Science is based on empirical evidence (observation). If you doubt a certain empirical claim, you can repeat the experiment or verify the observation to see if you get the same result. Because of its "repeatable" criterion, science is said to be intersubjective in that its claims can be communicated between subjects and verified independently by different subjects.
Creationism, conversely, is a doctrine. It is a position one holds, not a theory that a community works to perfect. Creationism claims to be based on the “revealed truth” of a trustworthy text. There are several complications relating to revelation. There is a popular buzz word now: “Bible-based.” This is a new term for what used to be called “sola scriptura.” The problem with the claim that a view is “Bible-based” is that any text involves two elements: a text and a reader. All texts require interpretation, and it is the interpretation that causes the controversy.
The text itself could be poetry, fiction, literal truth, mythology, primitive science, or allegory. How does one know how it should be taken? “Believers” will claim that such knowledge is given to them by the Holy Spirit. Those who see the text differently are not elect. This knowledge is not like the intersubjective knowledge of the scientist. It is not something that can be communicated.
Whereas scientists need to be cautious about being dogmatic – the recent expose of the global warming “advocates” manipulating data points this out. Similarly, those who argue that their view is Bible-based need to be cautious of what they impose upon the text. It is very common, for instance, for a reader to impose upon the Bible a connecting narrative. Such a narrative is not found in the text, yet colors the reader’s entire understanding. There is no such thing as a view that is sola scriptura.
No comments:
Post a Comment