Tim explains how many scientists exclude possible conclusions based on philosophical ideas before looking at the evidence.
Here's an illustration to kind of flesh out the difference between these two
things, and I got to give credit to Greg Koukl for giving me this
illustration. Here's the difference between the methodology and the
philosophy. I want you to imagine a well-known person is murdered here at
the conference. Let's say, just because it's so ironic, that it's homicide
detective J. Warner Wallace, all right? I know, it's so sad. We all miss him.
J. Warner, he is murdered here at the conference, and of course he's so
important that the chief of police shows up, the mayor, I mean everybody's here, the
forensic detectives. And the chief of police says, "This case is your top
priority. I want you to use your best forensic methodology to find the killer."
And the forensic detectives are like, "Okay, great." And they get out their
test tubes, and their rubber gloves, and you know, you've seen CSI. They're about
to do their thing. And then he says, "Oh, one more thing,
you can't implicate, you can't charge, you can't convict anyone taller than six
foot. Does anyone see a problem with that? Of course, because what if someone
taller than six foot did it, right? Anyone here taller than six feet? I mean yeah, a
couple of you, myself, Drew. I mean, we're all off the hook, right? You're thinking,
"Well, that's not fair. You have excluded a possible conclusion before even looking
at the evidence. That doesn't sound like the right approach to find out who the
true killer is." No, of course not. But this, my friends, is exactly what's going on in
the field of science for some. They're excluding a possible conclusion before
even looking at the evidence. You're saying, "No, no, no, Tim, those scientists, I
mean, they wear the white lab coats, you know? They are the objective seekers of
truth. Certainly they would never do such a thing." Seriously.
Hey, listen to Richard Lewontin, a famous Harvard geneticist.
Here's what he says. It's a long quote, but hear him out.
He says, "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against
common sense (and there are a lot of claims that are against common sense) is
the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the
supernatural." He says, "We take the side of science in spite of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the
scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories (and there are a lot of
just-so stories, especially in evolutionary biology) because we have a
prior commitment, (what commitment's that?) a commitment to materialism...(that is, matter
is all that exists.) Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot
allow a divine foot in the door." Does that sound someone who's following truth
wherever it leads? No, absolutely not. And just as a side note, when people say,
"intelligent design, that's not science." "Creationism, that's not science." They are
not talking about the methodology. We're using the same method in many cases.
They're talking about this philosophy that's being imposed on the evidence,
okay? You can't implicate someone over six foot tall. That's what they're doing.