Science, Faith, and Objectivity

I appreciate very much those who have written comments for this blog discussion. Your insights have helped in forming some of my own thoughts. My good friend, Dr. Pierce, has raised many questions. Today I will focus on the philosophical concepts of “science” vs. “faith” and the alleged objectivity of scientists vs. subjectivity of people of faith.

In comparing the field of science to “faith-based” religion, Rob draws an image of scientists as universally objective, honest, and ever-ready to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it means dramatically changing their worldview should the evidence demand it. In contrast, people of faith are wholly subjective if not also dishonest, forming opinions first then stubbornly holding to them against mounds of evidence to the contrary. In Rob’s own words, “This is actually the ultimate difference between science and faith. In science, we are always open to changing what we think of as truths. In faith-based religions we hold all the truths already and any intrusions upon them must be met with dogged defensiveness and attack.” (Of course, we all know that evolutionists never “doggedly defend and attack”).

Robert’s description of both scientists and people of faith reveals that he greatly misunderstands the nature of both groups of people (rather, of “people” in general). Let me deal with the faith issue first. Contrary to the common caricature, Biblical faith is not blind, “leap in the dark,” superstition. In fact, Rob himself is a person of great faith, not only as seen in his faith in Darwinism, but as expressed in every day life. By faith, Rob starts his truck each morning, fully expecting it to take him to work. By faith he then drives it to work, trusting that the oncoming drivers will stay in their own lane. He has faith that his electricity at work will be functioning, and his employees will be present and ready to work. You get the point: Faith is simply trusting in something that you cannot see, yet you have enough evidence upon which to confidently act, even upon which to base your life. If we get on an airplane, we have faith that the pilot is qualified, the mechanics were diligent, and the ATC technicians are awake. Biblical faith is no different (for that matter, neither is Darwinian faith). Faith is believing in something we cannot see, based on the evidence that we can see (cf. Heb 11.1).

By Rob’s definition of faith, however, people come to believe in Jesus and the Bible without any prior critical thought or examination of evidence. They simply believe first and ask questions later (or not at all). Yet the apostles (the Biblical authors) themselves were nothing like what Rob characterizes. On the contrary, not one of them was a believer until the evidence forced them to dramatically change their minds. Every one of the apostles, for example, rejected the very idea of Jesus’ death and resurrection before it happened, in spite of Jesus’ own predictions of it (Mt 16.21-22; Lk 9.44-45; 18.31-35). They refused to believe he would ever die, as this went against their prior-formed ideas of the Jewish Messiah. When he died, they thought it was all over. And when they heard he was raised, they again refused to believe it (Jn 20.24-25), writing it off as nonsense (Lk 24.10-11). But after seeing Jesus alive, after eating with him, touching him and handling him for forty days (1 Jn 1.1-3), these men who had fled at Jesus’ arrest, who had denied him at his trial, and who had hid behind locked doors after his death, changed. They became believers. What changed them? The evidence that that they could not deny even though it went against everything they knew and believed about the nature of the promised Messiah. It wasn’t until they were convinced by “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1.1-2) that they became “dogged defenders” of what they came to believe. True, they then all went to their deaths doggedly defending their faith, but only after having been convinced against their will (so-to-speak) to begin with. Again, we have to ask, What caused these men to change their whole belief system and become such faithful defenders of their new faith, enduring incredible persecution? Think of the apostle Paul who was one of the most powerful and respected men in Judaism, and the leading persecutor of Christianity, and who gave it all up to become a defender of the faith he once so cruelly and fervently persecuted. This would be like the great Evolutionist/Anti-creationist Stephen Jay Gould suddenly becoming a Billy Graham. If that were to happen, we would not accuse Gould of forming his conclusions first, then doggedly defending a blind faith against all evidence. If we were honest, we would have to admit that there must have been some powerful evidence to change him. Rob is clearly mistaken in his idea of faith and his image of faith-based religion. But he is right about human tendencies to do as he describes, however. But who are the ones Rob describes? I’ll come back to that shortly.

Rob is equally mistaken about the unflinching objectiveness of men of science. If Scientists are as universally honest and dispassionately objective as Rob suggests, then what about the scientists who did Hitler’s research? Or, Stalin’s? What about all those tobacco-industry scientists who conveniently found tobacco and nicotine harmless? Or those who may skew the research results for the particular drug or chemical company that signs their paycheck? (I'm not impugning all scientists who work for private companies). Rob might say these are the exceptions, but Rob’s naïve “faith” in science and scientists fails to recognize that scientists are human beings, with the same human tendency to subjectivity as anyone else. They are neither gods nor supermen. The fact is that scientists are as prone as any other group of human beings to ignoring evidence that goes against their worldview. Whether competing for limited but lucrative grant money, or the hope of getting on the cover of National Geographic (e.g., by discovering a new “Lucy”), or fear of losing one’s credibility in a system that discourages questioning the accepted “theory,” or simply having an intellectual rationalization for rejecting a personal God to whom we must answer, the fact is that scientists face great motivation for being less than objective, especially in a field with such spiritual and moral implications as the study of origins.

Rob has great faith that should any scientist suddenly discover evidence that calls into question the theory of evolution, he will jump at the opportunity to herald his new find, and the whole science field will consider him a hero. In reality, pity the poor man who tries! Any scientists who dare publish a piece critical of the accepted theory (if he could even get it published) will be blackballed, his career destroyed, and possibly fired from his chair. This is no false charge, but has happened on a number of occasions. For example, Dr. Stephen Meyer, a Ph.D. from Cambridge, was fortunate enough to get just such a critique published in a prestigious journal (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute National Museum of Natural History). The journal’s editor, Rick Sternberg, a researcher at the museum, and holding two Ph.D.s in biology, forwarded Myer’s paper to a panel of three peer reviewers, all of whom recommenced publication with revisions. Meyer made the revisions and Sternberg published it, only to be immediately denounced by major academic publications, blackballed and shunned by his colleagues, and barred from his office and research. His career was nearly destroyed—and he didn’t even write the paper or even agree with it! So much for “objectivity.”

Now let me come back to the question of who it is that Rob describes as forming prior conclusions and then doggedly defending them against all evidence to the contrary. While I will grant that many people of faith were raised from childhood with that faith and never gave it a critical examination, a similar thing has occurred in the field of evolutionary science. The vast majority of proponents of evolution did not come to their belief after a thorough, objective, and critical examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Rather, most evolutionists entered college never having considered the evidence either way (probably believing in God and the Bible), but as young undergraduates were awed by seemingly all-knowing Professors who simply told them evolution was true while providing some shallow arguments to support it. These young undergrads then accepted it, some of them going on later to “doggedly defend” their new faith. I am speaking from experience, as I was one of those awed freshman myself, until someone pointed out that there is another side to the story. But don’t take my word for it. Famous evolutionists Ehrlich and Girch said themselves:

"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus 'outside of empirical science,' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it...(Evolutionary ideas) have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training" (Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Girch, Evolutionary History and Population Biology, Nature, Vol. 214, 1967, p.352; emphasis mine -- RSH)

Let me close with one final quote regarding the faith element in evolutionary science:

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (L. Harrison Matthews, Introduction to The Origin of Species, C. Darwin, reprinted by J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p.xi)