Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (24 page)

This problem is especially evident in science, where subjects like Darwinism and cosmology have worldview implications. The temptation is great to simply "count scholarly noses" without taking into consideration the powerful philosophical paradigm that dictates what kind of conclusions are acceptable.

TWO FACES OF SCIENCE

Whenever you hear the complaint, "Creation is not science," a subtle philosophical sleight of hand is in play. It capitalizes on an ambiguity between two completely different definitions of science.

The first definition is the most well known. Science is a
methodology
— observation, experimentation, testing — that allows researchers to discover facts about the world. Any view that does not follow the right methodology is not science. Presumably, this is why evolution succeeds and intelligent design fails.

The second definition of science involves the
philosophy
of naturalistic materialism. All phenomena must be explained in terms of matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that does not conform to this second definition is also not science.

There are two requirements, then, for an investigation of the natural world to qualify as scientific. First, one must use the right methods. Second, one must come up with the right
kind
of answers, those consistent with materialism. Usually, these two elements are not in conflict. Good methods produce answers completely consistent with matter in motion governed by natural law. But sometimes they are not compatible. Evolution is a case in point.

At first blush, it seems as if Darwinism is about scientific facts. But when facts suggest intelligent design, the second definition of science is surreptitiously invoked to label design as "unscientific.”

Take note here:
When there is a conflict between methodology and materialism, the philosophy always trumps the facts.
Modern science does not
conclude
from the evidence that design is not tenable. It
assumes
it prior to the evidence. Any scientific methodology (first definition of science) that points to creation is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition of science) as "religion disguised as science."

Douglas
Futuyma
, author of one of the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbooks, says, "Where science
insists on material, mechanistic causes
that can be understood by physics and chemistry, the literal believer in Genesis invokes
unknowable supernatural forces."
³

Those who believe in intelligent design, however, claim that these forces are knowable, at least in principle. Consider this analogy. When a dead body is discovered, an impartial investigation might indicate foul play and not an accident. If the body is bullet-ridden, chances are the death was not a result of natural causes. In the same way, scientific evidence could, in principle, indicate an agent in creation rather than chance. This is not faith vs. evidence, but evidence vs. evidence.

Clearly, the materialist paradigm is paramount, and everything must be done to save it. Harvard Genetics Professor Richard
Lewontin
is amazingly candid about this fact. In the
New York Review of Books
he makes this stunning admission:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science
in spite of
the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . .
in spite of
the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that 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, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
⁴

Here
Lewontin
admits that the apparatus of science is not geared to produce the truth, whatever it may be, but rather to produce philosophically acceptable answers. He openly admits that the game has been rigged.

Most
who
hold this prejudice are not so candid. In fact, the majority—confident their convictions rest on scientific fact not materialist philosophy—are not even aware of any problem. They show their hand, however, with telltale responses like "Creation is not science," or "Intelligent design is religion disguised as science."

These comments should always trigger questions:
"What specifically
disqualifies creation as science?" or "Why dismiss the idea of design in spite of the evidence?" Invariably, your Rhodes Scholar probing will reveal the real reason behind the rejection: bias, not fact. Creation of any sort is not the right
kind
of answer.

THE "HISTORICAL” JESUS

Science is not the only field where the game has been rigged. In the beginning of this chapter, I mentioned that this approach has also been applied to the Gospels. Whenever someone uses the word "scientific" to describe the way they look at history, they are signaling that materialistic philosophy governs the process.

Scholars from this school try to distinguish the Jesus of history from the miracle-working Jesus of faith. They assume, of course, there is a difference between the two. Why make this distinction?

In academics, everyone has a starting point. The place many scholars begin is not always clear to the public, but it is critical to understanding and evaluating their conclusions. Magazine stories about Easter are quick to point out that scholars reject the resurrection. But
why
do they reject it? A closer examination reveals their starting point. In a materialistic view of the universe, resurrections do not happen. Therefore, any reports of revived corpses must be myths added to the records years later.

Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar makes this clear: "The Gospels are now
assumed
to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is
embellished
by mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by
plausible fictions
that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first-century listeners."
⁵

The reasoning often goes something like this: The Gospels contain fabrications because they record events that are inconsistent with a "scientific" (i.e., materialistic) view of the world. Resurrection accounts, then, are myth. Furthermore, if Jesus predicts an event that comes to pass decades after his death (the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, for example), this must have been added after the event occurred, since prophecy (a kind of miraculous knowledge) is impossible. The Gospels, then, were written late and could not be eye-witness accounts.

Notice the significance of the starting point. When an academic begins with naturalism, a series of "facts" fall into place before any genuine historical analysis begins: The resurrection is an invention; the miracles are myths; there is no prophecy in the Bible; the Gospels were written long after the events took place and not by eyewitnesses. Starting with one's conclusions, though, is cheating. Nothing has been proved, only assumed.

Using the Rhodes Scholar tactic — asking for the scholar's reasons, not just his credentials — helps us flush out both the facts and the philosophy that may be corrupting the interpretation of the facts. This allows us to assess the scholar's opinion for ourselves rather than simply having to take it on faith.

Remember, reasons are more important than votes. If the reasoning is bad — if the facts are bad or the judgments are tainted by philosophic bias—it doesn't matter if you are talking with scholars or students, the view is still compromised.

NOT ALL BIAS IS EQUAL

Can the charge of bias be leveled at Christians? Certainly, and sometimes the charge is justified. Whenever someone has already taken sides on an issue, it is possible that he has not been evenhanded in his analysis.

It is not fair, though, to assume someone has
distorted the facts
simply because he has a stake in the matter. People who are not neutral can still be fair and impartial. Instead, you have to show that they have faltered by looking carefully at the evidence itself.

Not all forms of bias are equal. When a Christian deals with issues like science and history, it's fair to say he's biased because he brings certain assumptions to the process like everyone else. A Christian's bias, though, does not inform his conclusions the same way that biases inform the conclusions of scientists or historians restricted by a commitment to materialism.

The current bias of science arbitrarily eliminates certain answers before the game gets started. Many scientists and historians
must
come up with conclusions that leave the supernatural out of the picture because their philosophy demands it.

A theist is not so encumbered. She believes in the laws of nature, but also is open to the possibility of supernatural intervention. Both are consistent with her worldview. She can judge the evidence on its own merits, unhindered by a philosophy that automatically eliminates supernatural options before the evidence receives a hearing.

Ironically, the Christian's bias
broadens
her categories making her
more
open-minded, not less. She has a greater chance of discovering truth because she can follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's a critical distinction. Can bias make a person open-minded?
Under the right set of circumstances, absolutely.
⁶

Ultimately, the issue isn't bias, but distortion. It's unsound, for example, to say that because the gospel writers were Christians, their testimony cannot be trusted. Conversely, a nonbeliever's conclusions should not be dismissed because he is not among the "faithful." In both cases, we have to look at the reasons themselves. This is the heart of Rhodes Scholar.

WHAT WE LEARNED IN THIS CHAPTER

The Rhodes Scholar tactic gives us a tool to use when someone invokes scholarly opinion against our view. It protects us from a common error called the "fallacy of expert witness."

On the one hand, appealing to scholarly opinion is a legitimate way to make a point. Sometimes an expert is in a unique position to know the facts or render a judgment. But experts are not always right. Be on the lookout for appeals to scholarship that are misapplied.

Sometimes authorities weigh in outside of their area of expertise. Other times they get their facts wrong, or philosophical bias distorts their judgment. The key to Rhodes Scholar is getting past the
opinion
of a scholar and probing the
reasons
for his opinions. This is the difference between being informed and being educated.

Whether an alleged expert is offering facts or judgments, always ask for an accounting. How did he come to his conclusions? What are the facts, specifically? Are there any biases that seem to be distorting their assessment? With the reasons on the table, you are in a better position to judge if a scholar's conclusions are sound.

Don't be shaken by academic airs.
What
an expert believes is not as important as
why
he believes it. Fancy credentials are not enough. What matters most are not the opinions, but the
reasons.

THERE is an old TV police drama called
Dragnet
that you may have heard of, but probably have never seen unless you are over fifty or watch reruns — really
old
reruns. Two lines from Dragnet are still remembered to this day. The first is, "The names have been changed to protect the innocent." The second is, "Just the facts, ma'am," Detective Joe Friday's trademark request of whomever he questioned as a witness.