We've decided to at least explore the idea that science
is the search for the best explanations and not solely natural ones.
You might be doubting, however, that a supernatural God
could really ever be the best scientific explanation for anything.
After all, don't we have to be able to experiment on the thing we are studying?
And don't we have to use our five senses
of touch, sight, taste, smell, hearing to verify anything scientifically?
According to Eugenie Scott--the director of the National Center for Science Education--
the fact that we can't experiment directly on God rules him out of any scientific discussion.
She said, "The ultimate statement of creationism that the present universe came about
as a result of the action or actions of a divine creator,
is thus outside the abilities of science to test."
The problem with this thinking, however, is that science often deals with things
that we can't control or interact with directly.
Eugenie Scott admitted this when she said,
"In some fields, not only is it impossible to directly control the variables,
but the phenomena themselves may not be directly observable."
A research design known as indirect experimentation is often utilized in such fields.
Explanations can be tested, even if the phenomena being studied
are too far away, too small, or too far back in time to be observed directly.
I think we all understand this idea of indirect observation or experimentation very, very well.
Forensic scientists use it often to unravel answers to crimes.
When they show up at a crime scene, the criminals aren't there.
There are, however, traces or clues that have been left on the scene.
And by looking at the tire marks they can determine what size or model of car was at the scene,
even though they've never seen the car.
By finding bite marks or fingerprints, they can determine the tooth pattern
or the finger size of the criminal without ever seeing the actual person.
In truth, we can learn a whole lot about certain things even if we never directly observe them.
For instance, suppose you were walking down the beach and you saw a set of footprints in the sand.
You look up the beach and you don't see a person walking down the beach.
Well, does that mean since you don't directly observe or interact with the person,
then you should conclude that this can't have anything to do with a person
or that you can't know anything about the person that made the footprints?
Not at all.
There are several things that we could learn about the person.
We could look at the footprints and determine how many toes they have on each foot.
Based on the stride distance, we could arrive at an approximate height for the person.
If we had the right equipment and knowledge, we could measure the depth of the prints in the sand
and we could give an approximate weight for the person.
All these concepts would come from something left by the person,
even though we have never directly observed that person.
As Ms. Scott further stated, "As we have seen, a theory can be scientific,
even if its phenomena are not directly observable."
The world's leading atheist at the present--Richard Dawkins--
understands this idea of indirect observation He stated,
"Obviously, the vast majority of evolutionary change is invisible to direct eyewitness observation.
Most of it happened before we were born.
And, in any case, it is usually too slow to be seen during an individual's lifetime.
Inference after the event is all that is available to us
for the obvious reason that we don't exist until after the event."
He further stated, "I shall never again be tempted to give eyewitness testimony
an automatic preference over indirect, scientific inference."
I don't agree with his assessment of evolution.
His statements about indirect, scientific inference are accurate.
We can see then that an idea can certainly be considered to be scientific
even if the phenomena in question are not directly observed.
In the biblical book of Romans, the author made this statement about God:
"For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and godhead."
I quote this verse not as proof that God exists, but simply to show how the Bible writers
believed we can know God created the world.
We can look at the things which are directly observable in the material universe
and understand aspects of the Creator who cannot be directly observed,
just as we can look at footprints and know things about the person who made them
without ever seeing the person.
Indirect observation, indirect experimentation, and indirect scientific inference
have always been understood to be reliable scientific approaches to the world.
In the same way, we can look at things we directly observe in our universe
and determine what they can show us about the Creator who we do not directly observe.