Assumptions Lead to Limitations
There are actually ways that certain scientific assumptions can impede the scientific search for truth. One of those assumptions is that the only kind of cause that we can discover for an effect we’re trying to understand is a purely physical, natural cause. But, among other things, this is going to leave out human agency.
There are actually ways that certain scientific assumptions can impede the scientific search for truth.
Sometimes, a person creates an effect or does it unintentionally, and the cause is their own free will and their own mental life. It’s not a physical thing at all. By all of us trying to find some brain cause, we reduce the role of the agent and set aside certain aspects of psychology that focus on the agent in favor of brain research. It should be both/and, but if it’s only the brain research, you’re in trouble.
Looking Outside of Natural Cause
Similarly when you’re simply searching for purely physical causes, what would become of archaeology? If I have to find a natural cause for pottery or an arrowhead, that would be ridiculous.
Surely I can look for a personal cause for those things, but why not biology? What if the biological evidence or the paleontological evidence is best explained by the actions of an intelligent being?
The assumption of science does not allow for that kind of explanation. Consequently, it has a straightjacket on it that keeps it from being able to advance as widely as it could.
What in the world philosophy has to do with science? The answer to that is very important for Christians to understand.
Theistic evolutionists accept that the theory of evolution is an unguided process. But then they say that God somehow guided the process. That’s why they’re theistic evolutionists.
Not all, but certain forms of theistic evolution theologically lead to the open theism perspective.