How should theology contribute to scientific positions?
The question presupposes that theology can and should contribute to scientific positions. For theology to be able to contribute more than mere moral maxims (i.e., “Don’t falsify your data.”) theology must be conceived in a robust manner; a kind of theistic realism in which God is objectively real and has made true propositional content available to humankind. Historically, evangelicals have endorsed such a robust theistic realism. Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook but it does make claims (when properly interpreted and understood) that have factual implications regarding the natural world. In light of the above, there are at least three ways in which a robust evangelical theology might be able to contribute to scientific positions.
First, theology can seek to provide the conceptual foundations for the scientific enterprise itself. Science, as an empirically based methodology, rests upon philosophical presuppositions which are not themselves demonstrable in an empirical manner. The question as to what kind of worldview might provide the matrix in which these philosophical presuppositions best fit is a crucial one. It has been argued that a theistic worldview best explains the philosophical presuppositions needed for science.[1]
Second, theology might provide some factual claims that serve as boundary markers that are nonnegotiable. Examples might include the beginning of the universe and the historicity of Adam. J. P. Moreland, utilizing the conceptual work of philosopher of science Larry Laudan, notes that one can be epistemically justified in bringing “external conceptual problems” to bear upon a given scientific theory. Moreland argues:
Suppose someone held to the following two propositions:
1. The Bible is the Word of God and it teaches the truth on matters of which it speaks.
2. The Bible, properly interpreted, teaches (among other things) certain truths that run counter to evolutionary theory and which are consistent with creationist theories.
Suppose further that this person had a list of good, rational arguments for these two propositions. In support of (1), he or she lists arguments from prophecy, history, archeology, and other areas of science for the contention that the Bible is a divinely inspired book and it is rational to trust it when it speaks on any matter, science included. In support of (2), he or she offers detailed arguments from hermeneutical theory, linguistics, comparative ancient Near Eastern studies, and so forth.
In the case just cited, such an individual would have reasons, perhaps good reasons, for believing that the general theory of evolution, in its current or recognizably future forms, is false and that creationism will be vindicated.[2]
Thus, theology can be used to provide truth claims which can serve as external conceptual problems for a reigning scientific theory.
Third, theology can generate alternative paradigms which may choose to focus on anomalous elements in the current and more broadly accepted paradigm.[3] Two quick examples will have to suffice here. First, the Intelligent Design movement focused on the so-called “junk DNA” and hypothesized that these segments of DNA would be found to be irrelevant. Second, Young Earth Creationists continue to hunt for and analyze soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Whether the findings in these areas overturn the reigning paradigm is beside the point. The fact that these scientists are motivated to pursue alternative lines of questioning and research may help to generate insights which would have been overlooked in other frameworks.
[1] I have defended this view in more detail in my essay “Why Science Needs God: Analyzing the Religion and Science Conflict” Christian Post(January 12, 2019)—online: https://www.academia.edu/38140780/Why_Science_Needs_God_Analyzing_the_Religion_and_Science_Conflict.
[2] J. P. Moreland, “Conceptual Problems and the Scientific Status of Creation Science” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45 (March 1994), n.p. in online version—online: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1994/PSCF3-94Moreland.html.
