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.
This volume of more than two dozen essays written by highly credentialed scientists, philosophers, and theologians from Europe and North America provides the most comprehensive critique of theistic evolution yet produced, opening the door to scientific and theological alternatives.
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.
- The Logical Contradiction at the Heart of Theistic Evolution (J. P. Moreland)
- Does Theistic Evolution Lead to Open Theism? (Stephen C. Meyer)
- Why You Can't Have Science without Philosophy (J. P. Moreland)