---

 

MAY SCIENTISTS CONSIDER UNSCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS?

 

---

 

The article "Are Scientists Allowed to Consider Unscientific Explanations?" by Daniel Witt in a recent issue of Evolution News resonates powerfully with Psalm 53:1 – "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are perverted and have committed abominable transgressions. There is no one who does good." Consider these four points:

1. The Limits of Naturalism and the Voice of the "Fool"

The article argues that if science rigidly excludes “unscientific” explanations – especially those pointing beyond natural causation – it cannot truly say that natural explanations are sufficient, only that they are assumed as the boundary lines of science. This highlights a dilemma:

Imagine a geologist visiting a particularly interesting geological site. But when he arrives, he finds "that the site has been ruined. Most of the ground has been torn up by some sort of tractor, and there are wheel tracks everywhere. If the geologist is not allowed to consider the possibility that vandals have tampered with his site [because that is outside the realm of geology], then he cannot declare that vandals did not tamper with the site." Or are real estate developers starting a new housing project?

Similarly, Psalm 53:1 states: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" The psalmist calls the denial of God a statement not of open investigation, but of a closed, hard-hearted foolishness – akin to the dogmatic naturalism the article criticizes. Denying the possibility of divine agency, the fool excludes a type of causation a priori – just like enforcing the rule "no unscientific explanations permitted."

2. Theology vs. Scientific Humility

Daniel Witt writes that Intelligent Design theorists refrain from naming God in technical scientific work, not out of dishonesty, but to respect the limits of what science can demonstrate. This humility acknowledges that science can delimit natural mechanisms but cannot affirm or deny anything outside that scope. Geology can't explain whether the intention behind the tracks in the soil was destructive or constructive.

Psalm 53:1 echoes this: by labeling those who "say in their heart ‘there is no God’" as fools, it condemns not just disbelief, but the arrogance of claiming complete knowledge. The psalmist insists that moral corruption springs from that arrogance: "They are perverted and have committed abominable transgressions." So Witt's call for methodological openness mirrors biblical wisdom: true intellectual humility avoids both dogmatic naturalism and rash theological claims, recognizing ultimately that we are finite beings before infinite mysteries.

3. Ethical Consequences of Excluding God

The article warns that strict naturalism is "ultimately unproductive" for explaining phenomena that might not fit natural laws. It suggests that ignoring other investigative paths prevents us from knowing where science ends – and from perceiving deeper realities, such as a constructive intention by an intelligent designer. Likewise, Psalm 53:1 links denial of God directly to moral failure: "There is no one who does good." Denying transcendence doesn’t only distort truth – it impoverishes ethics. The article’s suggestion – that a worldview excluding God will struggle to confront or detect phenomena beyond natural causation – echoes the psalmist's prophetic insight that such denial correlates with widespread moral darkness.

4. Toward a Broader Investigative Methodology

Witt proposes broadening the scientific toolkit – to consider origins that might lie outside strict natural laws. This doesn’t dismantle science; it equips us to confront puzzles like biological complexity, the origin of information and fine-tuning built into the universe, and consciousness – domains where methodological naturalism often hits hard limits. Psalm 53:1’s denunciation of "no one who does good" also invites us to look deeper – not just at what we can explain, but at the moral and existential foundations of human life. A restricted view of reality yields a restricted moral vision.

Conclusion: Theology and Science in Dialogue

* Both the Psalm and the article critique a hardened exclusionism: Witt challenges closed-door science; the psalmist challenges closed minds toward God.
* Scientific humility parallels spiritual wisdom: recognizing limits protects us from the sin of both scientism and pride.
* Moral ruin and epistemic blindness go hand in hand: denying God – or denying any but natural causes – distorts truth and deforms character.
* A fuller methodology is a fuller vision: openness to both natural and beyond-natural explanation enriches our understanding of the cosmos and our place within it.

In sum, the Evolution News article can be seen as a modern echo of ancient biblical wisdom: both contend that claiming all is natural is a fracture both of thought and heart – and that recognizing something beyond ourselves is key to both insight and integrity.

Science is the search for truth and a rational understanding of the universe. All knowledge begins with this hypothesis that the cosmos can be understood. Many people today, however, think that faith is just the opposite: irrational – "blind faith." But Hebrews 11:3 states – "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." Faith is the fundamental hypothesis that the universe makes sense, that it's not simply a jumbled chaos. Faith provides the basis to understand that a constructive, loving Intelligence created us and everything in the universe.

You can read the rest of our newsletter at https://agape-restoration-society.org/ARC-News/a-n_2025-07-19.htm, and share it! Also, create your own blog or website for less than $2 per month!