Total truth--the philosophy behind Darwinism

In her book Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey focuses on a crucial element in the debate over origins. Darwinists insist on the power of natural selection to create the vast diversity of living things on earth. But their examples as cited in my previous blog are not all that convincing. She says this is a clue that something else is at work – that it is not really the evidence that persuades.

Here is something we all need to realize – the philosophy of naturalism that lurks behind evolution. Should the definition of science restrict inquiry to natural causes alone? Or should inquiry be free to follow the evidence wherever it leads – whether it points to a natural or intelligent cause? These are extremely important questions which she explores.

Pearcey says most ordinary people have an idealized image of science. They see it as impartial, unbiased investigation that sticks strictly to the evidence. That’s what all science textbooks say, but the problem is that in practice, science has been co-opted into the camp of the philosophical naturalists – the idea that nature is a closed system of cause and effect.

She uses quotations from well-known evolutionists as proof of this prior philosophical commitment. Richard Dawkins says, “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory…. we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” Why would he say this? Because it is naturalistic. A Kansas State University professor once said in a letter to the prestigious journal Nature, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” In addition, the editor in chief of Scientific American stated that “a central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism – it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.”

Pearcey objects to this definition of science. Who says we have to accept naturalism as a “central tenet” of science? One professor she knew retorted, “Who made up that rule? I don’t remember voting on it.”

We need to confront this definition of science. The only reason for restricting science to methodological naturalism (how science is done) is if we assume from the outset that nature really is a closed system of cause and effect. If, on the other hand, nature is not a closed system, then restricting science to naturalistic theories is not a good strategy for getting at the truth.

The author says our children are encountering this philosophy early in school. She quotes from a typical high school textbook: “Many people believe that a supernatural force or deity created life. That explanation is not within the scope of science.” She points out that the book does not say creation has been proven false or discredited by facts, but only that it falls outside a certain definition of science. It has been ruled out by definition.

It’s sad, but the first question many scientists ask is not whether a theory is true, but whether it is naturalistic. So, evolution wins the debate by default. Darwin himself indicated evolution was not so much a specific theory as a philosophical stance – a stance that could be described as saying any mechanism is acceptable, as long as it is naturalistic. He said, “I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.” He was not wedded to his own theory of natural selection as the only mechanism of evolution, but regarded any mechanism as acceptable as long as it got rid of the concept of divine creation. Pearcey’s conclusion? Darwinian evolution is not so much an empirical finding as a deduction from a naturalistic worldview.

She concludes this section with other interesting statements from well-known Darwinians. Richard Lewontin, for example, says “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” He says this materialism must be “absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” The famous duo who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick and James Watson, freely admit that anti-religious motivations drove their scientific work. Steven Weinberg, a well-known physicist, said, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that.” The hope that science would liberate people from religion is, in his words, “one of the things that in fact has driven me in my life.”

So here is the main idea I hope you take away from all this information. Clearly, the motives driving many evolutionists have as much do with religion as with science. Their prior commitment to a worldview colors what they decide is true. No white lab coat can hide the fact that they have their own prejudices.