lies in that too many Christians seem to be viewing science as the search for truth wherever it may lie. And that is understandable because we live in a society which has come to think that such truth does, indeed, lie within the grasp (eventually) of scientific inquiry. We have elevated science beyond its limited scope and into a role for which it was never intended: arbiter of truth. And if science is going to tell us what TRUTH is, we want to make sure that it is looking in all the right places!! Perfectly understandable.
But, science can not be that, no matter how much we would like it to. The scientific method is a tool, a single method of inquiry (among others) providing evidence and information about natural world, how it works, how it has worked (and here is the kicker) in its natural state. It is not meant to provide ALL the answers for what happens on earth, either in the past or in the present. Science can only provide a limited scope of inquiry because it uses very specific and limited tools. Any scientist who is a Christian will tell you that this is NOT because they have some agenda to leave out other areas of inquiry, like the supernatural, but because their tools and methods simply do not work to provide any analysis or testing or consideration of such phenomenon.
As the importance of science as an arbiter of truth has expanded, people have wanted to expand what science is and what it can do, but this will just not work. There is no way for science to work with anything but the natural. Does that mean science will necessarily get things wrong when there IS a supernatural cause, and science is constrained to look for natural causes? Well, yes and no. It would definitely get it wrong if we were expecting science to provide THE ANSWER to the question. But, if we treat science as we should, then all science would say on a subject is that X is the most likely of the possible natural explanations. Science does a good job at providing us with this answer, and we all must admit that (since God allows things to just happen naturally in all but a very few specific instances) this is almost always the right answer. And for those who have naturalistic philosophies, their inquiry goes no further. For those who do NOT have such a philosophy, they take that scientific conclusion on board and keep going on with their analysis.
What all of us Christians want is for people to take the supernatural into consideration where appropriate when making their ultimate decisions about important issues. We want that to be part of the discussion, and part of our analysis. And this is exactly what we SHOULD promote. But that does not mean that SCIENCE, as a professional discipline, can do this. Instead, rather than expand science to force it to inquire into the supernatural, we must relegate it back down to its place as simply providing us a part of the puzzle.
Now ID becomes an interesting middle ground. On the one hand, the actual ID scientists want to play by these rules and say that using natural evidence objectively, we can surmise a supernatural involvement. That is fine to an extent, since it is not trying to force science to analyze the supernatural at all, but simply consider the supernatural as part of the ultimate ANSWER to the natural evidence. Now, the scientific community could never confirm that the supernatural was or was not THE answer, since science is not equipped to do so. But, I suppose the ID proponents could attempt to establish by naturalistic evidence that there is an absolute failure of entirely natural explanations. But, my guess is that such a complete falsification is impossible, so we will never get there.
In the end, the proper "foe" is not science, it is not evolution or an old earth. If we were to combat anything it would that philosophical naturalism which goes beyond mere science, and simply refuses to accept anything beyond the natural. To that, I think Shakespeare had the best response:
"There is more to heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."
We should be encouraging an open mind regarding what might make up the "ultimate answers", not fighting over what the best naturalistic explanation might be. That is evolution, and an old earth, without doubt. We fight that battle and we merely do damage to the more important issue of worldview.
But, science can not be that, no matter how much we would like it to. The scientific method is a tool, a single method of inquiry (among others) providing evidence and information about natural world, how it works, how it has worked (and here is the kicker) in its natural state. It is not meant to provide ALL the answers for what happens on earth, either in the past or in the present. Science can only provide a limited scope of inquiry because it uses very specific and limited tools. Any scientist who is a Christian will tell you that this is NOT because they have some agenda to leave out other areas of inquiry, like the supernatural, but because their tools and methods simply do not work to provide any analysis or testing or consideration of such phenomenon.
As the importance of science as an arbiter of truth has expanded, people have wanted to expand what science is and what it can do, but this will just not work. There is no way for science to work with anything but the natural. Does that mean science will necessarily get things wrong when there IS a supernatural cause, and science is constrained to look for natural causes? Well, yes and no. It would definitely get it wrong if we were expecting science to provide THE ANSWER to the question. But, if we treat science as we should, then all science would say on a subject is that X is the most likely of the possible natural explanations. Science does a good job at providing us with this answer, and we all must admit that (since God allows things to just happen naturally in all but a very few specific instances) this is almost always the right answer. And for those who have naturalistic philosophies, their inquiry goes no further. For those who do NOT have such a philosophy, they take that scientific conclusion on board and keep going on with their analysis.
What all of us Christians want is for people to take the supernatural into consideration where appropriate when making their ultimate decisions about important issues. We want that to be part of the discussion, and part of our analysis. And this is exactly what we SHOULD promote. But that does not mean that SCIENCE, as a professional discipline, can do this. Instead, rather than expand science to force it to inquire into the supernatural, we must relegate it back down to its place as simply providing us a part of the puzzle.
Now ID becomes an interesting middle ground. On the one hand, the actual ID scientists want to play by these rules and say that using natural evidence objectively, we can surmise a supernatural involvement. That is fine to an extent, since it is not trying to force science to analyze the supernatural at all, but simply consider the supernatural as part of the ultimate ANSWER to the natural evidence. Now, the scientific community could never confirm that the supernatural was or was not THE answer, since science is not equipped to do so. But, I suppose the ID proponents could attempt to establish by naturalistic evidence that there is an absolute failure of entirely natural explanations. But, my guess is that such a complete falsification is impossible, so we will never get there.
In the end, the proper "foe" is not science, it is not evolution or an old earth. If we were to combat anything it would that philosophical naturalism which goes beyond mere science, and simply refuses to accept anything beyond the natural. To that, I think Shakespeare had the best response:
"There is more to heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."
We should be encouraging an open mind regarding what might make up the "ultimate answers", not fighting over what the best naturalistic explanation might be. That is evolution, and an old earth, without doubt. We fight that battle and we merely do damage to the more important issue of worldview.
