The idea that science works with facts and is not involved with metaphysical propositions is an absurd (and I mean that in a logical sense, not a derogatory one), Modernist ideology. For one thing, if I asked you to show scientifically (according to your definition above) that science is not involved with metaphysical propositions, you would not be able to do so because the statement itself is a metaphysical proposition. In other words, the statement is self-refuting. Secondly, the idea that there is such a thing as a “fact” which is in no way determined or structured by a limited and biased lens of perception, world-view, belief, and such is the product of Logical Positivism. We cannot look out at our world objectively and view things divorced from our own metaphysical concepts. Third, historically speaking, the reason science (as we think of it) came into existence when and how it did was because of a specific and biased metaphysic without which it was not possible for “science” to enter history. That idea was thus: that because there exists a rational God who has created nature, therefore, nature is rational (i.e., it can be understood by reason). And, if it can be understood by reason, it can be depended upon to perform as reason dictates as well as be manipulated according to the strictures of reason. Most cultures and societies throughout time did not have this presuppositional metaphysic, therefore they had nothing to appeal to as grounds for thinking “if I look at nature, it will tell me things about how it works that I can understand, manipulate, and depend on”. Most people today take this historical context for granted. Positivism, especially, has tried to divorce the metaphysic from science and retain science itself. Historically speaking, this failed so fully, that it led to Post-Modernism, the realization that nothing could be known by reason and that everything was absurd–including science. This was the logical and consistent outcome of Patrick’s statement and the reason why people think today the way they think. It is the reason, for example, that most Christians form theological beliefs in a vacuum of history and evidence—because they base their method on the assumption that the two (theological belief—or “faith”–and evidence in creation) cannot be rationally connected (i.e., are absurd together). Therefore, there is an abyss between historical study and theological metaphysic, and one believes he cannot speak theologically and also speak scientifically, or that one cannot speak scientifically and also speak theologically. Unfortunately, such a viewpoint is not only inconsistent, but it must lead by virtue of its own defintions to the end that there is nothing which can be known. Without a metaphysic, science and everything else, including man and woman, disappear like a drop of water in the sea.

This is also why I decry evangelicalism’s focus on individual sin/individual salvation. Even if all individual sins are conquered, you still are sinning because you live in a sinful society.

To me, this is the reason why we are utterly in need of God’s grace.

Thanks, Camassia, for your thoughtful response. First, I’ll just say that it was a spur of the moment kind of reflection and I’m just suggesting a possible avenue for further ponderings (though I still feel pretty good about it). But I will say that I don’t mind affirming that we have a “sinful nature” (which isn’t our fault) and also perform sinful actions (which are our faults). Your questions of nature and creation are certainly linked, but beyond the scope of what I’m addressing at the moment.

And honestly, they’re part of a realm of theological speculations that don’t particularly capture my imagination at this moment in my thought life. I find them interesting… but not enough to spend significant time on. I’m more focused on texts and history, I think. But maybe you’ll shoot me down for saying that!

On the other hand, I don’t see ID helping either. Pretty much any system that admits there was death before the Fall is going to run into this problem.

I very much appreciated your post.