The 27th computer science conference in Krelingen offered many prompts for reflection on creation, biological information, and scientific knowledge. Particularly important to me was the question of how observation and worldview interpretation relate.
Looking back · February 26–29, 2016
Those taking creation seriously may look closely. A Christian argument grows stronger when it clearly distinguishes measurement data, explanatory models, and further worldview conclusions.
Encounters and questions
From February 26 to 29, 2016, I attended the 27th computer science conference at the Geistliches Rüstzentrum in Krelingen. The weekend offered much material for marveling at creation’s structure and reflecting on its explanation.
I was especially pleased to share a table with Werner Gitt. This allowed me to raise questions about proof using laws of nature and about scientific method. In defending the faith, it matters to understand what an argument actually demonstrates and what additional assumptions it needs.
Information in genes
Harald Binder of Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen introduced the world of genes and the development of genetic research. The talk provided an occasion to question familiar statements about genetic information more closely.
An important principle for such discussions is: a percentage of genetic similarity is understandable only together with the comparison method used. Which sections are compared, which differences counted, and which regions omitted? A number without this information can easily suggest more clarity than the investigation provides.
The word ‘information’ must also be clarified. A technical measure, a biological function, and a meaningful human message are not straightforwardly the same thing. Anyone inferring a Creator from genetic information should explicitly explain the transitions in the argument.
‘All life from life’
The formula omne vivum ex vivo expresses a fundamental observation about reproduction and the debate over spontaneous generation under ordinary conditions. This observation matters for reflection on life’s origin.
Yet the historical emergence of the first life is not thereby experimentally decided in every respect. The question of an initial emergence under earlier conditions differs from whether organisms spontaneously arise today from arbitrary nonliving material under ordinary conditions. An argument should disclose this distinction.
We confess God as the Creator of life. But this confession needs no exaggerated claim about what a single experiment could logically prove for every conceivable historical situation.
Data and interpretation
Scientific observations are evaluated using concepts, methods, and models. Distinguishing data from interpretation is therefore helpful. It does not mean one may arbitrarily derive any desired story from the same data. Some explanations fit better, make more precise predictions, or need fewer additional assumptions.
Methodological and metaphysical naturalism must also be distinguished. Searching methodologically for natural causes within a scientific investigation does not prove that reality as a whole can have no Creator. Only this further exclusionary claim is a comprehensive worldview thesis.
What a possible explanation would show
If an experiment shows a plausible natural formation pathway for a particular biological building block, it does not yet follow that precisely this pathway occurred historically. But neither does ‘nothing at all’ follow: the possibility of such a pathway would then be better supported than before.
A fair assessment therefore distinguishes possibility, probability, and the actual historical course. This distinction protects against both hasty naturalistic conclusions and wholesale disparagement of research.
Love of truth also shows itself in not exaggerating the reach of a good argument.
I remember the conference as a stimulating opportunity to ask questions and continue thinking. We want to understand the world as God’s creation and, precisely for this reason, handle carefully what we claim about it.
Historical conference report with further methodological context. The explanations are not verbatim accounts of the named speakers. For further reading: the blog article ‘Has the theory of evolution been proved?’