Blog

by Charlie Wolcott

The primary thing I’ve been learning about in the Cadre with the Creation Truth Foundation is about worldviews. Back in February, I described what a Worldview is and what a Biblical Worldview is. We have also been learning about a lot of science. How do these two interact? Is there a conflict between science and the Biblical worldview? Or does this whole origins debate actually boil down to a debate between worldviews?

First let me clarify what a worldview is and what a worldview is not. A worldview is a set of principles, presuppositions, and convictions that mold and shape how you look at everything around you. It acts as a filter that determines which knowledge we consider to be true and which knowledge we consider to be false. A worldview usually acts subconsciously, but it acts and influences our every day decisions both big and small. A worldview is NOT personal opinion, nor is it political philosophy, though our worldview will affect these. A worldview is NOT educational progression, though education can play a role in how our worldview is formed. A worldview is also NOT held by strong emotions, though our worldview will draw them out.

Our worldview addresses many key questions including: Does God exist? Is the Bible true? Where am I from? Why am I here? Who am I? Where am I going? What can I include for x discussion? Most of us really don’t think about these questions very often, yet the answers to these questions influence our daily lives in the same way the heart influences our daily lives and activities. And one area in which our worldview has a major influence is science.

Now science is very often misconstrued with the philosophy of science, or scientism. Scientism is itself a worldview; one that only considers that which science can address to be considered valid. But let’s dig a little deeper into this. First, science is NOT a philosophy. It is a method that we use to acquire knowledge. And that method is called the scientific method. This is a valid way we can gain knowledge. The scientific method has five major steps, though you might know them under different terms or in a slightly different order. The steps are:

(1) Formulate a Hypothesis: This is the step where you raise a question about an aspect that you want to explore. It is where you come up with an idea you want to test and seek to find out if it is true or not. For example, on the TV show Mythbusters, the hypothesis being put to the test is always what happens in the myth.

(2) Observation: Observation can occur before or after you formulate your hypothesis. It also occurs during the experiment. Observation is where you take a look at things that have already been done or have already happened to gather preliminary data on your question. It also occurs as the experiment it taking place. An example here would be with Isaac Newton and discovering gravity. He was in his house staring out his yard when he saw an apple fall. He observed the apple falling. This is the same as observing in an experiment but it got him thinking and that eventually led to his discovery of gravity. Observation relies and depends on your senses to be able to register what is happening.

(3) Setup/Execute Experiment: This is the glorious part of the scientific method and what everyone thinks of. This is where we set things up to put our hypothesis to the test. And it reveals if our hypothesis works out or doesn’t.

(4) Interpretation: This is where we take the data that we record and we come up with a conclusion about what it means and why. It usually relates to the hypothesis, and we determine if the hypothesis was accurate or not, or if there is something we explored correctly or not.

(5) Report Findings: The report is what everyone else sees from the experiment. This includes all the data from setting up the experiment, from the results, and how the experiment was performed. It also includes the interpretation of what the results mean.

Now here is where it gets tricky if we are not carful. Our worldview has a direct influence on 4 of these 5 steps, and can influence the 5th. Let’s check out each one.

Formulate a Hypothesis: Your worldview will show up here in how you ask the question to be tested. It will influence how you think about the issue you want to see resolved and influence which possible solutions you consider.

Observation: Your worldview will determine issues including how reliable your senses are. Most won’t question this aspect and that is part of the point. It will determine how you trust the equipment you are using. It will also determine what you think you are observing. For an extreme example, if you are observing an Ouija board, your worldview will determine if you think you are observing magnetism, human trickery, or demonic influence or which of those you won’t consider. Setup/Execute Experiment: This is the step least influenced by your worldview. The only area it will be influenced is the set up. But once the experiment gets going, it will go and your worldview does not have a role to play.

Interpretation: Here is where your worldview plays the largest role. If your worldview only considers natural explanations, you may completely miss what is going on. Likewise, if your worldview is driven by certain purposes, you may be inclined to think it is doing something it is not. In the origins debate, worldview-driven interpretation shows itself strongly when looking at fossils. Homology is pure interpretation, and it is influenced strongly by the evolutionary worldview which demands common ancestry. So anytime you see features that look similar, interpretation will make an evolutionist think: common ancestor. But a Biblical Creationist will think: common designer. Same evidence, different interpretation, each based on a different worldview.

Report: It is well assumed that scientists are professionals and that they do their job with integrity. Yet this is not always the case. One’s worldview also influences what you report and how you report it. Piltdown man was reported as a great missing link despite the fact that all they had was a pig’s tooth. Lucy was reported as a great missing link despite the fact that it had all the signs of a monkey (curved finger bones, hip structure, size, etc). Reports do not always match the facts. The moon is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old, yet when we got the results of radiometric dated moon rocks, 90% of them are nowhere close to this age. Reporting is not immune to worldview influence.

All this does not invalidate the scientific method, but we need to keep in mind that it is just a method and it is not the answer to all things. It has limits and it is very susceptible to outside influences. If we are aware of these influences, that is fine. And scientific etiquette requires that these influences be reported. Yet most of the time, they aren’t. Be a Berean. Check it out. Is it legit? And the only standard that is 100% reliable to test against is Scripture.