Dr. Rick Cornish on Miracles, Science and God

 

"Science is great, but the scientific method is simply the wrong criterion for judging miracles.  By their nature as unique, one-time events, they don't lend themselves to observability, repeatability and predictability.  So they shouldn't be evaluated by those standards.  We don't give a math test to students in an English class and then flunk them in English for failing the math test!  The test or criterion must fit the situation, and applying the scientific method to miracles doesn't fit.

In one sense, miracles are not completely unscientific.  As the work of an intelligent cause, their effects can be observed.  We look at the product of a someone rather than a something and conclude that it was designed, not the result of chance.  The principle can be noted in the Mt. Rushmore illustration.  Think how unreasonable it would be to explain the faces of Rushmore as the result of natural forces when they display obvious evidence pointing to an intelligent cause.  Likewise, when we evaluate events like healing a blind man or Christ's resurrection, a supernatural cause is fully rational, but a naturalistic one makes no sense.

Miracles and the phenomena studied by science are two different categories.  Therefore, if we we ask, 'Are miracles scientific?' meaning discoverable by scientific methods, the answer is 'no.'  Miracles are unique, non-uniform events, endowed with purpose by God.  Science, however, strives to understand events that are governed by non-purposeful, natural law.  Miracles, by definition, are exceptions to those laws.  Thus miracles and the events investigated by science require separate explanations.  

Falling outside the realm of science does not render miracles false.  They are simply not a source of scientific knowledge as found through scientific procedures.  Even though miracles are not scientific as defined by science, belief in them is reasonable and they can still not be true.  To think otherwise exposes a bias that is itself not based on science, but on philosophical assumptions.  And because science cannot prove those assumptions, consistency would exclude the scientist from adhering to his own position."1

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnote:
1. Dr. Rick Cornish, 5 Minute Apologist: Maximum Truth in Minimum Time, p. 244-245.

Related Posts

Debate Video: Is Theistic Belief Rational in a Scientific Age?- Jeff Hester vs. William Lane Craig

Dartmouth Physicist Marcelo Gleiser on God and Science

Common Objection #31- "Intelligent Design is not Science!"