Bible Science... |
The Roots of Modern Science |
by Donald Chittick |
The Roots of Modern ScienceHistorically, most of the highly productive early modern scientists (e.g., Boyle, Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur) believed in creation. This was still true of most scientists even as recently as 150 years ago. In our day, however, this is no longer the case. A majority of present-day scientists believe in evolution. What caused the change? Why was there a move from belief in creation to belief in evolution? It is surprising how many people think that scientific discoveries caused the shift in belief. This is not the case. A close examination of history and the creation-evolution issue reveals this shift in belief was associated with a change in world view rather than new scientific discoveries. A brief historical review will help us clarify this point. The Basis of Modern Science The rise of modern science began only a few hundred years ago. Numerous historians and scholars have noted the fact that this rise was associated with Christianity.'1 Historian Robert G. Frank, Jr., for example, recognizes this association in his review of a book on the subject: Generations of historians of science have been intrigued by the possibility of a relation between two pivotal sets of events in the history of early modern Europe: the transformations that go under the names of the "Protestant Reformation" and the "Scientific Revolution." … …Was the one's succeeding the other merely a chronological accident? Or was there a causal relationship between the two? . . . [the author's] general argument: the predominant forms of scientific activity during England's Puritan decades can be shown to be a direct outgrowth of a Puritan ideology. The argument is a stunningly convincing one.2 Why did modern science start from a culture with a Christian base? The reasons are not difficult to determine. A proper philosophical base for investigating the universe was needed and the Christian doctrine of creation provided that base. The Creator established laws for people and laws for the natural world. A created universe was expected to have design, order, and purpose. Man, using his created rational mind, could study this ordered universe in a rational way and seek to discover its laws; and modern science is based on the assumption of scientific law. In addition, moral laws given by the Creator established the ethical base for science. Scientists must be honest and truthful. By contrast, if the universe were not created, it must have come to its present state by the impersonal interaction of the material of the universe itself. No intelligence would have been involved. With such a philosophy, there would be no reason to expect such a universe to operate in a rational way. Man's mind would also be a product of the same chance universe. It should not be capable of rationally studying anything. Hence, a materialist philosophy of this sort would tend to discourage one from becoming a scientist. In his book Escape From Reason, Francis Schaeffer notes the view of the well-known scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer to emphasize this point: What we have to realize is that early modern science was started by those who lived in the consensus and setting of Christianity. A man like J. Robert Oppenheimer, for example, who was not a Christian, nevertheless understood this. He has said that Christianity was needed to give birth to modern science. ["On Science and Culture", Encounter, October 1962] Christianity was necessary for the beginning of modern science for the simple reason that Christianity created a climate of thought which put men in a position to investigate the form of the universe… The early scientists also shared the outlook of Christianity in believing that there is a reasonable God, who has created a reasonable universe, and thus man, by use of his reason, could find out the universe's form.3 Thus Christianity, with its doctrine of creation, provided a firm philosophical foundation for scientifically investigating the universe. This explains why so many of the early scientists were Christians. It also explains why science did not develop in the Eastern countries with their materialist philosophies and pantheistic religions. They simply did not have the proper philosophical base. In fact, modern science would probably not have arisen at all had it not been for the Christian base. Creation is the foundation on which modern science began. As creationists, the early scientists could approach their study of nature with enthusiasm. They could expect positive results from their study of science because they believed the natural world to be one of law and order, and they believed that using their rational minds they could search for that order and find those laws. Not only did the early scientists expect to find the laws of nature, they ran up a very impressive record of discovering those laws. It is instructive and exciting to study the biographies and the accomplishments of some of the early modern scientists.4 Names of productive early scientists easily come to mind. We can think of:
Even more convincing is the fact that these early scientists themselves stated in their writings that their enthusiasm for science was a direct result of their belief in creation. They were motivated by the belief that the universe, the world, and life came into being by direct acts of the Creator and that by studying and learning about the universe, they could reflect glory back to the Creator and be productive as scientists. Early modern scientists believed that the universe had a supernatural origin, rather than a naturalistic one. The Shift toward Naturalism In our day, however, the situation is quite different from that of the early days of science. Now most scientists (but by no means all) believe in some form of evolution. They no longer believe that life arose by direct supernatural acts of a Creator. Now, naturalistic philosophy reigns. What were the causes of this change? As we already noted, it was not the discovery of new scientific information. "If we ask why scientists rejected creationism in the 19th century in favor of evolution, then part of the answer must be that they rejected super-natural explanations of phenomena that appeared to be susceptible to naturalistic explanations, and to that extent adoption of evolutionary theory accompanied a decline in the strength of religious belief.5 The change came about as a result of a shift in the philosophy used by scientists, a shift toward anti-supernaturalism. The idea of direct acts of creation was rejected in favor of an explanation of origins from a naturalistic point of view using only the laws of chemistry and physics. Nothing supernatural was involved in the new explanation. This trend was also accompanied by a general decline in "religious" faith. Charles Darwin and Religion Charles Darwin himself experienced such a religious decline. There are some who think that Darwin accepted the theory of evolution only after many, many years of studying the subject. This, however, is not the case. As his religious faith ebbed, his faith in evolution developed. It came in to fill up the void that was being left by his rejection of creation.6 It wasn't that evolution was such an attractive theory; one that provided a better interpretation of scientific fact. Rather it was all that was left to fill the void created by his rejection of the alternative of special creation. Darwin's move away from creation was not just a passive rejection of one philosophy and acceptance of a new one. Instead, he actively tried to fight the creation view and those who held it. This fact has been observed by those who have studied his work. Dov Ospovat, in his review of the book Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, notes that the author "shows that theological considerations played a major role in the biological science of Darwin's day, including Darwin's, and from this he argues that the reason there is so much theology in the Origin is that theological issues were still live ones for Darwin and, more important, that special creation was a 'living and powerful idea' among his professional colleagues, one that required him to attack it with whatever weapons would be effective, including ridicule."7 Although Darwin's name is associated with the popularization of evolution, he was not the first one nor the only one of his time to reject supernatural creation A general move away from supernatural creation had begun many years earlier in the culture at large, with theologians and philosophers leading the way. Some leading theologians were more ready to accept evolution than were scientists. Scientists themselves were somewhat slow to accept evolution since scientific facts did not seem to support it (as even Darwin himself noted). Evidence from the fossil record was particularly lacking, a fact which bothered Darwin greatly. He was also troubled by the abundant evidence of design in nature, the eye being a prime example. The facts of science were not what led to a rejection of creation and acceptance of evolution. Rather, what led to that rejection was a change in philosophy or theology; it was a change from one world view to an opposing one. Those who have studied the Darwinian Revolution, such as well-known scientist and evolutionist Ernst Mayr, have noted and emphasized this point:
Although I do not agree with all his points Mayr has summarized well the nature
of the Darwinian Revolution—a revolution rooted in a philosophical shift
that has continued right up to the present day. |
