Reading as many blogs as I do, I’m always grateful when I stumble on a great blog post that is not only thoughtful, but relates to some aspect of our work here at Acton. Jason Summers over at Q Ideas has written an interesting piece titled Where Angels Cannot Tread: Science in a Fallen World. In his discussion of science, he notes humanity is uniquely equipped by God to engage with science.

I believe that we Christians especially should listen to what wise men say, and proceed thoughtfully and with prudence where angels cannot tread. In our efforts to study and learn from the creation and in our critiques of others’ efforts to do the same, we should seek to reflect and embody a right understanding of the theology of science, the nature of scientific practice in a pluralistic society, and the role and authority of institutions of science within that society.

Summers concludes due to the position we have received from God, a proper understanding of the theology of science along with the nature of scientific practice and the place of scientific institutions is critical. He discusses these areas in the post.

Among other things, a knowledge of the theology of science is needful for a correct hamartiological understanding of man. Due to man’s fallen state, labor is needed to grasp the “true nature of the world”, a task which Adam was able to do more intuitively. Additional, a correct theology of science will help one understand the inherent lack of neutrality extant in science.

Check out the full article here.


  • Roger McKinney

    Nice essay! Readers might also want to check out this article at American Spectator:

    “Mainstream journals have
    begun publishing peer-reviewed articles promoting intelligent
    design. In 2004 Rick Sternberg, as editor of the Proceedings
    for the Biological Society of Washington, got into trouble for
    publishing an article by Meyer. That was the first peer-reviewed ID
    article. Last fall the 50th was published.
    “One reason they went after Sternberg was to make an example of
    him,” Meyer said. “Now the dam has broken.”

    “In addition, “leading U.S. biologists, including evolutionary
    biologists, are saying we need a new theory of evolution,” Meyer
    said. Many increasingly criticize Darwinism, even if they don’t
    accept design. One is the cell biologist James Shapiro of the
    University of Chicago. His new book is Evolution:
    A View From the 21st Century. He’s “looking for a new
    evolutionary theory.” David Depew (Iowa) and Bruce Weber (Cal
    State) recently wrote in Biological Theory that Darwinism
    “can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary
    theory.” Such criticisms have mounted in the technical
    literature.

    “At the same time, most draw the line at accepting intelligent
    design. They insist it is “not science,” maybe a “science stopper.”
    Science, they believe, can operate only by invoking material
    causes. But as Meyer has written, scientists earlier felt no such
    constraint. Newton argued that the arrangements of the planets and
    the stability of their orbits could only have arisen as the result
    of “an intelligent and powerful Being.” Robert Boyle, the 17th
    century chemist, invoked the activity of a “most intelligent and
    designing agent.”

    “Official science, it seems to me, wants to say that everything
    we see in the world can be explained without any reference to God.
    Darwinism is overwhelmingly an atheistic project, and has been from
    the beginning. That’s why any scientific opposition to that agenda
    stirs up such resentment.”

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/16/intelligent-design-at-the-univ/1

  • Roger McKinney

    Many historians agree that modern science was born in Western Europe because of Christianity’s emphasis on reason, which makes it unique among world religions.

    Christians should not fall for the lie that truth exists only in the natural sciences and all else, including reason and theology, are nothing but opinion. Atheists promoted the idea because they could not respond to argument for God based on reason. Unfortunately, atheist have persuaded the majority of people of their lie, even most Christians.

    But those who study epistemology know that the natural sciences give us the least certain kind of truth. Truth arrived at by reason is far more certain, but the only certain truth is that which comes from God by means of revelation.

    I have read many Christians write that theology has to conform to science. They are suckers who have taken the atheist bait.

    At the same time, scientists can’t always be objective because they are human. If human nature can be changed simply by earning a degree in the natural sciences, then there was no need for Christ to die.

  • Jason E Summers

    Thanks for sharing this. I’ll note as postscript to your summary that one of my core contentions (which I share with Kuyper among others) is that the inability for the practice of science to be neutral does not need to compromise the universal validity of its findings.

    js

    • Roger McKinney

       Universal validity only applies to the unbiased findings. And I think it’s helpful to talk of scientists and not science. People use “science” as if it is an infallible machine. Science can do nothing; scientists do all of the work. Scientists are fallible.

  • Pingback: FRC Blog » The Social Conservative Review: May 24, 2012()