The following is a production of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. For more information about the seminary, visit us online at gpts.edu. Thank you, Dr. Piper, and let me express my thanks to the faculty and the board for this kind invitation to speak to you about this important topic this morning. Also, let me thank you for putting me before lunch for if one thing's guaranteed by a study of the philosophy of science, the cure of insomnia is surely that guarantee. So we'll try to keep our attention on this topic for a few brief moments here this morning. Please pray with me once again. Once again, our God and Father. You are so good to us. You have given us every treasure of wisdom and knowledge in Jesus Christ, and that extends to everything in the creation You made in the space of six days. Help us, Lord, to understand the assumptions You would have us to believe, which come directly from Your perfect, inerrant Word. O Lord, cast down every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of you in Christ Jesus our Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit and do so for the glory of our King's name this morning. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, I assume that for many people, when you heard the title of this lecture after jumping for joy, a very basic question came to mind, and that is, what does a certain view of the philosophy of science make with respect to one's view of the biblical doctrine of man? Put more bluntly, who cares? The short answer is that as Christians, we should care because every one of us, and every person really, has a philosophy of science which drives not only his or her view of the scientific enterprise as a whole, but also the particular facts and evidences that are said to make up that enterprise. Let me attempt to clarify what I mean by way of a fond memory here at Greenville Seminary. I remember in one of our classes, Dr. Piper saying that a local church was only as strong as its weakest ruling elder. Now, having served in a number of churches since I first heard those words, I can testify to their truth. And let me apply that same reasoning to the question before us. I think it's fair to say that a scientific theory is only as good as the philosophy of science that undergirds it. That is, if the philosophy of science used to attack the biblical doctrine of man is seriously flawed, then it follows that the attack itself fails. So I will proceed to make a case against the uncritical acceptance of the philosophy of science deployed by those who argue that it's high time to rethink the biblical doctrine of man. I want to argue my case in two points. In the first section, I will demonstrate that the particular philosophy of science, often used by professing evangelicals to criticize the Bible's doctrine of man, is a type of scientific realism. More on that terminology here in a moment. Peter N.' 's recent book on Adam and evolution, entitled The Evolution of Adam, will occupy our attention in the main in this first section with Dennis Lamoureux's book, I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution Playing a Supporting Role. I will make some brief criticisms of both these works along the way, but I will save my broader criticisms for the second section. And in that section, I want to offer a very general critique of the type of scientific realism deployed by Enns and Company, used by both — using both Christians and non-Christians to demonstrate the flaws with this particular philosophy of science. Here's the main point. If indeed this philosophy of science, which undergirds Enns and others' views of evolution, If it is internally self-refuting, which I think it is, then Enz's case and those who follow him against the Bible's doctrine of man fails. So then I will offer a concluding sketch of how Christians might begin to think in a biblical way. about the philosophy of science. So in the first section, let me demonstrate that the philosophy of science used to undermine the biblical doctrine of man is that of scientific realism. And I think it's fair to say that this is the default assumption for most people today. Now, let me give you a standard definition. Here's how one scholar puts it. Quote, scientific realism holds that science progressively secures true or approximately true theories about the real independent world out there and does so in a rationally justifiable way. In other words, scientific realism holds that certain scientific theories give us objective truth about the world, to put it concretely. This philosophy of science, I think, seems so plausible to most people that if you dare question it, the familiar eye roll happens and people mutter something about why philosophy is such a waste of time. However, the very fact that certain theories which were considered unarguably true and irrefragably true in one era only to be disproved in the next, Newtonian physics anyone, ought to give us pause before considering scientific realism the only philosophical game in town. Therefore, by way of contrast, the longstanding opponent of scientific realism is unsurprisingly called scientific anti-realism. Scientific anti-realists hold, quote, that the aim of science is to provide a true description of a certain part of the world, the observable part, close quote, as one scholar puts it. This is why one variety of anti-realism is sometimes called instrumentalism. Science is a useful instrument to help us in the world, but scientific theories, according to this view, strictly speaking, do not correspond to what is actually out there. So some anti-realists go so far as to describe scientific theories as useful fictions. And I'm quoting there, useful fictions. Put simply, scientific theories on this view are useful, but they are not true in the most common sense of that term. As you can see, this is a more radical and pragmatically oriented philosophy of science. It is important to note, I think, at this point, that both of these views of the philosophy of science, realism and anti-realism, believe themselves to be coherent without any reference to the triune God of Scripture. Both begin with the assumption of the autonomy of man's mind and his ability to understand the world around him or not, in some case. So I think it's fair to say, again, that without fear of contradiction, that the default philosophy of science for most people you and I will meet today is that of scientific realism. We tend to think, as a society and really as a world, that scientific models are not merely useful pragmatically, but that they actually describe, however imperfectly, the world out there. In other words, most people believe scientific theories are true and not open to doubt by any sane person. And given the massive supposed technological advances produced by this scientific enterprise, it is often accorded the highest degree of epistemic authority in our society today. It's a ritual and old phrase we've all seen on the bumper stickers. Now people tend to think science believes, science said it, I believe it, that settles it. And let me just say in passing really quick, I said the alleged scientific discoveries, I don't doubt for a minute that there's been technological advances. I just question whether or not the philosophy of science which undergirds those advances is really what people think it is. Now, nowhere is this popular acceptance of scientific realism more on display than in the current debates, in my estimation, surrounding the doctrine of man in evangelical and Reformed circles. According to certain ostensibly Reformed and, in some cases, evangelical authors, the supposedly incontrovertible evidence from science for evolution makes a rethinking of biblical anthropology not simply desirable, Don't hear them saying that. Not just maybe we should do this, but morally necessary. Morally necessary. According to some in the evangelical and Reformed camps, we must rethink doctrines like creation, providence, or the doctrine of man, or we will be intellectually dishonest. That's why I say they say to us we must do this or we will be morally culpable. We will be dishonest if we don't face this overwhelming evidence for evolution. Now, within these circles, unquestionably, Peter Enns is the most prolific author that has expressed grave doubts about the Bible's teaching on human origins and thus biblical anthropology. Many of you are familiar with Dr. Enns. He's been mentioned a number of times during the course of this conference. I think he's perhaps best known for his highly publicized dismissal from Westminster Theological Seminary in 2007, following the publication of his book in 2005, Inspiration and Incarnation. In that book, Enns called for, surprisingly, a revision of the traditional understanding of inerrancy. He concluded by sketching what he believed were the most promising paths for maintaining a belief in some kind of theory of inspiration, while aiming at more basically, I think, in inspiration and incarnation, for a full-blown synthesis between the conclusions from archaeological discoveries on the one hand, and most importantly for our purposes here today, scientific evidence for evolution on the other. He says we have to synthesize that with the biblical data. Subsequent to Inspiration and Incarnation, Enns published The Evolution of Adam. This monograph is divided into two parts, the first part entitled Genesis, An Ancient Story of Israelite Self-Definition, and the second part, Understanding Paul's Adam. Throughout this work, Enns assumes, without argument, ever, as I've read it, the truth of scientific realism, as I hope to make clear in this analysis. So let's go through Enns very quickly here. Commendably and helpfully, early on, Enns makes an attempt to lay his presuppositional cards on the table. He writes, quote, reflects my contention that our thinking about Adam must change or, perhaps better, continue to change. I am arguing that our understanding of Adam has evolved over the years and that it must now be adjusted in the light of the preponderance of the scientific evidence supporting evolution." after the customary, perfunctory, and facile dismissal of young-earth creationism as akin to membership in the Flat Earth Society, ends challenges all views that are rooted, quote, unquote, in a pre-commitment to read the Bible literally at virtually every point despite evidence to the contrary, close quote. He concludes, again quoting, it is clear that from a scientific point of view, the Bible does not always describe physical reality accurately," close quote. For both of these statements and what I just mentioned before that, I infer charitably, I hope, that Enns believes that evolutionary theory does, in fact, describe physical reality accurately, to borrow his phrase. Such statements as he's just made and as we've just read place him firmly within the realist camp. from here and summarizes his understanding of modern evolutionary theory. Quote, evolution tells us that human beings are not the product of a special creative act by God, as the Bible says, but are the end product of a process of trial and error adaptation and natural selection. This process began billions of years ago and humans also happen to share a close common ancestry with primates. very basic description of evolutionary theory today. Ends recognizes what such a view will do to the traditional view of Scripture. He says, quote, if evolution is correct, one can no longer accept as true in any sense of the word, historical, the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis specifically, 126 through 31 and 27 and 22, close quote. Now, N's preferred solution to relieve this tension is to relieve it in the direction of modifying our views away from what he calls a literal historical reading of Genesis. And he concludes this way, quoting, unless one simply rejects scientific evidence, as some continue to do, adjustments to the biblical story are always necessary, close quote. So far from Enns we can see not just hints at, but an unquestioning and perhaps unquestionable commitment to scientific realism. Enns' basic argument is that the evidence for naturalistic evolution is so overwhelming and so preponderant that rejecting this supposed evidence is simply not an option for serious and thoughtful Christians. Far from formulating the philosophy of science in light of the God of creation, he has instead told us we need to revise the biblical account of man's creation in light of the allegedly self-sustaining scientific data. So he invites evangelicals to reconsider their commitment to the traditional teaching that Adam was a historical individual. So for our purposes, the second half of Enz's book will occupy the remainder of our attention to his views. He opens this second section dusting off the raggedy old scarecrow of Paul's supposed belief in a three-tiered universe. leading to his charge that the apostle mistakenly maintained ancient cosmological commitments. Now, to be fair, he qualifies himself at this point by saying, quote, I am quick to add that what we prize today is knowledge of the physical reality does not exhaust all things that are worth knowing. I am not a materialist, nor have I bowed the knee to the false god that natural science is sometimes made out to be, close quote. Once again, Enns' realist assumptions are on display. He has assumed that the physical sciences give a sufficiently firm and certain knowledge of reality. And as an aside, I don't think it's going too far to say that, though Enns may not have intentionally bowed the knee to the false god of materialism, he has perhaps unwittingly genuflected at its presuppositional temple. That is, N's naive acceptance of the realist assumptions, together with a professed independence from divine revelation, both of which are employed by modern evolutionary theory, lead him to an unhesitating acceptance of the evidence employed by the materialists from which he wishes to distance himself. Put simply, one can imagine these same materialists he doesn't like saying to him, thou art not far from the kingdom of naturalism. Returning to our analysis, after denying that Adam is the head of the human race, as Paul understood Adam to be, Enns asks this, quote, If Adam is not the cause of sin and death for all humanity, why, then, do humans sin and die? Close quote. Admitting the difficulty of this question, Enns once again betrays his realist assumptions, writing that, quote, failure to provide at once an adequate counterposal to a historical atom for the why question does not mean that the scientific and archaeological data that raised the problem in the first place can be set aside. Enns views the scientific and archaeological data has established and beyond question, raising the apparent tension between Paul's teaching and modern science. Enns concludes his book by suggesting nine theses for a modern understanding of Adam. We'll look at the first one. The first thesis, Literalism is Not an Option, that's the title of it, clearly spells out Enns' naive scientific realist presuppositions. Here's what he writes, kind of a lengthy quote here. Much of part one addresses this issue in one way or another. One cannot read Genesis literally, meaning as a literally accurate description of physical historical reality in view of the state of scientific knowledge today. Those who read Genesis literally must either ignore evidence completely or present alternate theories in order to maintain spiritual stability. Unfortunately, alternate scientific theories sometimes keep themselves free from the burden of peer review. Such professional isolation can encourage casually sweeping aside generations and even centuries of accumulated knowledge. Dr. Enns rides in on the white horse of scientific knowledge to rescue us evangelicals, benighted as we are. Now, without getting too far ahead of ourselves in terms of critique, let me note a few problems with this argument just quickly. First, what is the state of scientific knowledge today is unclear, contrary to N's confidence in such a thing. Do a little bit of research, and you'll see that they can't even agree among themselves as scientists what constitutes scientific knowledge. And, in fact, throughout the history of science, as Thomas Kuhn noted in his paradigm-shifting book, no pun intended, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, what is the state of scientific knowledge at any point in history is disputable. Enns shows not even a passing acquaintance with these debates. Second, Enns does not inform us which alternate theories keep themselves free from the burden of peer review. What are they? Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, he doesn't tell us. More problematic is the fact that he does not seem to be aware of recent works which contest the assumption that peer review equals a greater likelihood of truth. Let me quote the title of one book by a guy named David Schatz. The title of his book is called Peer Review, A Critical Inquiry. Another scholar by the name of J.P. — I'm probably going to mispronounce this — Ionidis has an article published in a well-known journal entitled, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. of these debates. Now, Enns' remaining theses, I just quoted the first one there, summarize his argument for his hermeneutical position, and so need not detain us here. And after waxing eloquently and perhaps somewhat autobiographically about the possible sociological causes for the stubborn refusal of benighted evangelicals and, quote, unquote, fundamentalists to accept evolutionary theory, Enns concludes with Thesis 9, quote, A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires, here's the word again, a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations. Now, do you understand what he means by synthesis here? He wants to overturn the historic view of the church regarding man's origins in favor of a thoroughly secular anthropology. Say that again, a thoroughly secular anthropology. And his proposed synthesis assumes without argument the truth of scientific realism. Here's how he concludes. Christians can turn away, but the current scientific explanation of cosmic and biological origins is not going away. Now, as an aside, Well, actually, let me say this. Based on the above evidence, I think it's not unfair to conclude that Enns' philosophy of science is a rather naive brand of scientific realism, as we've seen. And while Enns is now an erstwhile contributor to BioLogos, His one-time colleague, Dennis Lamoureux, remains active with Biologos, holds to a similar philosophy of science as Enns. Because of space, I can only cite a few citations from Lamoureux's work to prove his kinship with Enns, but we'll do so anyway. Lamoureux's book is I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution. Just a nice, warm, and cuddly title to disarm you. You can love Jesus and you can accept evolution. Under the section entitled Terms and Definitions, Lamoureux clearly and unequivocally endorses scientific realism of the naive brand. Quote, science deals only with the laws and processes of the physical world. Scientific methods and instruments cannot detect teleology or disteleology. That word disteleology means that existence has no purpose. So what he's saying is scientific theories can't detect purpose or no purpose in the universe. Like Enns, Lamoureux's remarks reveal a subterranean commitment to a realist philosophy of science and a philosophically uncritical appropriation of the same. Do you understand that? There's not a well thought out philosophy underlying this at all. It's just a uncritical acceptance of this. As we saw with Enns, Lamoureux evidences a kind of Kantian dualism. And what I mean by that is you remember the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant, by the most favored reading of Kant's work, divided reality into the phenomenal realm of facts that you can know. And then he divided the other realm into the noumenal realm, which are things accessed not by pure reason and really unknowable. And that has really been the plague on the church in modern theology since then. If you want to know the lineage of every single denial of the faith, since the 19th century look no further than the patron saint of agnosticism and one of Satan's choice servants throughout the history of the world, Immanuel Kant, despite his surname. Here's what Lamoureux writes, evidencing this kind of Kantian dualism. Science offers, quote, a vast and wonderful knowledge about nature, but it is dead silent with regard to ultimate meaning in the physical world. Note the disjunction. Science offers knowledge about nature, but not about anything metaphysical. It's a classic Kantian move here. Now, apparently unaware that every stated scientific position comes prepackaged with metaphysical commitments, Lamoureux continues, quote, theologians and philosophers depend on science in coming to their deepest beliefs. Theologians and philosophers depend on science. in coming to their deepest beliefs. They need facts about the natural world before they can decide on its ultimate meaning. Stated concisely, metaphysics requires physics." Now, again, not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but let me note that that last statement by Lamoureux gets things exactly backwards. Physics requires metaphysics. Every scientist, every person, indeed, has certain definite metaphysical commitments that must be in place for the scientific enterprise to even get off the ground. Two examples of such commitments that are metaphysical to the core would be the uniformity of nature and the reliability of sense perception, both of which, again, are inescapably metaphysical. I can hardly imagine a more naive statement to be made. From here, Lamoureux continues to reveal his realist presuppositions. Here's what he writes. Quote, in order to arrive at ultimate beliefs, here Kant again, everyone must jump upward from the scientific data, close quote. Note again the central tenet of an unrefined realism. The scientific data presented to the senses are unproblematic and indisputable. Now, and to be sure, Lamoureux does not think that one jumps in a leap of faith without reason, but a jump it is nonetheless. Science, he has told us, is dead silent on ultimate issues. Now, Lamoureux gives a salutary gesture to the noetic effects of sin at this point, concluding that these noetic effects of sin cause the atheist to read the physical data naturalistically, while Christian scientists, because they are regenerate, read the data as pointing to a creator. We didn't draw attention to this in our analysis of Enns, but Lamoureux agrees with Enns that the, quote, unquote, science of the Bible is of a different kind than we use today. The science of the Bible, according to Lamoureux and Enns, is ancient, uninformed, and falsified by today's standards. But it was accepted as true among the people of its day, so it's okay. This construct, that the science of the Bible is different from the science we use today, also assumes the truth of scientific realism. And to be fair, again, like Enns, Lamoureux recoils at the idea that having this view of science and the Bible versus science today entails that God lied to the bygone biblical writers. Rather, according to Lamoureux, here's this word they love. God accommodated himself to ancient readers. Now, Lenz and Amorow bandy about this term, and neither one ever spells out what he means by it. It's all rather vaguely used in their writings, and that's problematic. It's a hinged term for their argument. So Lamorow thinks that the errors of scientific fact recorded in the Bible are not culpable errors on God's part. They're simply accommodations. So it's not erroneous from his point of view, for the ancient writers to have believed in a three-tiered universe or a flat earth, for such was simply an accommodation to their falsified science of their period. And this, of course, has been overturned by modern science. Now, let me just pause here. John Frame makes a great observation. Here's what he writes about this view of accommodation. Listen to what Professor Frame writes. Accommodation does not mean, as some have claimed, that God speaks error to us. Rather, it means that he speaks truth in such a way that we can understand it insofar as it can be understood by human beings. Theologians compare divine accommodation to a parent's accommodation to his children. Now listen to this. But a wise parent, while choosing simple language to use with his children, does not lie to them. That is where Enns and Lamoureux jump the shark, so to speak. At this point, we need to pause again to offer a brief critique of Lamoureux's arguments. First, let me ask a question. Did the ancients really view the world the way Lamoureux describes? Is that the case, that the ancients believed in a flat Earth and a three-tiered universe? Like Enns, you will search in vain for any scholarship to the contrary of their views, whether in footnotes, in journal articles, in their popular works, or their more scholarly works. Both Enns and Lamereau, therefore, are guilty of being highly selective in the presentation of their evidence. Second, and following from the first, Lamereau apparently does not think it's worthy to offer the other side of his argument concerning the supposed evidence for evolution. Highly credentialed scientists, as many of you know, through places like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, to name two that I think are so helpful, have ably questioned and shown the farce of evolution of what it is, using the same evidence that Lamoureux and Enzius. Third and more importantly, Lamoureux has nowhere recognized the insurmountable philosophical difficulties in his understanding of the physical data. He thus compounds his previous error of failing to recognize the inescapable metaphysical commitments of science with this uncritical acceptance of the so-called evidence for evolution. Now, before moving to this general critique of this brand of scientific realism, let me summarize what we've seen so far. Both men hold that the evidence for evolution based on the physical data is incontrovertible. I think we've seen that. Despite numerous gestures to reading both the Bible and the Book of Nature on their respective terms, both men undeniably accept the authority of the scientific evidence as determinative of their view of Scripture. Furthermore, both men hold to a philosophically naive understanding of the scientific enterprise. Neither shows even a passing acquaintance with the current discussions in the philosophy of science. Neither demonstrates a philosophically rigorous or carefully reasoned appropriation of evolutionary thought. Rather, both concede that evolution is a fact and the biblical data must be explained in light of and indeed corrected by the current scientific enterprise. Now let me ask in our second section here, is naive realism a realistic option? Is naive realism a realistic option? Now this is a very basic critique of scientific realism. And I want to do so by pointing out three major problems that must be answered for this to be a realistic option that is scientific realism. First, here's the first question we'll look at. How do we know the real world? Here's where we're going to tackle the thorny problem of the veil of perception. I told you you were glad this happened before lunch. Second, we will look at what is the nature of scientific evidence. Is it as unproblematic and value-free as scholars like Enns and Lamoureux imagine it to be? Finally, we will look at the overarching problem of criteria. By what criteria are we to determine which scientific theories are true or even likely to be true? Enns and his cohorts assume that evolution is unquestionably true, and hence question traditional biblical anthropology. Is this a philosophically defensible view of scientific theory? First, then, the veil of perception. This is an age-old philosophical puzzle. The question essentially is this. How can we know that there is a real world outside of our minds? In the central debates from Plato and Aristotle up through the continental rationalists and the British empiricists up to our own day. And those who would deny that we can know the real world outside of ourselves make this contention because they say that all we may know are the sensations we have in our own mind. Two philosophers put it this way. Our situation, quote, might be likened to that of a person sitting alone inside his own private cinema, watching films that purport to depict the world beyond the cinema, but unable to go outside and check what they see on the screen corresponds to anything at all, close quote. Here's the first problem then for Enzi's philosophy of science. Given the assumptions of scientific realism, based as it is on this empirical view of the world, how can we know whether or not there's a real world outside of our minds? Dire skepticism threatens on this view. Make no mistake, this is a problem that has not gone away. One philosopher summarizes the difficulty well. Quote, and while the philosophical problem of the real world, from Descartes to Kant to Bradley, may well be unsolvable. Did you hear that? The philosophical problem of the real world may well be unsolvable. Philosophers of science should confine their attention to this specific problem of explaining how abstract mathematical structure can represent a concrete physical entity." Now, what this philosopher is saying is that other philosophers ought to confine their attention to more concrete research concerns, as the veil of perception problem may well be nigh unsolvable. Moreover, the problem of the veil of perception is multiplied in an evolutionary scheme. Why? According to evolution, nature has no discernible purpose and therefore our senses are chance developments. How could that which is blind, random, and constantly changing ever produce knowledge? Recycling an earlier question, how can we know for sure that our knowledge of the real world is true and not simply that we are experiencing our own private sensations? We can see why those who subscribe to this kind of scientific realism have a serious problem on their hands at this point. They cannot simply assume that scientific realism is true. They must show how they get behind, if you like, the veil of perception. What is their safeguard against wholesale skepticism? That's what needs to be answered. Now, as Christians, we have an answer that is fairly straightforward. We avoid skepticism at this point because we have God's word. which guarantees us access, if you will, to the world outside of our minds. We have a third person and the third great one-in-three person's view of reality. Moreover, that word tells us that God made his creation to be known. The works of the Lord are known by all and delighted in by all who know him, as the psalmist tells us. Skepticism, as I just described, only threatens if God's word is not our presuppositional bedrock. Second problem. As we saw, they assume that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, and thus the biblical doctrine of man must, to borrow the title of Bishop Spong's heretical book, change or die. But is the evidence that these men present as unproblematic as they believe? Now, as I noted above, scholars far more qualified than I have ably destroyed, in my opinion, the supposed evidence for evolution. Moreover, and most importantly, I think these same authors, again, many of them highly credentialed scientists, have tirelessly shown that it is the underlying philosophical presuppositions that shape one's view of the evidence. If we don't get that, beloved, we're giving away the store. We can debate all of these other issues round about here in the ether. We must drill down to the root. That was the core of Dr. Van Til's methodology, which I hope and pray we are all convinced of. and joyful to be inheritors of such a methodology. We must drill down to these philosophical presuppositions. Let me give you two examples of scientists who recognize this, one from a Christian, the other from a non-Christian. Philosopher of science J.P. Moreland observes that, quote, Seeing something is not a passive matter of receiving stimuli on one's retinae. Rather, seeing involves seeing as, or seeing that, it involves, listen to this, an interpretive element, close quote. Here's what Moreland is saying. You and I tend to think that we touch this and it's here. He's saying you already have assumptions in place to even know that. There's always an interpretive element in even using your senses. Now, second, consider Henry Gee's admission regarding fossil evidence, a key plank in the case for both Lamoureux and Enns. Gee is a leading evolutionist in Cambridge, paleontologist, and thus hardly friendly to the creationist cause. However, he is also an honest scholar. Here's what he has to say about the supposed fossil evidence for evolution. Listen to this quote. Quote, fossils are never found with labels or certificates of authenticity. The attribution of ancestry does not come from the fossil. It can only come from us. Fossils are mute. Their silence gives us unlimited license to tell their stories for them, which usually take the form of chains of ancestry and descent. Such tales are sustained more in our minds than in reality and are informed and conditioned by our own prejudices. If there are missing links, they exist only in our imaginations." Now this is just one example, but they could be multiplied. What Enns and Lamoureux seem to have missed is that it is not a matter of the supposed evidence for or against evolution, beloved. But again, the philosophical presupposition that underlies one's view or one's reading of that evidence. Consequently, one's religious presuppositions, which in turn shape one's philosophy of science, are determinative of what will and will not count as evidence for evolution. In summary, the problem is not scientific, beloved, it's philosophical. A third problem for the naive scientific realist like Enns and company is the problem of criteria. This problem grows out of and really acts as an umbrella of the other two. Stated simply, where is the criterion by which to judge the truth and accuracy of scientific theories? And you may say, that sounds like a crazy question to ask. It's a lot more difficult than you think. The data from the natural realm fit any number of theories. This is a technical term in the philosophy of science known as underdetermination of data. So you have different sets of data. They fit different numbers of theories. How do we choose which one is true? Well, people have come up with all kinds of criteria. One of the most popular today is falsifiability. If you can falsify it, therefore it's probably not true and the other theory is true. The argument runs this way, stated simply, if a scientific theory is falsifiable, it is more likely to be true. But here's what one physicist says regarding this, and he's not a creationist. Quote, it is universally thought that it is impossible to construct a falsifiable theory which is consistent with the thousands of observations indicating an age of billions of years, but which holds that the universe is only a few thousand years old. Let me pause here. You understand what he's saying. It's universally thought that with all the data we have, it's impossible to construct a model that proves the universe is only a few thousand years old rather than billions of years old. He said that's the consensus. Continuing. I consider such a view to be a slur on the ingenuity of theoretical physicists. We can construct a falsifiable theory with any characteristics you care to name." You see what he's saying? The criterion of falsifiability doesn't do any good for the case of those who want to argue for a theory like evolution being more true. The data can be made to fit with billions of years or thousands of years. So falsifiability is not a serviceable criterion. So which scientific theories are true or even likely to be true? Christian mathematician John Bill summarizes this challenge well. Most scientists would like scientific facts to include at least some well-established theories. But which ones? How can we determine which theories are more likely to be true? Surely not by a majority vote. But what criteria should then be used? And by what criteria should we choose the criteria? To those who wish to expand the scope of scientific knowledge, I leave the challenge of establishing and justifying suitable criteria for discerning true theories. This has yet to be done." Bill's conclusions are nothing if not unsettling, for those who have wedded themselves to a naive scientific realism as ends and company have. Reminds me of the Osgianus quote, those who wed themselves to the spirit of this age will find themselves widowed in the next. Reiterating our earlier point, the Christian has a solution here, beloved. If the inerrant word of God is our presuppositional bedrock, which it must be to avoid skepticism, the problem of criteria is solved. What theory is likely to be true? Whatever accords with the word of God, period. Short of this presupposition, the dire skepticism. that Bill describes threatens. Now, there's other problems we could mention, a whole host of them. The problem of induction. The problem of the so-called scientific method. There's no consensus on what is the, quote, unquote, scientific method. But these three problems, the veil of perception, the problem of evidence, and the problem of criteria, are very real for those who would subscribe to Enns and Lamoureux's views. They must be addressed by these men in a philosophically rigorous way if we are to take seriously their case against God's word. Now, let me conclude here with a few things. What should a Christian think about the realist, anti-realist debate? Well, time forbids anything even close to a sketch of how a Christian might answer. Let me just briefly mention a few things that ought to be fixed in our minds when investigating the philosophy of science. said it before, I'll say it again. I don't get tired of saying it because apparently we all need to be reminded of it. I know I do. But more importantly, our scholarly guild needs to be reminded of this. We must recognize that the truth of the inerrant scriptures of the Old and New Testament is our unquestionable presupposition in all our endeavors, scientific or otherwise. Short of that, you will get vanity and grasping at the wind. As we've seen, scientific knowledge, such as it is, is constantly changing, mysterious, and uncertain at key points. By contrast, Proverbs 18.30 tells us the word of God proves true. Jesus himself settles the question beyond all doubt for those who would follow him in true faith in John 17.17, thy word is truth. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is not accommodated error. It doesn't need to be adjusted. It needs no help from us. It's perfectly sufficient on its own. It will never err. It never has erred. And if we don't build our lives on it and we don't build our philosophy on it, we're doomed to failure. That's what has to be fixed first and foremost in our minds. And let us not admit to the discussion table as Christian those who say, well, I'm not so sure about God's word. Are you saying people who don't believe in inerrancy can't be saved? No, I'm not, but I'm going to tell you what, find me one place in the scriptures where somebody's questioned God's word and it's gone well for them. You'll search in vain for that. And rather inconsistently, and I would argue very dangerously, would you hold that there's errors in the scripture? And moreover, let me just quote the great theologian E.J. Young, when he put it so well, Man does not know enough to even know if there's errors in the Bible. Be reminded of that, beloved. Build your life on this word. Let us make sure that we build our philosophy of science and all our endeavors on this word. Now, any scientific theory, therefore, that contradicts the biblical record cannot be true. Put more theologically, to argue against the position that any scientific theory that contradicts the biblical record cannot be true is tantamount to this, beloved. It's tantamount to saying that general revelation is clear and authoritative, while special revelation lacks such attributes. You're saying that the world is more clear than God's word. The order must never be reversed as our confession teaches us. What is the order? General revelation always and only interpreted by special revelation. Don't lose that. And more specifically, one scholar reminds us that God's Word governs the areas of debate between the realists and anti-realists. God's Word provides a solution for these debates. How so? The scriptures teach us that man is covenantally related to creation since he was taken from the ground, as our brother so eloquently described for us, from which the animals were created. So the epistemological question, how we know what we know, that question at the center of the realist-antirealist debate is, because covenantal, intensely, therefore, theological. That is, it's not simply a question of the relationship between the knowing subject and the object out there, as the history of philosophy has classically framed the debate. The question is, how do these two relate? Let me put it this way. The question is of three relationships, beloved, the triune God, the subject, and the object, as Dr. Van Til so eloquently argued through his career. That is, any knowledge we possess is by virtue of the triune God's condescension to us. So the basic question is not the relationship between the subject and the object, but the triune God, the subject, and the object. If you don't take that view, epistemic futility knocks on your door. Now, therefore, the impasse between the realists and anti-realists is solved if we begin our thinking not autonomously, but on the sure word of God. The Bible, as I said, provides an objective and sure viewpoint outside of ourselves from the creator himself Isn't that, have you thought about the gift of that, dear ones? That you have the gift of God's revelation of his mind to you through writers who never made an error? Though we don't agree with him theologically, can you not say with John Wesley when he said, oh, give me that book at any cost. That's the only place we can go. That's the only way to escape these problems. Now third, Let us take care to learn from the realist-anti-realist debate before we begin our apologetics on scientific theories. Some people want to say, well, all the data proves a young universe. I believe that's true, but I believe that's true because of what the scriptures teach, not first and foremost because of what the scientific data tell me. We must start with the scriptures and not wed ourselves to supposedly neutral scientific evidence. As we've seen, it can be read any number of ways. And therefore, a Christian could be a realist at some points and an anti-realist at others regarding the scientific data. And you need not give in to skepticism. God's Word governs both those areas. We must also realize that any time we have problems with the data or any time they seem to contradict the Bible as the Word of God, we don't go back and think God's Word may be wrong. As our brother said the other day, have you ever noticed that in the history of these debates? Whether it's 18th century or 19th century German liberalism, 20th century the quest for the historical Jesus schools, or modern day denials of the biblical doctrine of man. When science questions the Bible, what always loses without fail? The Bible. We have to resist that tendency and once again say, it's not the way that you look at the evidence. It's what you're bringing to the table already. And if that's not built on God's word, you will fail. And you're in a spiritually dangerous condition. Can I add that as well? That if you think that you can just do whatever you like with the world God has made to you, for you, do you not realize that when the psalmist speaks of creation's testimony to you, excuse me, if you deny that testimony, you're more guilty and you'll be punished for that. You'll be punished for all the light you have and you reject the creator still. And let me speak to some of you young people, especially, I know you've been hearing a lot from the pulpit. I'm glad for that. Let me say, some of you may be gifted in science. Undertake your studies with diligence, joy, running the race set before you, and firm confidence knowing that God's word will be vindicated. But do so recognizing that you are not simply handling neutral physical data. Every particle you observe through a microscope to the sun shining on your face as you walk between classes is a gift from the triune creator to you. Take care that you don't look as it were the gift horse in the mouth. And take care that you use what he's given you for his glory and for the good of Christ's church. In closing, I'm reminded of the famous remark of the founding Old Testament professor of Westminster Seminary, Robert Dick Wilson. He said, never fear. God's world will never contradict God's word. What an encouragement Dr. Wilson's words are to us as Christians as we endeavor to do our scientific duties before the Lord. Appropriately then, we give the final word to the Lord himself, speaking to the prophet Isaiah in chapter 45 in verses 24 through 26. I am the Lord who made all these things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish, who confirms the word of His servant and fulfills the counsel of His messengers. Amen. Let us pray. Our God, You have made us for Yourselves, all things even, even the wicked for the day of trouble. And we at once humbly bow before you, recognizing the paucity of our own knowledge, how small we are, and recognizing your greatness and giving thanks with our hearts for the knowledge you've revealed to us in your word and in your world. We know they do not contradict. Help us to think your thoughts after you to the glory of Christ being renewed in his image by the Holy Spirit's powerful activity in us. We pray in Jesus' name, amen.