Science - A State of Affairs

What with my degree being in biology, I do a fair bit of reading and thinking about science in general, science in relation to the Bible, and the nature of science itself. Recently, it is thoughts on the last which have been occupying my mind.

• What is the purpose of science?
• How does one approach science?
• What does science show?

And so forth.

Well, I decided to do a small bit of research and reading on an interesting field known as the philosophy of science, which asks and seeks answers to these questions about science in general as well as to those in specific areas of science.

While reading through a number of the philosophical theories, I saw manners in which almost all of them work, to a degree, within their different aspects and I also was able to enlighten myself on some of the key positions of modern science today.

In a nutshell, science today consists of two camps operating from a coherentist ideology (Statements are justified by virtue of being part of a coherent system). One, creationism and intelligent design, is fairly frank about its basis in coherentism. The other, modern, secular science claims axiomatic assumptions (key, foundational statements about science), but these assumptions are merely outpourings of the larger coherent system or paradigm.

So, if the framework of science consists truly of a set of coherent systems, what then is its purpose and how is science even conducted?

As for the purpose of science, many would claim at first light that it's role is to discover truth, an epistemological position, to be sure, and a noble one at that, but I see science playing a more utilitarian role. Science serves as a tool to further refine and establish one's paradigm. By means of example, we see many creationists and intelligent designers using science in a logical manner to uphold the presence of a divine creator or possibly divine designer. Conversely, evolutionists and other secular scientists use science to establish and uphold the absence of the divine. In both cases science has become merely a tool in the hands of the scientists.

How science is conducted, then, is a rather complex entity. Deduction (following a series of true statements to a conclusion that is necessarily true) and induction (following a series of observations to a conclusion that is probably true) come into play fairly often. These are used often in laboratory sciences and in matters not affecting the overarching paradigm. When discussing paradigm-defining discoveries, abductive reasoning (following a series of statements and observations to a conclusion that best fits) is the modus operandi. By the use of abductive reasoning, we can see that each paradigm operates as a true paradigm, with the entities ascribing to each system modifying minor details as new discoveries arise, interpreting new discoveries as best fits the paradigm, and seeking to work out current or new glitches in order to have a fully coherent, established system of science.

That being said, when an individual finds that the discoveries at hand cannot be effectively worked into his or her current paradigm, then the individual must ignore the new information (and in doing so, commit academic dishonesty), create a theory in absence of further evidence (e.g. punctuated equilibrium), or abandon the paradigm for another, which is often the case where too many inconsistencies occur.

In the face of all of this, what is the take-away for the church?

1. We need to filter through much of the published scientific literature for the truth beneath the biases.
2. We need to use the discoveries present to highlight Biblical truth and show evidence for a creator.
3. We need to uncover our theories in absence and address them, while simultaneously highlighting those of our opponents and our solutions thereto.

New Opportunities

Hey all,
I've recently been taken on as a writer over at Church Planting & Missions. It's a missions blog site for Job 31, a men's ministry, which seeks to engage and equip men for day-to-day integrity and ministry.

Needless to say, go and check them both out!

Talk Before You Think

So, I'm an external processor. That's fancy lingo for "I think through speaking," In reality, that works through a 3-step system

1. Make a statement
2. Realise that doesn't sound right/Receive feedback
3. Repeat until the full thought or idea is properly fleshed out and conceived

This has resulted in a large wake of offended and hurt individuals and, sometimes, rightfully so. Jokes end up either scathing or falling flat. People remark at the heartlessness of some of my ideas or just stand in confusion as the vagueness doesn't make sense. 

The challenge comes when people take my first statement as the sum of my speech. Society says one should think before one speaks and, so for one who thinks as as he speaks, this creates many an awkward situation. Why? Well, many individuals don't allow me to move past step one. all you have to do to discover this is go to my Facebook page and scroll a while or search a couple of my blogs on more contested subjects to see that. 

Majority of the hurts I have caused could simply be avoided by asking a small question, or letting me know that didn't come out right. That doesn't mean a small amount of hurt won't still be there, but the greater gulf that could have been averted will be.

So, this is a PSA for all members of society, bear with us "Outies" as we make gaffes or blabber on. It's just how we think. Instead, give us constructive feedback and I promise you, you'll find we can be rather amenable.

Post Script:

For those of you who've followed me for a while, you know I'm an introvert. Yes, you can be an introverted external processor. We just tend to be very self-conscious and are very jealous of the few "sounding board" friendships we make. To Dad, Jesse, Hopchak, and G, thank you for being those crucial sounding boards.

Urgent Worship

Today, something strange happened at church.

Normally, we have a time of worshiping God through song, interspersed with announcements, offering, and prayer, followed by the sermon.

Today began in said manner, with the worship team leading. We made it through the announcements and offering and we just finished a song when the pastor came up and excused himself - one of the church members needed to be rushed to the hospital. The evening pastor had volunteered to cover the sermon with what he'd planned for tonight.

That little difference sparked a massive change. One of the worship team members stepped up to lead the congregation in prayer for their ailing member. There was a change of tone in the congregation that was shown in the following songs - Before the Throne of God Above, and Cornerstone, songs which praise God ad the eternal authority and power, for the ability to bring our burdens and pleas before Him. Standing up on that stage, bass in hand, I felt a renewed vigour in the congregation as they worshiped. As the evening pastor stepped up to the pulpit, he asked if anyone would mind taking his place in the prayer room during the service, to which 5 different individuals came to serve in that capacity.

What was the change? What sparked this renewed fervour and energy in our congregation?

Honestly, I think it was simply urgency. Rather than merely coming to praise God and worship Him for themselves, the church was gathered together as one body and one mind, praying, praising, and worshiping God, crying out to Him with full and heavy hearts. It was as though the service had gained gravitas, a sense of the awe, majesty, and magnitude of God, and the humility of spirit stemming therefrom.

That started me thinking. What if we, the global church, treated worship with that sense of urgency on a regular basis. What if the church had the same urgent spirit about the souls of unsaved individuals? What if the church had the same urgency for others in their congregations or their communities who were in need?

This sense of urgency, sometimes seen in third world or persecuted churches, I have yet to see outside of this instance in those American churches I've been privileged to visit. Not that I'm denigrating these churches - many have outstanding teaching, fellowship, and discipleship. I just don't see that same weight present. I don't see the realisation of pressing need, whether it be physical, emotional, or spiritual. I don't see that reverence and awe towards God, sparked by acknowledgement of God as sole Power and Benefactor. These are aspects of worship which are missing, aspects which defined the early church - moving in secrecy, under persecution, spreading a message of eternal life and hope for all people, and meeting the needs of the destitute, discarded, and helpless.

Brothers, sisters, I implore you to see the urgency of the Christian faith - possessing a message for the salvation of mankind and tasked with spreading said message for the duration of a time whose end we will not know. We are called not only to "make disciples of all nations", but to "serve the fatherless and the widows" as well and, for all we know, the deadline could be tomorrow!

So, let us not take lightly the burden of our calling. Let us not come to worship with cheap action and empty songs, but let us, as the body of the church, come together as one, moving, serving, and speaking as though tomorrow will never come.

Soli Deo gloria.

On Performing Introverts

"If you had a simple more personality, you'd get a better tip." - Anon.

That was a message scribed beneath one of my receipts today and, frankly, I think it's a load of bull for a couple of reasons.

1. It's not my job.

As a waiter, my job is to be a chameleon. The only times I should be noticed are when I'm taking orders, delivering food, and managing payment. clearing your table, refilling your drinks, making quick checks that all is okay should be done quickly, efficiently, and discreetly. If you want to chat or otherwise engage with me, that's fine; I can be an excellent conversationalist when needed, but that's not my primary role.

Following suit, I understand that many waiters show a modicum of personality. Some are funny, garrulous, obsequious, or complimentary, but I can guarantee that these displays are not part of the job description - they are the measures we take to try to ensure a good tip. Just like the free bread (another grief for another time), we should not be expected to open up and engage like old friends. We're not. You're my customer and I'm trying to sell you enough food to make a good tip. I am no Saartjie Baartman redux, required to regale you with stories and oddities from my African childhood. Neither am I some Dickensian guttersnipe trying to beg a penny off of you with a sob story of my dreams and aspirations. I am a professional and will not be required to sell myself in such a manner.

2. I am an introvert.

That being said, sometimes I do engage with tables, but not from trying to get a tip. See, I am an introvert. I can be a functional extrovert, but I am still an introvert. Every day, I have a pool of "extrovert hours" at my disposal. such hours have grown, due to necessity, but they can still be depleted.

Working as a waiter depletes these precious hours. In a normal night, I can make it through the entire shift. However, being forced to deal with unpleasant customers, rudeness, impatience, neediness, and the like drains these hours faster than normal. Fortunately, good conversation on matters intelligent, pleasant, and entertaining slow down and, on occasion, slightly refill my pool.

So, don't be offended if I don't stop and talk. In fact, you might want to ask yourself, "Am I presenting an open, welcoming air?" That could be the reason I'm not hanging around.

In short, tip me for what I do or don't do, not for whether I act.

A Missed Detail

So, I know there's a fair bit of chatter about the state of the Church, especially in the Western world, what with the general sense of apathy and decline stemming from a lack of understanding, from both non-Christians and Christians alike, about the nature and role of the Church.

Many tout all the good, humanitarian, and fuzzy aspects, notable a very vague sense of love and "looking after orphans and widows."

Now, looking after orphans and widows is correct; that is an admonishment found in James Ch.1, but that's only part of the admonishment. The full verse says:

"Religion that God, our Father, accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." - James 1:27, NIV

So, yes, we are supposed to be looking after the poor, the hungry, the needy, but there's a second clause, one that is supposed to separate us from just another charity - living apart from the world.

By this, I mean that we, as Christians, are to be engaging the world, but not entranced or sucked in by it. we are not to be indulging in the world's sinful ideals and fantasies, but remaining clean from them.

I like to think of it as a pig farmer. Every day, he dons his coveralls and wades into the muck of the sty to tend and treat his pigs, but at the end of the day, he leaves the sty, removes his coveralls, showers, and eats his own food. He does not live with the pigs, rolling in the filth and eating their slop, but yet he is there every day, tending to them and raising them.

In a similar way, we need to be acting as Christians - going out and tending to the world and its needs, but at the end of the day, not dwelling in and receiving sustenance from the world, but from God, his righteousness and holiness should be what sustains us in our work, what pushes us forward, and what refreshes us at the end of the day.

 

On "Children of the World" and Short-Term Missons

So, those of you who are facebook friends may ave seen me bemoaning the misunderstood nature of charities like the Children of the World choir and the role of youth group missions trips. So, in an attempt to clarify where I stand once and for all, I give you my explanation:

On missions trips, I feel that their main role is to help missionaries to meet a task they would otherwise be unable to, due either to a lack of necessary skills or manpower. Examples of this would be disaster relief, healthcare trips, church building, or surveying. Conversely, what I see happening often, especially with youth trips, is that there is not much of a need that is met. Yes, there is exposure and growth from the team's side as they see and experience the great commission and there is community built between the local church and the sending church, but there is often little true progress or achievement and it can end up draining for the receiving missionaries. 

A good example of a large team of students being put to good work is from about 6 years ago, when a professor from Southeastern, took some students to do evangelism work. As part of the trip, they did some surveying, some work with local churches, and they cleared a field. This field, you see, belonged to a school some of my parents' colleagues were trying to start a program with. Normally, it would have taken a month or more to clear the rocks from it and make it usable, but these students did it in a day. As a result, the school allowed the missionaries to run their after school program. 

So, as far as youth trips and other trips go, they have good use and purpose, but they need to be done well and not foster a poor first world - third world perception, which is my second point.

My beef with the Children of the World choir (and other projects like it) is that is exploits the third world and presents a false representation of these nations and cultures. Every time I see them perform, I am reminded of a song by Johnny Clegg, titled "Third World Child," in which the chorus goes:

"Learn to speak a little bit of English | Don't be scared of the suit and tie | Learn to walk in the dreams of the foreigners | I am a third world child."

I know that many of these charity projects do good work. CotW provides good education and quality of life for these kids and brings awareness of people in other countries. The negative is the way that awareness is presented and processed. To me, it looks like the image presented is that they've taken these kids from a poor environment, clothed them, taught them, and are now showing them off. There's no celebration of the individual cultures; it's all homogenised into the American Church experience. The image portrayed, then, is that we, the first world, need to go into the "dark," "lost" third world and give them what they need to be like us, that we need to intervene. What is needed isn't intervention, but investment. We need to send skilled, trained individuals from the first world to train those in the third world in necessary, marketable skills: digging well, building houses, farming, pastoring, etc. In doing so, we encourage self-reliance and foster growth of the local GDP, enabling it to develop, while not forcing an American perspective or ideal overtop the ideals, flavors and actual needs of the particular culture. 

A classic example is Haiti - when the disaster struck, we responded correctly, providing needs. However, we've stayed way too long. It's been a number of years since the earthquake and we're still going and giving supplies. Why? Well, we see that everyone's still poor and needy, but the issue is that they're still poor and needy because there's no incentive to change. After all, the US is always sending people with stuff they need.

So, in a nutshell, my biggest grievance is the objectification of the third world and the reaction thereunto. Second is the manner in which youth missions trips, while beneficial to the team members, often do not benefit long-term either the missionaries or locals.