| The Presuppositions of Scientists
Someone asked me recently about the presuppositions that scientists bring
to their work. An interesting question! Since scientists are human, they
represent a wide range of philosophical positions. Remember science, like
all intellectual activity, takes place in a certain framework. The
curriculum in science at university is largely facts, theories and skills,
but it also includes attitudes.
A presupposition is an expectation assumed or taken for granted, often
because of prior conditioning. Presuppositions are rather different from
individual prejudices, which are generally taken care of by the procedure of
professional publication in research journals, reviewed by referees.
Some scientists hold presuppositions that Christians should challenge.
For example, think about the following list of presuppositions that are
taken for granted in much of the academic work we do in the university vs.
some Christian presuppositions.
About People
- Autonomous & independent vs. Accountable
- Natural & biological only vs. Spiritual
- Progressively 'improving' vs. Fallen and sinful
About the Universe
- Physical & mechanistic vs. Purposeful
- Complete & final vs. Part of reality contained in eternity
About Knowledge
- Objective only vs. Objective & subjective
- An END in itself vs. Leads to response and worship
It is important for science that no significant phenomena be ignored
without examining the evidence. There should ideally be no hidden agenda or
motive, other than the search for truth. Because of presuppositions some
scientists do not bother to examine the evidence for events like the
resurrection of Christ, since they take for granted that something like that
"can't happen". The best scientific response is to ask "did it happen?"
rather than to say "that can't happen!" This Christian belief, like so much
of science, rests on observational evidence - read John's Gospel chapter 20
"and he saw and believed"(verse 6).
Can you sense the role of presupposition in the following statements by
four well known scientists?
- Harvard genetics professor Richard Lewontin: "We take the side of
science, in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in
spite of its failure to fulfil many of its promises, in spite of the
tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated 'just-so'
stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism
.... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create
an apparatus of investigation, and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations. "
- Physicist Freeman Dyson: "I conclude from the existence of
coincidences in physics and astronomy that the universe is an unexpectedly
hospitable place for living creatures .... the architecture of the
universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays as essential
role in its functioning."
- British astro-physicist Sir Fred Hoyle, commenting on the delicate
positioning of the nuclear properties needed for the production of carbon
inside stars, wrote: "If you wanted to produce carbon by nucleosynthesis,
there are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have
to be just about where these levels are actually found to be. A common
sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there
are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."
- Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these
numbers (the fundamental constants of nature) seem to have been very
finely adjusted to make life possible. The odds against a universe like
ours emerging are so enormous that there must be religious overtones to
it, but most scientists prefer to shy away from that side of it."
|
