1. THE NATURE
OF SCIENCE

3. A systematic method for understanding facts about the natural
world with reference to natural law.

4. FACT
• “An observation that has been repeatedly confirmed, and for
all practical purposes, is accepted as ‘true’” (National Academy
of Science, 1998)
• “Confirmed to such a degree as it would be perverse to
withhold provisional assent.” (Gould, 1981)
• “Truth
in science is never final, and what is accepted as a fact
today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.” (NAS,
1998)

5. NATURALISM
Methodological: Science can only
study nature using natural laws.
Supernatural entities, while they
may exist, are not allowed as
scientific explanations of
phenomena.
Philosophical: The supernatural
does not exist.

7. POPULAR HIERARCHY
Fact
Hypothesis
Theory

8. THEORY
• “A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.” (NAS, 1998)
• “Sciencenot only generates facts but seeks to explain them,
and the interlocking and well-supported explanations for
those facts are known as theories.” (T. Ryan Gregory, 2008)

9. Theories are the ultimate goal of science. They explain facts
and are tested by generating hypotheses. These three things
are distinct aspects of science.
Hypothesis
Fact

10. HYPOTHESIS
• “Atentative statement about the natural world leading to
deductions that can be tested.” (NAS 2008)
• “The rejection of an hypothesis does not automatically imply
the refutation of an entire theory because hypotheses are
usually sufficiently focussed to test only one aspect of complex
theories.” (Gregory, 2008)

11. LAW
• A “generalization
about how some aspect of the natural world
behaves under stated circumstances.” (NAS, 1998)
• Descriptive not prescriptive
• SecondLaw of Thermodynamics: the entropy of a closed
system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time,
approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

12. LAW OF UNIVERSAL
GRAVITATION

13. GRAVITY
• We have facts that we need to explain.
• We do not observe “gravity,” we observe it’s effects on the
behavior of objects.
• There are laws that describe the behavior of objects under
the influence of gravity
• We don’t publish “new evidence for gravity”
• There are many explanatory theories of gravitation.

14. GENERAL RELATIVITY
• Gravity
as a consequence of the
warping of space-time
• An incomplete theory - how
does it reconcile with sub-
atomic quantum effects? Why is
gravity relatively weak?
• Does this incompleteness make
gravity “just a theory”?

15. “JUST THEORIES”
• Big Bang Theory • Probability Theory
• Cell Theory • Theory of Plate Tectonics
• Evolutionary Theory • Acoustic Theory
• Germ Theory of Disease • Electromagnetic Theory
• Atomic Theory • Quantum Field Theory
• Kinetic Theory of Gases

16. WHAT MAKES A “GOOD”
THEORY
• Fecundity
• Tentative
• Testable
• Falsifiable
• Naturalistic
Michael Ruse

18. A GENERAL PATHWAY
• Observe world (collect observations / facts)
• Ask “why” questions
• Make explanatory hypothesis
• Make predictions or retrodictions
• Test predictions or retrodictions by experiment or further
observation - Assume uniform cause and effect (actualism)
• Eventually form a theory

26. IS CREATIONISM SCIENTIFIC?
“Creation [is] the bringing into being of
the basic kinds of plants and animals by
the process of sudden, or fiat, creation,
an example of which is described in the
first two chapters of Genesis. … We do
not know how God created, what
processes He used, for God used
processes which are not now operating
anywhere in the natural universe.”
Duane T. Gish (1995) Evolution: The Fossils Say No! p. 34 – emphasis in original.

27. IS CREATIONISM SCIENTIFIC?
“Creation cannot be proved
[because] creation is not taking
place now, as far as can be
observed … and is thus
inaccessible to the scientific
method.”
Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, p. 5

28. IS CREATIONISM SCIENTIFIC?
“Creation is, of course, unproven and
unprovable and thus cannot be
considered as a fact. It is not subject to
test by the ordinary methods of
observational science – observation
and falsification. It thus does not, in a
strict sense, qualify as a scientific
theory.”
Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! p. 13

29. IS CREATIONISM SCIENTIFIC?
• “Creation science” is not science, and
• Neither is evolution, so
• Ifone is taught in science class, both
should be taught as both are a matter of
belief.

30. Belief: Confidence, faith or trust in the truth or existence of
something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

31. RELIGION
•A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of
the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a
supernatural agency (or agencies), usually involving devotional
and ritual observances and often having a moral code for the
conduct of human affairs.
• Supernatural: something above or beyond what is explainable
by natural laws.

33. Allegorically
True
Literally “Simply A
True Story”
Revealed
Text

34. AUGUSTINE
“If it happens that the
authority of sacred Scripture
is set in opposition to clear
and certain reasoning, the
person who interprets
Scripture does not
understand it correctly.”

35. Christina of Lorraine

36. THE TWO BOOKS

37. Flat Earthers
Geocentrists
Young Earth Creationists
Continuum
Old Earth Creationists of
Positions
Progressive Creationists
Theistic Evolutionists
Naturalistic Evolutionists

38. • Young Earth Creationism
Literalism • “Scientific Creationism”
• Progressive Creationism
Old Earth
• Theistic Evolution
Naturalistic • Agnostic or Atheistic Evolution

39. STRICT BIBLICAL LITERALISM
Flat-Earthism Geocentrism
International Flat Earth Society Robert Sungenis (Catholic
(3,500 members) Apologetics International)
Claim support from Isaiah James Hansen: “I sincerely
40:22, Deuteronomy 28:64, believe that evolution and
33:17; Psalms 98:3, 135:7; heliocentricity go together ... To
Jeremiah 25:31and Revelation me it appears as inconsistent for
20:8, among others. people to accept creation and
then to oppose geocentricity.”

40. YOUNG EARTH OR
“SCIENTIFIC” CREATIONISM
• Biblical literalism on most issues.
• “Bible-believing Christianity”
• “Special Creation”
• Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.
• Special creation of “kinds” (“baramin”)
• Historicity of Noachian Flood
• Rejection of many of the conclusions of modern
physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and geology.

42. OLD EARTH CREATIONISM
• Harmonization of theology • Gap Creationism
and scientific data that
began in the 1700’s. • Day-Age Creationism
• Acceptance of the age of • Progressive
or Evolutionary
the Earth but general Creationism
rejection of evolution

43. PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM
• Majority view among modern OEC’s
• Acceptance of modern chemistry,
physics, geology, and most of biology.
• Sequentialcreation of groups (“kinds”)
by God or Pre-programmed
appearance of organelles, organs or
organisms.

44. THEISTIC EVOLUTION
• The view of creation taught at the
majority of mainline Protestant seminaries,
and the position of the Catholic Church.
• God creates through the laws of nature
• Acceptance of descent with modification
• To what degree does God intervene
Origin of humans? Origin of human mental
capacity?

45. AGNOSTIC EVOLUTION
Accept the scientific evidence
that evolution occurred but do
not consider important the
question of whether God is or
was or will be involved.
T.H. Huxley

46. • Intelligent Design
Literalism
• Intelligent Design
Old Earth
• Naturalistic “Design”
Naturalistic

47. • Methodological Theism
• Philosophical Theism
Literalism
• Methodological Naturalism
Old Earth
• Philosophical Theism
• Methodological Naturalism
Naturalistic
• Philosophical Naturalism or Theism

48. EVIDENTIALISM
• Prescriptiveclaim that Belief in
God must be supported by
objective evidence.
• Any belief is rational if and only if
there is sufficient evidence to
support it, and rationality is in
direct proportion to the balance
of evidence.
David Hume

49. NON-EVIDENTIALISM
• Claimthat basic beliefs can be
held without objective, rational
evidence.
• Fideism: religious
belief must be
based on faith alone.
• Faith: Firm
belief in something
for which there is no proof.
Soren Kierkegaard

50. KURT WISE
“If all the evidence in the
universe turns against
creationism, I would be the
first to admit it, but I would
still be a creationist because
that is what the Word of
God seems to indicate.”