But today the New York Times has an article on the subject: “Climate Fight is Heating Up in Deep Freeze“. While justifiable, I suppose, as “news” to report on, the arguments it presents are inane.

The idea that a large snow storm disproves global warming is argument from example at its best. It’s comparable to stating that because one large company failed capitalism has been proven wrong. All hail Marx and the socialist revolution!

Beyond this shameless argument from example, there are several things to note about this “debate”:

• Virtually everyone the Times quotes on the anti-global warming side is a politician (usually with an ideological opposition to the idea).* Nearly everyone quoted on the pro-global warming side is a scientist (who has actually studied the subject). There might not be any bias here, but I’ll leave that up to you.
• If you must look at one month in time as evidence for global warming, at least look at the whole world. While temperatures in North America and Europe may have been cooler than normal, the rest of the world is warmer. Not that it means too much, as what we really should be looking at are long term trends. It’s just a shame that the cold weather happens to occur where the highest percentage of skeptics exist.
• And most ironically, the specific examples cited—snow storms—are in line with global warming predictions. Not these, or any particular, snow storms, of course. But the general trend of increasingly powerful weather activity. The Times helpfully mentions this at the very end of the article:

“However,” he continued, “one can ‘load the dice’ in favor of events that used to be rare — or unheard of — if the climate is changing to a new state.”

A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns.

Global warming is giving a boost to Sonoran Desert plants that have an edge during cold weather, according to new research.

While the temperature as a whole is going up:

In a previous study, Venable and his colleagues had examined the physiology of the nine species and found that some grow better under cold conditions and are more efficient at using water. Those species are now becoming more common as the changing climate shifts the onset of the winter rains.

He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.

- Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter 5 (emphasis added)

It will come as no surprise to those who know me that I am entirely fascinated by the sciences, and by evolutionary theory in particular. This is not the first time which I have written on it (also here, here, and here). Evolution represents the intersection of several of my interests: science, theology, and, to a lesser degree, politics (mostly when the first two can’t agree).

The quote above, from Darwin himself, captures the heart of the matter. God created the world in a marvelous and wonderful way; to deny his work is to refuse to see the glory of God in creation. My sister-in-law put it another way after seeing this article:

It’s funny, isn’t it, how some Christians want to think stuff like this diminishes us or God… I think it just makes him seem even more awesome.

The subject, and others related to it, seem worthy of my further consideration. So, in order to give the Smidgin a bit more purpose and direction in its digital life, I am going to try a thematic approach for the blog. Posts will center around issues of science (evolution, climate change, or things I just generally find interesting), with the majority tending to be links to other content with a short commentary.

Whether or not this is a permanent change remains to be seen. I hope the new system is still of interest to my small but faithful collection of readers. If any wander off to peruse other parts of the Internet, I will not be offended; I understand that not everyone is as captivated by the sciences as I.

With that, let us begin.

I was somewhat surprised that I had never heard of the explanatory filter before.  As I understand it, the filter asks three questions:

1. Does a law explain it?
2. Does chance explain it?
3. Does design explain it?

The ideas is simple; given any event, you run it through those three questions.  First you check for laws that can explain the occurrence of the event.  If there is none, you examine the statistical probability of the event occurring.  If it would be statistically improbable, then you ask whether or not design could explain it.  If it can, then you attribute the event to design.

The simplicity of the argument is appealing.  There is, however, a large problem with the filter: it doesn’t take into account the evolution of scientific laws.  Science is based on the scientific method.  This is often given as a set of steps:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information through observation
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions; form a new hypothesis if necessary

The key thing to note here is that if the information gathered from the experiment fails to support the hypothesis, then a new hypothesis must be formed.  Thus you perform steps three to six until the data supports the conclusions.

The explanatory filter seems to ignore this ability to form a new scientific law; it skips directly to attributing ideas to design.  To see how this could be a problem, let us apply the filter to an age old problem: the movement of the planets through the heavens.

Millennia ago, as humans learned to chart the heavens, they noted that there were certain stars that seemed to move through the others.  Various theories emerged over time, including the idea that the planets moved in circles around the earth.  The problem was that sometimes the planets would wander out of where the circular orbits should take them.  No natural law could explain why this should happen.  According to the explanatory filter, if the chances of them drifting far afield were too low, then the wandering of the planets should be attributed to design. (Indeed, some design-like ideas emerged, such as the concept that the planets were gods wandering in their chariots through the heavens.)

This is not where the story stops, of course.  Instead, numerous astronomers and mathematicians came up with increasingly complex theories involving dozens of rotating spheres to explain the drift.  In the end, Johannes Kepler brought it all together and proposed the idea of elliptical orbits.  Suddenly everything was explained and the need for design was removed.

The example is overly simplistic, of course, and an extremely condensed version of history.  Still, it serves to illustrate the point that science is designed to evolve new sets of laws to explain things naturally.  (Note that this says nothing about the concept of ultimate design.  That is, scientific theory can never speak to the existence of God.  This is because, as Kyle pointed out, scientific theory cannot ever look to the supernatural.)

In the end, it seems as if the explanatory filter is simply a means of giving scientific justification to “the God of the gaps.”  Still, I’ll be the first to admit that I have only dabbled in this.  I would be interested in hearing what others, especially those who support the filter, have to say.

To illustrate this point, Wheaton College is currently holding its 2008 Science Symposium, entitled “String Theory and the Multiverse: Philosophical and Theological Implications.” Yesterday I attended lectures by Dr. Gerald Cleaver, a theoretical physicist, and Dr. Don Page, who studied under and lived with Stephen Hawking. The lectures covered the basics of string theory/M-theory and how it relates to the idea of the multiverse. Then they addressed the ideas of the multiverse as related to the Christian faith, using such concepts as Anselm’s Ontological Argument to consider its implications.

As I see it, the difficulties between Christianity (or religion more generally) and science arise from three areas:

1. Anti-theistic or anti-Christian attacks by non-Christian scientists.
2. The concept of the “God of the gaps.”
3. The problem of theological/Biblical integration.

Anti-Christian Attacks

The first of these, anti-Christian attacks by non-Christian scientists, is of less importance. While such attacks do happen (Dawkins is a perfect example), they are not of particular concern for several reasons:

• Faith lies outside of the realm of science and thus is not subject to scientific testing. (More on this later.)
• Such attacks exhibit a gross misunderstanding of Christianity.
• There is nothing to be done about them.

“The God of the Gaps”

The second of these areas is far more problematic. The idea of the “God of the gaps” has plagued scientific and religious thinkers since ancient times. The most notable example is, of course, Galileo, who was denounced by the Roman Catholic Church for proclaiming a heliocentric view of the solar system. The Church did not like this because it removed the Earth and humanity, God’s creations, from the center. (Ironically, the trailer for Expelled says that religious ideas about creation would have been accepted in Galileo’s day. In Galileo’s day, however, it was the religious establishment that was opposing scientific ideas.)

There are several problems with the idea of the “God of the gaps.” First, it means that God is diminished each time a new scientific theory is confirmed. Suddenly God is no longer in charge of putting the Earth at the center of the universe or God is no longer required to create us as humans specifically. When God’s power is linked to human understanding, we fail to understand God’s power.

Second, it places Christianity in the awkward position of having to argue against good science. Take evolution as an example. Within the scientific community there is virtually complete consensus on the theory of evolution, though not on the actual origins of life. If you want more information, read Science, Evolution, and Creationism, published by the National Academy of Sciences. Yet Christians, especially within America, are consistently fighting the idea because they do not wish to see God diminished again. This leads to two things:

1. It makes Christians look stupid because they have to argue against good science.
2. It makes non-Christians, and especially scientists, upset with Christians. (In fact, the book by NAS mentioned above is somewhat impressive in that it goes out of its way to make the point that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that it is not arguing against Christianity.)

Finally, the idea of “the God of the gaps” displays a lack of faith in the power of God. Why is there any reason that God should be required to hold together the “gaps” in the universe or scientific knowledge, rather than to create laws and mechanisms like he did for everything else? It seems more likely that we simply haven’t discovered the laws or mechanisms yet, the discovery of which is the realm of science. To assume God is bound by our knowledge of the universe is somewhat hubristic.

Theological Integration

The final problem is that of theological/Biblical integration. Here Christians are demanding more out of science than it can provide because they misunderstand the role of science.

Before I go any farther, let me say that I find skepticism of science because of the Bible to be a valid reason for not agreeing with scientific findings. In the case of our creation, the Bible clearly does not say anything about evolution. For myself, I have managed to get past the literal creation stories, no matter how at the moment, to accept scientific findings. I cannot, however, fault another Christian who does not, for they are reading the Word of God. In this, there are two things to remember:

1. For Christians who do not accept science, there is no call to go around proclaiming that all science is therefore wrong. We may not agree, but that does not discredit the whole scientific process.
2. For Christians who do accept science, it is slightly far fetched to go reading scientific theories on to the Bible, as if evidence of every idea can be found within it.

After that detour, let us continue with the concept of theological integration. The first point here is that science and faith are different realms. The goal of science is to investigate the world around us, not to prove faith. In fact, by the very definition of faith, it cannot be proved. Demanding that science prove (or disprove) God will not get anyone anywhere. Other arguments about the existence of God, whether moral, philosophical, or logical, will get us much farther than science.

The second thing to be said under theological or Biblical integration is that science need not necessarily provide a deep connection to our understanding of Christianity. When scientists speak of Christianity and science, they speak of the beauty of God’s creation and the call to seek truth. This should be enough for us. We don’t demand that other occupations, whether carpentry or banking, provide explicit integration with the Bible, so why science? In fact, Dorothy Sayers gets it right in the chapter “Why Work?” in her book Creed or Chaos when she reminds us that it does not matter if the work is explicitly Christian. What matters is that we do the work well. When it comes to science, then, let us not seek to push Christianity through it, but rather to engage in good science that we may cast a good light on Christianity.

To Conclude

The science vs. Christianity debate is not something that we should be engaging in. There is no reason why science should be set up as an enemy of the Church. Indeed, it is as much our fault that science has come to be seen opposite Christianity as it is the fault of scientists. Instead of placing the two in opposition, Christians should seek to further science in an effort to understand the universe (or multiverse) in which God has created us.