# What is a useful scientific theory that includes God in its mechanisms?



## caddy (Jan 7, 2008)

_Name a useful scientific theory that includes God in its mechanisms. You said you have a long list, I'd love to see it. So far all the God-following scientists you named seemed to produce only Godless theories._

This question was just asked of me from my unbelieving friend. Help me out here if you would.


----------



## puritan lad (Jan 7, 2008)

A short answer is that all scientific laws are built on inductive reasoning, and inductive reason can only make sense in God's universe. Inductive reasoning assumes that nature is uniform, and that there are universal, invariant laws governing the created order, not randomness.

It is no accident that the scientific age itself came about in the Western, Christian part of the world. Newton, Maxwell, Keppler, etc. were all Christians (though there has been some question about Newton).


----------



## Davidius (Jan 7, 2008)

The law of gravity is useful. Science has no explanation for it.

[bible]Colossian 1:17[/bible]

As Scott mentioned, scientists should be reminded that induction is fallacious reasoning and can never provide absolute truth. Even with something like gravity, there's nothing about throwing a ball into the air and seeing it fall down 10 times which logically implies that it will fall down on the eleventh. They'll probably laugh at this and pretend like it doesn't matter, but then again, most of them are also fools who say in their heart that there is no God.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Jan 7, 2008)

Hello Gentlemen,

I think Puritan Lad gave a good answer.

It is not so much that Christian Natural Philosophers, like Newton, so much made explicit God's actions in their theories, but rather they assumed that nature was governed by God such that it makes sense to look for uniformity in nature. In other words, Newton's worldview was such that it made sense to think that there existed laws like F=ma. Because God governers the universe, and God is a God of order, then there would be such laws that would characterize how things in the universe relate to each other. 

The sad thing about this is that many scientists forgot the foundation for this type of inductive reasoning. They started with this foundation, and then at some point decided they no longer needed it - but rather kept what was already built from this foundation. This is what I like about presuppositionalism. It does not allow atheists to have the structure without the foundation. It points out that the structure they want to operate under is not supported with their presuppositions. 

Brian


----------



## caddy (Jan 7, 2008)

Thanks Guys...


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jan 7, 2008)

I am old earth. I think Huge Ross' view is a valid one which brings both a scriptural and scientific view together.


Reasons To Believe: Frequently Asked Questions


----------



## caddy (Jan 7, 2008)

PCA's Position:

Presbyterian Church of America 

PCA Report on Creation


----------



## sastark (Jan 7, 2008)

Steven, I highly recommend _The Soul of Science_ by Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton.

But, in the meantime, here are some points to raise with your friend:

Christianity provided (and continues to provide) the philosophical framework necessary for scientific investigation. Traditional "Creation Theology" (as Christopher Kaiser refers to it as) provided the following basic precepts:

a. *Comprehensibility of the World*. That is, since man is made in the image of God, he is able to investigate the world and "think God's thoughts after Him." Going along with this, is the idea that only God is infinite and the world is not. Since the world is finite, we can know it and comprehend it.
b. *Unity of Heaven and Earth*. The Bible makes no distinction between the sub- and super-lunar realms, which is how the Cosmos were divided in Greek thought. In contrast to this, Creational theology teaches that the heavens are made of the same substance of the earth, subject to the same laws. Thus, we can hypothesize about the nature of the heavens by forming theories fro earthly experiments.
c. *Relative Autonomy of Nature*. By this, I mean the self-sufficiency nature possesses by virtue of the fact that God has granted it laws of operation. We can study these laws and by doing so, gain more knowledge about creation. If nature did not operate by law(s), how could science ever develop?
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Christianity and science, and I would be glad to provide you with more info, if you like. 

BTW - The above three points come from C_reational Theology and the History of Science _by Christopher B. Kaiser, Brill, 1997.


----------



## sotzo (Jan 7, 2008)

caddy said:


> _Name a useful scientific theory that includes God in its mechanisms. You said you have a long list, I'd love to see it. So far all the God-following scientists you named seemed to produce only Godless theories._
> 
> This question was just asked of me from my unbelieving friend. Help me out here if you would.



1. As mentioned above, the very inductive foundation on which science is predicated is unaccounted for in a random universe. Hume understood this quite well...enough to admit that he could not really know the sun would rise tomorrow. A good listen for your friend would be the famous Bahnsen-Stein debate where Bahnsen asks Stein what the latter's answer would be to Hume...In other words,, if a scientist trust induction, on what basis can he/she do so.

2. God is not an answer to *any* scientific question, strictly speaking. If I hypothesize that the result of a specific experiment will be X, then the result is either X or non-X. Is your friend contending that he needs to find a result where X or non-X equals God? And that this will show that God exists? But the assumption there is that only those things exist that can be demonstrated scientifically. Ask your friend to show you a scientific test that demonstrates that only those things exist that can be demonstrated scientifically and then show him how you are both on the same footing - that is, presupposing the condition of ultimate reality and deducing what is possible from there. At base, you are both very *un*scientific...it is just that in your case, you admit that where as he won't.


----------



## BrianLanier (Jan 8, 2008)

Davidius said:


> The law of gravity is useful. Science has no explanation for it.
> 
> [bible]Colossian 1:17[/bible]
> 
> As Scott mentioned, scientists should be reminded that induction is fallacious reasoning and can never provide absolute truth. Even with something like gravity, there's nothing about throwing a ball into the air and seeing it fall down 10 times which logically implies that it will fall down on the eleventh. They'll probably laugh at this and pretend like it doesn't matter, but then again, most of them are also fools who say in their heart that there is no God.



Davidius,

How is induction *fallacious*? And can you deduce that <induction is fallacious> is an absolute truth? Are you saying that we can't have *knowledge* by induction? No offense, but not just scientists will laugh at this, but nearly *all* philosophers of logic will too. (Of course, I only know *this* by induction )


----------



## caddy (Jan 8, 2008)

sastark said:


> Steven, I highly recommend _The Soul of Science_ by Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton.
> 
> But, in the meantime, here are some points to raise with your friend:
> 
> ...


 

Thank you Seth. I'll pick this up. I have read Pearcy's Book "Total Truth." It was very good.


----------



## sastark (Jan 8, 2008)

caddy said:


> Thank you Seth. I'll pick this up. I have read Pearcy's Book "Total Truth." It was very good.



Glad to hear that about _Total Truth_. I just received my copy and am going to start reading it today.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 8, 2008)

BrianLanier said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > The law of gravity is useful. Science has no explanation for it.
> ...



Yes, before black swans were discovered, it was inductively assumed that all swans were white. If I ask ten people for whom they will vote in the election and they all say Obama, he will not necessarily win. It is impossible to take all instances of a phenomenon into consideration; they cannot all be observed. Therefore, a sure conclusion can only be hypothesized. This is not a new idea. I remember reading in Bahnsen that the skepticism of Hume has yet to be answered in a non-presuppositional framework.


----------



## BrianLanier (Jan 8, 2008)

Davidius said:


> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



Ok, induction doesn't yield maximal warrant, but so what? Does *that* somehow make induction "fallacious" as you stated? Can't a cognizer be warranted _enough_ via induction to to have knowledge (more than mere true belief), e.g., memory? Just because inductive beliefs may turn out to be false, it doesn't follow that *all* inductive beliefs are false ("fallacious"). And just because Bahnsen said it . . . well again, so what? It seems as if you are assuming classical foundationalism, internalism, and infalliablism. All three have their fair share of problems.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Jan 9, 2008)

Hello Brian and Davidius,

It strikes me that before this argument can be settled you two need to agree on what is meant by the proposition: "Induction is fallicious." Davidius seems to be using some type of definition along the lines: A reasoning process is _fallicious_ if and only if the conclusion does not provide absolute truth (when the premises are true). I (inductively) inferred this from his posts.  Brian seems to be using a definition along these lines: A reasoning process is _fallicious_ if and only if the conclusion does not provide enough warrant for a belief to be considered knowledge. Again, I am inferring this from what Brian posted. These two definitions are not the same, and as such you are talking past each other.

My opinion on the matter is that the term 'fallicious' in this type of context is the adjective of the noun form 'fallacy'. Fallicies in logic are classified as 'formal' and 'informal'. However, all informal fallicies are fundamentally based on some formal fallacy. All formal fallacies are argument forms such that if the premises are true it is not necessarily the case that the conclusion is true. All inductive arguments are fallicies of this sort. So, in this sense, one can say all inductive arguments are fallicious. Again, this is only to be understood in this sense. 

Now, the problem with such a narrow definition is that the way we know premises are true mainly comes from inductive processess. Even our hermeneutic and other processes we use to determine what Scripture says is mainly inductive. With such a narrow definition, then we would have to conclude that our reasoning regarding Scripture is fallicious. If we do not want to say this, then we need to adopt a less narrow definition for 'fallicious'. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## puritan lad (Jan 9, 2008)

Induction is only "fallicious" in an atheistic worldview. Induction, for the Christian, makes sense because "...he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17)


----------



## caddy (Jan 9, 2008)

Meteorite Craters Challenge Young-Earthism

PaleoScene Prehistoric Wonders for All Ages

Thoughts on these. I have been talking with Glen ( His Bio )

StatCounter.com code for Glen Kuban's Paluxy sites 12-4-04

who has done some extensive field work on the Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy (Dinosaur Footprints)

Paulxy site near Glen Rose, Texas.

Glen is a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, and a member of the Mid-America Paleontology Society and other paleontological societies, and am active in several fossil clubs; however, my Paluxy work has been conducted independent of any organization or institution. 

Thoughts?


Paluxy


----------



## Civbert (Jan 9, 2008)

puritan lad said:


> Induction is only "fallacious" in an atheistic worldview. Induction, for the Christian, makes sense because "...he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17)



While a Christian worldview may give us more confidence in some of our inductive reasoning, it does not cure the "problem of induction". The fallacy of induction is still the fallacy of induction - the conclusion does not follow by logical necessity. 'All swans are white' and 'all crows are black' are still invalid conclusion because they are based on inductive reasoning...regardless of one's worldview.


PS: Here's another article on "the problem of induction".


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 9, 2008)

How about the theory regarding the structure of the atom? If like charges repel and unlike charges attract, then why does the atom hold itself together? The only charge in the nucleus is that of protons (positive) and that of neutrons (neutral). Therefore the overall charge in the nucleus is positive, and the nucleus ought to not hold itself together, but rather repel itself apart. Additionally, the surrounding electrons are negative, and therefore ought to attract the protons and neutrons outward from the center towards the outside. 

Scientists explain this with some sort of "nuclear force" that the electrons generate to perform such a job. But, where does this mysterious force come from? I prefer to answer with Col. 1:17; "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." God governs all of nature directly with his power, and were he to withdraw his hand, all of nature would be chaos, right down to its very atoms.

Blessings!


----------



## Civbert (Jan 9, 2008)

BrianLanier said:


> Does *that* somehow make induction "fallacious" as you stated? Can't a cognizer be warranted _enough_ via induction to to have knowledge (more than mere true belief), e.g., memory? Just because inductive beliefs may turn out to be false, it doesn't follow that *all* inductive beliefs are false ("fallacious").


 Fallacious does not mean false. And "warrant" is another can of worms.


----------

