SCIENTISTS WITH A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW: A RESPONSE TO BAUMAN'S "FROM BEYOND THE LABORATORY: A THEOLOGIAN LOOKS AT SCIENCE" ° JAMES SELLERS ° Assistant Professor Mathematics Cedarville College ° JOSEPH FRANCIS ° Assistant Professor of Biology Cedarville College In his article, "From Beyond the Laboratory: A Theologian Looks at Science" (Faculty Dialogue 17 [Spring 1992]: 131-45), Michael Bauman discusses why be believes scientists "appear narrowly informed, unteachable, and as dogmatic as any ecclesiastical inquisition could ever hope to be." He supplies four observations to support his position. Our goal in this paper is to respond to Bauman's paper by discussing each observation individually, focusing on both areas of agreement, as well as points of dispute. As scientists, we find it very refreshing and exciting to have such an open dialogue between people of such differing backgrounds. Bauman begins his observations with a historical perspective. He notes that "science seems a far more fickle pursuit than theology, especially when viewed over time." He speaks of the stability of Christian orthodoxy, which has not required any fundamental change for almost two centuries. On the other hand, he states that fundamental scientific views have required several reorientations over the years and are constantly changing. Bauman points out that, over the years, several scientific worldviews have succeeded one another, forever changing the way scientists have viewed the world in which we live. Concerning this historical point, we have a couple of comments. First, we agree with Bauman that Christian doctrine has not fundamentally changed over time, although in this century alone, many issues (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, origins) have challenged, and even in some cases changed Christian beliefs. On the other hand, scientific thought has indeed gone through many changes. As scientists with a Christian worldview, this comes as no surprise. Our theological basis is the Word of God and the Rock, Jesus Christ, which do not and will not change. We can always rely upon the immutability of our God and His truth. In contrast, our scientific observations do not have such a "stable" source from which to draw conclusions. Hence, we are at something of a disadvantage as we strive to scientifically explain our world. However, this imperfection does not nullify the importance of science in our lives. While scientific worldviews do change, scientific truth does not (because all truth originates from God). It is simply the case that, as we strive to unfold this truth, we do not always hit the mark. Moreover, reorientation of scientific worldviews does not always imply that the older theory becomes negated or worthless. Finally, we note that many scientific theories have stood the test of time, including Newton's laws, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of gravity, and so on. These laws have not collapsed nor have they been overthrown. Bauman's second point is that scientists can tend to be dogmatic people, resistant to change, difficult to teach. In many ways, this is indeed a true statement. The following is an example of such dogmatism from the world of mathematics: Pythagoras (from whom we get the Pythagorean Theorem) was the leader of a religious sect which worshipped the "god" or concept of "number." He and his followers strongly held to the belief that all numbers were rational (that is, all numbers could be written as a ratio of two whole numbers, like 2/3 or 5/7). One of Pythagoras' followers discovered that, if he took a right triangle of sides with length 1, he would have a hypotenuse of length 2, the square root of two. He then proved that this number, the square root of two, is not rational and shared this with his colleagues. This discovery completely destroyed one of the foundational beliefs of the group. The story is then told that, rather than accepting the obvious fact of the existence of an irrational number, the Pythagoreans took their colleague out in a boat and drowned him. This is a perfect example of the dogmatism that can occur in our technical world. Bauman refers to such people as "proof-proof." As scientists who believe in literal creationism, we are often labeled as "dogmatic," just as one might label our evolutionary counterparts. However, we do point out here that we are willing to accept that both the theory of creation and the theory of evolution are exactly that, theories. Although we personally believe in the theory of creation as biblical truth, we do not strive to teach either theory as scientifically proven fact. It is disappointing to see some scientists claim that one or the other theory is fact when, in reality, neither has been proven as such. Although this is the case, some textbooks are now emphatically stating that the theory of evolution is a scientific law, which grossly misleads teachers and their students. We move to Bauman's third point, the most intriguing of the four. He discusses the mix between science and philosophical belief: ". . . scientists often fail to admit, sometimes even to recognize, that so many of these issues and findings of science are neither purely scientific nor genuinely empirical. . . . Scientific methods and conclusions cannot be purely empirical because the unavoidable philosophical and theological underpinnings upon which those scientific methods rely are not the result of those allegedly empirical methods." It is here that we must make an important distinction as scientists. We agree that the conclusions, as well as the assumptions made, can be heavily influenced by philosophical and theological beliefs. However, we must point out that scientific methods can be, and in many cases are, purely empirical. We must keep in mind that the actual experimentation in the laboratory and the collection of data is done (or at least can and should be done) regardless of a person's views. How that scientist interprets the findings is another matter. This was clearly seen in the cover story of the December 28, 1992, edition of Time magazine entitled, "What Does Science Tell Us About God?" The article begins with the following: Last spring, George Smoot, an American astrophysicist, added a little flourish to standard scientific procedure. After announcing some new findings, he consecrated them. Smoot's team of researchers had detected slight but persistent fluctuations in the universe's "cosmic background radiation"-echoes, he believes, of the Big Bang, the moment of creation. This excerpt from the article helps to clarify our point. Smoot's team discovered some new findings through observations. These findings were purely empirical, not relying on nor subject to any belief system. Then note the progression of the events. After producing the scientific results, Smoot and his colleagues interpreted them. Here is where the influence of philosophical belief enters the arena. Smoot "believes" that these fluctuations point us to the Big Band, the moment of creation. But neither Smoot nor anyone else can prove or disprove, via the scientific method, that a Big Bang ever occurred. Bauman moves on to reiterate his point by saying that "science intentionally operates according to a procedural agnosticism, if not atheism. That is, science operates as if God cannot be known or else as if He were altogether irrelevant, if not entirely absent." We beg to differ. First, science itself does not operate in any way. Scientists, however, do. Moreover, not all scientists work within agnostic or atheistic viewpoints. This is a crucial point. It needs to be understood that some scientists exist who believe in Jehovah God and His Son Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Admittedly, they may not be heard as often or as loudly as their counterparts, but they are out there. At our institution, we have approximately twenty faculty in our Science and Mathematics Department from a variety of fields including biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, and physics. Each of us works within our scientific discipline as followers of Christ. We use and teach the scientific method, while strongly proclaiming the existence and relevance of our great God. We believe that we have an obligation to do so. As Bauman writes, "God is the Lord of the entire world of knowledge, including science and technology." Fourth, Bauman moves to a call for skepticism of both "scientific taxonomy and of the translation of the world outside our heads into numbers." There seems here to be a mistrust of taxonomy and numbers. As we have stated above, it is not the taxonomy nor the numbers that cause disagreement. On the contrary, it is the interpretation made by the scientist after the experimentation that causes conflict. Again, we feel that the method used, whether it be quantification, observation, or some other form of data collection, should not (necessarily) be under scrutiny. It is the interpretation, or conclusion, which needs to be investigated for bias. For many years, science and theology have been viewed as bitter enemies, constantly in battle. As scientific Christians, we do not feel that this is a proper view. Science and technology are actually tied together by a common source, the omniscient God. We are very thankful to Michael Bauman for his article, especially for his desire that scientists listen to non-scientists as work is being done. We have tried to do exactly that, and hopefully have responded in a positive, constructive manner. We are also grateful to Faculty Dialogue for providing an avenue for such discussion. We close with an interesting note about the interrelationship between science and theology. Bauman's first footnote deals with the subject of creeds and their development. Towards the end of the note, he turns to the Apostles' Creed, observing that it "has been tested by long experience and careful, repeated reflection upon that experience in the light of Scripture and reason." Notice the scientific terminology present in the above quote: tested; experience; careful, repeated reflection. The implication seems to be that the Apostles' Creed has been verified by the scientific method, showing again that both theology and science are indeed interrelated and important to us as we strive to explain, and understand, the world in which we live. 7