Rethinking what science thought it knew

As the presenter on BBC Radio Four put it, when it comes to where humans come from, evolutionists are having to “rethink what we thought we knew”.

The discovery of the skull of a human (or human ancestor, depending on how you choose to label it) in the Republic of Georgia, is being seen by some scientists as evidence that humans are all descended from a common ancestor. This overturns the prevailing theory of the last forty years, which was that there were several human-type species around, out of which humanity evolved.

So Justin Webb, interviewing one of the scientists who had been analyzing the skull, really wasn’t exaggerating when he spoke of the science community needing to rethink what they thought they knew. And in saying that, he pointed out a nuance in how science is “done” which is rarely mentioned in school lessons or in Richard Dawkins’ books.

Some science deals with observable, repeatable facts which can be tested—for instance, the boiling point of water, or the mass of lead.

Other scientists are dealing with theory; ideas, best guesses, evidence-based opinions about something that cannot be tested—for instance, whether and how humanity evolved, how long it took, and how it all began.

In these fields, scientists can only ever “think they know” something. And they may, if further evidence turns up, have to re-think what they know. Until this skull was found, scientists “knew” something that, it now appears, may well have been wrong.

Talk to most scientists, and they’ll freely accept this. It’s what makes their research exciting. It’s also what makes science limited in its scope and knowledge. But talk to most people on the streets (and, on most pages of his books, Richard Dawkins), and they won’t realise this. Science is science; science is fact; science doesn’t change and can’t be challenged. But it does and it can.

Of course, in this instance, the scientists presenting their findings about this skull are suggesting that their best guess is now closer to what the Bible says—that we are descended from a common ancestor. There was once a man who lived on earth from whom we are descended. And he was made by God—“the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2 v 7).

So Christians listening to or reading this news won’t have to rethink what they thought they knew. In fact, they could even tell the research team what name their common ancestor had. He was called Adam, and he had a wife called Eve. But there’s a challenge for Christians in this news too. Listening to the interview this morning, I wondered: did this research increase my faith in the Bible? And if it did, then am I putting my faith in the wrong place? I’m actually basing my trust in God's word on scientific theories, and my ability to fit them in with what the Bible says. And that’s not trusting the Bible as my supreme authority, words breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3 v 16)—it’s trusting theories proposed by people.

How do I know we’re descended from a common ancestor? Because God tells me that we are.

How do I know that God made that common ancestor? Because God tells me that he did.

How do I know that I have value, significance, purpose? Because God tells me that he gave his human creatures those things.

“Science” may agree. Or disagree. And then it may change its mind. There’s nothing wrong with any of that—it’s what scientists do in fields where pure experimental research is impossible. The word of God never changes its mind. Basing our views on it, and evaluating our view of the latest scientific opinion in the light of it, means we’ll never have to rethink what we thought we knew. Because, unlike you, me, any scientist and even the guy whose skull has just been found, God knows what happened—he was there.