Kansas School Board science hearings continued
Kansas School Board considers broader definition of science
The on-going argument over the science curriculum in Kansas (mentioned last week here) is developing even more. Instead of the discussion sticking to the arguments for and/or against either evolution or Intelligent Design it seems that the discussion is swinging wide and going beneath the surface. School board officials have rightly identified the deeper issue, which is our approach to science in general. Evolutionists claim that the purpose of employing the scientific method is to produce a natural explanation for origins (in this case). In other words, they do not want any suggestion that might include something other than what comes from a naturalistic world view.
But herein lies their error. Science alone as the practice of an objective method cannot distinguish between world views. The five-step method is independent of suppositions: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions. Clearly evolutionists approach evidence with a presupposition that evolution is true and that there is no creator God. Therefore, the results from their employment of the method will always point to a naturalistic explanation since that was their starting point. Even if the evidence points to an intelligent Designer that simply cannot be correct for their fundamental world view does not allow room for such a conclusion. However, the same is true for creationists. Every scientist, or anyone who makes truth claims, comes to the table with a world view. The scientific method is objective, but people who use it bring to it subjective beliefs.
The above picture from Answers In Genesis illustrates this point quite clearly. One's fundamental world view acts as a form of 'lens' through which one views objective evidence. An evolutionists looks at millions of dead things buried beneath the ground through a naturalistic 'lens' and proclaims, "Millions of dead things are a result of millions of years of living things dying." On the other hand, creationists look at the exact same evidence but through a Christian theist 'lens' and, along with the truth of God's Word, proclaims, "These millions of dead things are a result of a catastrophic global flood several thousand years ago." Two different people with two opposing world views look at the exact same evidence and get two completely different conclusions. Why? Both used the same method, yet their world views shaped their conclusions.
Will the Kansas school board do what's right and straighten out the definition of science? Or will they cave in to the pressure of a growing minority in America: Evolutionists? We shall see in the upcoming days and weeks.
For more on world views as lenses, visit here.
The on-going argument over the science curriculum in Kansas (mentioned last week here) is developing even more. Instead of the discussion sticking to the arguments for and/or against either evolution or Intelligent Design it seems that the discussion is swinging wide and going beneath the surface. School board officials have rightly identified the deeper issue, which is our approach to science in general. Evolutionists claim that the purpose of employing the scientific method is to produce a natural explanation for origins (in this case). In other words, they do not want any suggestion that might include something other than what comes from a naturalistic world view.
But herein lies their error. Science alone as the practice of an objective method cannot distinguish between world views. The five-step method is independent of suppositions: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions. Clearly evolutionists approach evidence with a presupposition that evolution is true and that there is no creator God. Therefore, the results from their employment of the method will always point to a naturalistic explanation since that was their starting point. Even if the evidence points to an intelligent Designer that simply cannot be correct for their fundamental world view does not allow room for such a conclusion. However, the same is true for creationists. Every scientist, or anyone who makes truth claims, comes to the table with a world view. The scientific method is objective, but people who use it bring to it subjective beliefs.
The above picture from Answers In Genesis illustrates this point quite clearly. One's fundamental world view acts as a form of 'lens' through which one views objective evidence. An evolutionists looks at millions of dead things buried beneath the ground through a naturalistic 'lens' and proclaims, "Millions of dead things are a result of millions of years of living things dying." On the other hand, creationists look at the exact same evidence but through a Christian theist 'lens' and, along with the truth of God's Word, proclaims, "These millions of dead things are a result of a catastrophic global flood several thousand years ago." Two different people with two opposing world views look at the exact same evidence and get two completely different conclusions. Why? Both used the same method, yet their world views shaped their conclusions.
Will the Kansas school board do what's right and straighten out the definition of science? Or will they cave in to the pressure of a growing minority in America: Evolutionists? We shall see in the upcoming days and weeks.
For more on world views as lenses, visit here.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog