Enormous Leaps of Logic?

by Dr. Jason Lisle on April 18, 2008

Featured in Feedback

AiG has made the claim that science requires a biblical worldview. Is this logically defensible?

I have just read Evolution: The Anti-Science by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S., February 13, 2008, and I have a question for Dr. Lisle.

I cannot reconcile this article with the rigour required in academia, and wonder how you do? The logical leap required between “science requires uniformity” to “Science Requires a Biblical Worldview” is enormous. Where might I find information on the missing line of argument here?

Many thanks for your article, and your patient consideration.

Best regards,

—F.T., Germany

From the Pulpit

I would just like to thank you so much for your Ministry! I am a young pastor serving for the first time as lead pastor at a church here in Ohio. My family and I very recently were able to attend the Creation Museum for the first time. WOW! I was completely blown away. I returned truly believing the Lord has placed on my heart the need to teach on creation, not just at evening service or small groups, but on Sunday morning when the most people would hear it. I committed to do a four to five week series about creation. I felt very underequipped to teach such a subject, but materials I had obtained at your book store and all the information on this wonderful web site have made this one of the most rewarding teaching experiences of my life. It would seem that any question I have, I come to the site and I can find information about it. I would just like to thank you for equipping us to teach this very important part of our faith. My congregation loves it. Thank you again.

—Rev. G.G., U.S.

Have Something to Add?

Let us know what you think.

I have just read Evolution: The Anti-Science by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S., February 13, 2008, and I have a question for Dr. Lisle.

I cannot reconcile this article with the rigour required in academia, and wonder how you do? The logical leap required between “science requires uniformity” to “Science Requires a Biblical Worldview” is enormous.

The deduction is actually formally very simple; let me fill in the missing line:

Science requires uniformity.
Uniformity requires a biblical worldview
Therefore, science requires a biblical worldview.

The bulk of the article was in defense of the second premise. If you feel that some aspect of this defense was inadequate, let us know specifically what aspect, and perhaps we can clarify. Uniformity really cannot be justified apart from the biblical worldview; thus, science requires the biblical worldview since it requires uniformity.

This is not to say that a scientist necessarily must have a fully biblical worldview, but rather, the biblical worldview must be true in order for science to be possible. (Obviously, scientists can be inconsistent: relying on the biblical worldview while simultaneously professing a secular worldview.)

Where might I find information on the missing line of argument here?

Although the article was written for laymen, it covers the second premise in substantial detail. In particular, the notion that the future will (under certain conditions) reflect the past is discussed at length; this is a crucial aspect of uniformity and is essential to science. The Christian worldview gives us a reason to expect uniformity: a God who is beyond time, who upholds the universe in a consistent fashion, and who has told us so. But without the biblical worldview, there would be no basis for such uniformity. Several of the most common responses were given and shown to be inadequate.

If you would like a more detailed treatment of this topic, a number of technical articles are available. Christian Philosophers Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen wrote on the topic. David Hume wrote on the problem (from his secular point of view) of uniformity (or “induction”).