How do you define science? What are its boundaries? Does the scientific mind have any space for miracles?
Came across a BioLogos Forum series on Miracles and Science by the physicist Ard Louis.* Below’s a quote on defining science, from the end of Miracles and Science, Part 1.
The problem of deciding where to draw the lines around science has vexed generations of philosophers. Like many unsolved issues, it has been given its own name — “the demarcation problem.” Although one can determine with some degree of consensus what the extremes of the science/non-science continuum are, exactly where the boundary lies is fuzzy. This doesn’t mean, however, that we cannot recognize science when we see it, but rather that a watertight definition is difficult to create. The old fashioned idea (still taught in many schools) that scientific practice follows a well-defined linear process — first make an observation, then state a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis — is certainly far too simple – Miracles and Science, Part 1 (Ard Louis. BioLogos Forum. 06/25/2010).
In the Miracles and Science Part 2 (7/3/2010), Louis weaves together the tapestry of science (experimental results, interpretations, explanations, etc.) and points out some of the limits of science. At least one more post in the series, but you can jump directly to more of the material as it’s drawn from a recently-posted scholarly essay.**
So how do you define science? What are its boundaries? Does the practice of science (or a scientifically informed perspective) have any space for miracles? Do you frame these questions along similar lines to Louis? If you’re uncomfortable with Louis’ perspective, do you have an alternative to offer?
*Reader in Theoretical Physics and a Royal Society University Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, where he leads a research group studying problems on the border between chemistry, physics and biology. He is also the International Secretary for Christians in Science, an associate of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion and served on the board of advisors for the John Templeton Foundation.
**A.A. Louis. Miracles and Science: The Long Shadow of David Hume, i.e., a translation of A.A. Louis, “Wonderen en wetenschap: De lange schaduw van David Hume,” Omhoog kijken in Platland, ed Cees Dekker, Rene’ van Woudenberg en Gijsbert van den Brink, Ten Have (2007).
Related posts (automatically generated):
- Coming Soon from InterVarsity Press: Constantine, Science, Business, and More We’re introducing a new occasional contributor and feature on the Emerging...
- Science & Literature Over at Books & Culture, Karl W. Giberson reviews The...
- What is the ‘Rightful Place’ of Science? What are your thoughts on ‘the Rightful Place of Science’...
- Introducing the “Oracles of Science” As a member of the Central Pennsylvania Forum for Religion...
- “Science and medicine must be separate from religion” Thank-you to the friend of ESN who in response to...
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is currently seeking applicants for several positions:
I would certainly agree that scientific progress is not always linear. In fact, the best breakthroughs occur seemingly by accident. I also think we science educators (perhaps with the assistance of our colleagues in philosophy?) should develop ways to cultivate what Sire (in “Habits of the Mind”) calls “lateral thinking” in our students in the sciences.
In my introductory physics courses, I illustrate this concept by having the students watch and discuss and episode of “House.” In nearly every episode of this show, the characters practice the linear middle-school-textbook scientific method for the first 39 minutes of the episode, making nearly no progress. Then, once House stops thinking about the problem (a key to lateral thinking), he has a flash of insight and solves the case in a few seconds. But, my students often astutely point out, such flashes of insight almost exclusively occur in the context of a linear scientific method. (Also, in the episode we watch, House is racing against the clock, which the students point out is not conducive to good scientific inquiry.)
I agree with what Mr.Lane said about science being linear. Holds true more today since there has been a lot of branches emerging and lots of inventions/ideas are being discovered accidentally.What it is trying to limit itself though is in terms of what is observed,measure and verified.
A friend of mine suffered a terrible accident when he was 15 (this was back in the 60s) and he was burned by gasoline to point where 80 percent of his skin was burnt. The doctors initially didn’t think he would live. Once he survived, they said that he would be badly disfigured for his entire life, with scars all over his body. Over a period of several years, God miraculously healed him so that all of his scars disappeared. I recently created a short documentary on his story which he has also written a book about entitled Angel in the Fire. You can watch this short documentary for free at http://bit.ly/s4f1S5 and click on “Angel in the Fire”. This has been a very moving piece for myself and others and we hope will touch the lives of many.