Resumo

DREYER, Johan  e  VAN DER WALT, Kobus. Evil in humankind: "To dust you shall return". Tydskr. geesteswet. [online]. 2023, vol.63, n.2, pp.246-261. ISSN 2224-7912.  http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2224-7912/2023/v63n2a5.

In the first three articles of this series, convincing arguments were put forward as to why contemporary natural scientific observations can best be explained if they are interpreted within a paradigm of an all-powerful Creator. In line with this observation, a growing number of eminent scholars fundamentally differ from the materialistic position that metaphysical theories deal with concepts that are not empirically observable and testable. Instead, these scholars postulate that metaphysical theories can indeed be used to make predictions about the natural world and that they are therefore falsifiable. A few examples include the fact that a theistic cosmology expects that the universe had a moment of beginning, which presupposes that a transcendent Creator must already have accurately established the physical conditions for all empirical observations, before the moment of creation. Empirical observations of the universe confirm this theory, as described in the first article of this series. More examples of the predictive value of a metaphysical theory, are the origin of information contained in DNA, as described in article 2, as well as in empirical data on the origin of humans (see article 3). The reference to metaphysical theories as pseudo-science has therefore been repudiated by recent empirical evidence and a growing number of authoritative researchers, do recognise the fact that a "God hypothesis" would appear to be scientifically accountable. Yet, there remains great opposition among mainstream natural scientists to any hint of metaphysical explanations for contemporary observations. Materialist scientists accuse religious scientists of approaching the Enlightenment and Modernism in reverse - of wanting to take science back to the dark ages, where the church dictated to science what may be believed. However, it is ironic that the "God of the gaps"- argument is replaced by normative materialism with a "science of the gaps"- argument, where it is argued that sooner or later science will provide humanity with a "theory of everything". To decide in advance that a certain explanation for empirical evidence may not be considered, is unacceptable in natural science. Yet mainstream science takes exactly this position regarding cosmology and the origin of life. In this article, the issue of normative materialism is scrutinised. What is the deepest origin of the reluctance of many researchers, to put forward a metaphysical explanation for scientifically observed data? Even the mere consideration of such a hypothesis is rejected. Why don't people even consider the possibility that a Creator played (and still plays) a role in the universe? The main conclusion, based on an exposé of the scientific method, various ways of scientific reasoning and biblical evidence regarding creation and the origin of sin, is that the answer lies in mankind's sinful, self-willed nature. If a scientist, based on irrefutable evidence, admits that God exists and that His works are visible in creation, as well as that empirical observations can be reconciled with biblical descriptions of the cosmos, he/she must then also admit that the Bible represents the truth. The necessary consequence of such an admittance is that such a person must then live in submissive obedience to God. This giving up of the "own self" is, however, directly against the nature of sinful man - every person has the need to be master of his/her own salvation and to answer only to himself/herself; something that is embodied in the Postmodernist Zeitgeist in which we find ourselves. To rule out (and even formally forbid) one of the possible explanations for empirical observations in advance, only because it differs from a researcher's worldview, does not make that researcher a better scientist. On the contrary - normative materialism and the accompanying grasping at straws by formulating new, fantastic, and difficult-to-test theories as alternatives to the existence of God, simply represent poor, invalid scientific practice. Even though natural science overwhelmingly testifies to the presence and involvement of God in creation, there are still numerous questions that cannot be answered by natural scientists, or by theologians. Natural scientists should, however, consider all possible explanations for empirical data with an equal measure of respect and attention in order to practise science with integrity.

Palavras-chave : normative materialism; the scientific process; induction; deduction; abduction; cosmology; God as creator; scientific bias; scientific paradigms; sin.

        · resumo em Africaner     · texto em Africaner     · Africaner ( pdf )