A Blast of the Trumpet against the Methodological Regiment of Naturalism

Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh (2009)

"For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?”  (1 Corinthians 14:8 NKJ)

______________________________________
“Oir ma bheir a’ ghall-tromp fuaim neo-chinnteach uaipe, cò a dh’ullaicheas e fhèin a-chum a’ chatha?”  (1 Corintianaich 14:8

"Agus má thugann an stoc uaidh glór éiginnte, cé a ullmhóidh é féin chun catha?" (1 Corantaigh 14:8  An Bíobla Naofa)

______________________________________

Contemporary science has a fiercely defended operational "regime", or working procedure, commonly known as "methodological naturalism". It is perplexing to me that Christians involved in science are as often as not among the stoutest sword-wavers and shield-thumpers on behalf of this approach. Many other Christians in fact have the deepest reservations regarding "methodological naturalism". In my opinion such reservations are well founded. Though the following short essay may not be in the Louis Armstrong league of trumpet-blowing (or in the John Knox league of polemic) it is nevertheless humbly intended as a vigorous "blare" against "methodological naturalism", as well as a battlefield call to support the growing Christian resistance. 


1. The Dispute is Territorial
The dispute is territorial: is God to be allowed to traverse this land or not? Is He to be allowed to speak here or not? Is He indeed to be allowed to reign as the rightful sovereign of this kingdom? And in the latter context, how can it be that we hear so many Christian voices crying so vehemently among the seried scientific ranks that, at least as far as the field of Science is concerned, "We will not have this Man to reign over us!" Clearly there are elemental differences of perception, and consequently of loyalty, dividing Christians on this issue. How can this be? A major factor, I would think, is that we are reaping the results of decades of evangelical anti-intellectualism. So often over the years have I heard evangelical speakers champion "heart-knowledge" over "head-knowledge" (in effect, "emotion" over "cognition"). A generation of Christians has arisen, by and large, via an ecclesiastical culture of "Spirit-leading" rather than of the "Spirit-of-a-sound-mind". In worst cases, the impression has been given that "thinking" (or at least "premeditation") is almost sinful, hindering the "spontaneity" of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully, those who have grown up in a more Reformed tradition will have largely escaped this, and have been trained to think more deeply. Perhaps they have. Yet no matter how deeply you think, if you base your thinking on the wrong premises, you simply dig a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. So has the next generation been taught to think with the correct premises? Alarmingly, it is fairly clear that many young science graduates who are members of churches within the Reformed tradition are avowed and articulate advocates of the premise (we might call it the "dogma") of "scientific neutrality". So how can any area of life, particularly one so inestimably influential as that of scientific methodology, be plausibly declared "neutral" regarding God? And that by Christians? Well, it has, for instance, been insisted to me that "methodological naturalism" (which is apparently good) must be distinguished from "philosophical naturalism" (which is admittedly bad). This article is based on my endeavours to respond to this.

The crux of the matter to me is that "methodological naturalism" is surely (despite all protests to the contrary) but "philosophical naturalism" with its lab-coat on, and "methodological atheism" by a subtler name. "Methodological naturalism" essentially requires scientists to discount God a priori in their explicit research, or cease to be considered as valid scientists. It is my contention that this is absolutely not the Reformed and Biblical worldview, but is more in keeping with the medieval "nature-grace" dichotomy of Thomas Aquinus, whereby Man is considered capable in principle of comprehending Nature (understood as "material" reality) by his autonomous reason, and essentially requires God's input only regarding the putative realm of "Grace", being the domain of the "soul", "heaven" etc (or "spiritual" reality). The location of this latter realm is consequently deemed to be somewhere beyond or above Nature (hence the term "supernatural"). Thus has been bequeathed to Western society, and especially to Western academia, a concept of a "God" who, as Science relentlessy extends its "footprint" over our universe and over our existence per se, is increasingly viewed as a redundant "hypothesis". This dispossessed deity presents as a wraith haunting the margins of our cosmos and of our consciousness. A forlorn, metaphysical asylum-seeker, furtively and fretfully squatting where He can, pending His inevitable expulsion when, sooner or later, the scientific bulldozers move in to develop his latest bolt-hole for human habitation. God-on-the-run. A serial evictee. A derelict. A transient. An ontological hobo. Hors de combat.

How do Reformed Christians involved in science deal with this remorseless rout (as it would appear) of the Divine? Well, there is one sense (a sense which has disturbed me enough to attempt this essay against it) in which many actually see no problem. They see no problem because, as was noted in the first paragraph above, they not only accept as PREMISE that science is not "God-territory", they vigorously argue on behalf of such a premise. These intellectually-engaged Christians are convinced that material reality CAN be comprehended without God, and indeed, scientifically speaking, MUST be. This is self-evident to them. They do not see this by any means as a capitulation of the Christian worldview. Rather, to them, it IS the authentic Christian worldview. My "No-Room-For-God" qualms (previous paragraph) would no doubt be summarily rejected as a typical "fundamentalist" misapprehension - uninformed, unsophisticated, professionally embarrassing, an impediment to the conversion of scientific colleagues. So OK, if no problem is seen in my sense, is there some other sense in which one might be envisaged? Well, yes there is. That would be whenever science suggests that material reality is all there is. At this point our compromised Reformed scientists will proceed to, as it were, "out-Aquinus" Aquinus [But see fresh note below]. They will valiantly defend the existence of a higher "spiritual reality" - a realm "beyond" that with which science is competent to engage. And thus discussions or debates with colleagues will slip into the ubiquitous (iniquitous!) format of "Science versus Faith", or even worse, "Reason versus Faith". Formats which ensure that the atheist has in principle annihilated the Christian before a word is spoken or a shot fired. This lethal trap is not glimpsed by the Christian because the "nature-versus-grace" dichotomy has become so internalized and legitimized that he/she is now blithely oblivious to the blindingly obvious. That logic presupposes the Logos. That science presupposes faith. That there IS no neutral ground. That ALL ground is "battle" ground. The so-called "Church/State" delineation argument is another arena where the nature-versus-grace divide is manifest. The State is not to be subservient to the Church, nor the Church to the State. That, it may surprise some, is the Reformed view. But it is also the Reformed view that both must be subservient to our Creator. No detail of human existence is exempt from the grace of God. Nothing has meaning in itself. Neither science, nor politics, nor the arts, nor playing football. There is no neutrality. If a secular society is indeed 'neutral', why are humanists so passionate about achieving it? The dispute is territorial.

In utter contrast to the scholastic, Aristotle-derived, Aquinus-based view outlined and rejected above, our Reformed heritage has made available to us the radical Biblical insight that no coherent thought whatsoever can be accounted for without the premise of the Triune God of Scripture, in Whom "unity" and "diversity" are equally ultimate. Neither rationality nor science can proceed without the bringing together of universals and particulars. Science is largely about recognizing unity in diversity, and formulating laws to describe such. But, vitally, Christians must grasp that universals (scientific laws) and particulars (disparate data) are only logically relatable to each other because of Who God is, and because the cosmos declares His glory. The atheist scientist makes progress, yes. But this is despite his/her faulty premises and not because of them. One of the most influential Christian thinkers on these issues has been Cornelius Van Til. Here are a few pertinent quotes from his book "The Defense of the Faith" -

   "The argument between Christians and non-Christians involves every fact in the universe. If it does not involve every fact it does not involve any fact. If one fact can be interpreted correctly on the assumption of human autonomy then all facts can. If the Christian is to be able to show the non-Christian objectively that Christianity is true and that those who reject it do so because they hold to that which is false, this must be done everywhere or else it is not really done anywhere." (p 171)

  "Believers can objectively show to unbelievers that unity of science can be obtained only on the Christian theistic basis. It is the idea of God's controlling whatsoever comes to pass that forms the foundation of science. And no-one can or does believe that idea unless by the sovereign grace of God through Christ he has repented of his sin.Thus it is Christianity that furnishes the basis of the structure of science. If men will not repent and accept Christianity then they will still contribute to the structure of science. But then their contributions will be in spite of themselves as ethically responsible beings" (p 175)

    "And since God's face appears in every fact in the universe they oppose God's revelation everywhere. They do not want to see the facts of nature for what they are; they do not want to see themselves for what they are. Therefore they assume the non-createdness of themselves and of the facts and of the laws round about them....Shall we in the interest of a point of contact admit that man can interpret anything correctly if he virtually leaves God out of the picture? Shall we who wish to prove that nothing can be explained without God first admit that some things at least can be explained without Him? On the contrary we shall show that all explanations without God are futile." (p 200)

And Phillip E. Johnson's book "REASON in the BALANCE: The Case Against NATURALISM in Science, Law & Education" is also worth reading on the demerits of methodological naturalism. A few quotes from him -

   "The power of scientific naturalism in the academic world is so intimidating, however, that hardly anyone is willing to challenge it. Theologians (or theistic scientists) survive in academia not by challenging naturalism with a rival interpretation of reality but by trying to find a place for theology within the picture of reality defined by scientific naturalists" (p 97)
 "If the atheists make the rules, the atheists are surely going to win the game, regardless of what is true. The rules limit science to naturalistic theories and provide that the best available naturalistic theory can be considered successful even when it rests on unverifiable assumptions and conflicts with some of the evidence. If those are the rules of the game, then it is indeed futile for theists to try to play - but why should theists accept such rules, except that they lack the courage to challenge them?" (p 100)

  "The key element in the cultural authority of the scientific naturalists is their power to set the standards by which theories are evaluated. That power explains why theists are so paralyzed by the fear of the 'God of the gaps' fallacy. Darwinism became unchallengeable scientific orthodoxy not because the creative power of the mutation/selection mechanism was experimentally demonstrated, but because the scientific community adopted standards of evaluation that made something very much like Darwinism inevitable. Naturalistic rules require that theories employ only two kinds of forces - chance and necessity, random variation and impersonal law. The only debate is over details like the relative importance of chance (mutation) and necessity (natural selection), or the mechanism of heredity. The rules also provide that a theory retains its authority even in the teeth of a great deal of nonconforming evidence unless critics can provide a better theory.

     Because of this way of thinking, even the notorious discrepancies between the facts of the fossil record and Darwinian expectations do not matter so long as there is some evidence (Archaeopteryx, Lucy, the 'mammal-like reptiles') that can be interpreted to fit the paradigm - and the critics are unable to propose a credible mechanism for evolution by big jumps. If the contest is between Darwinism and supernatural creation, or between Darwinism and 'we don't know', Darwinism wins." (pp 104,105)
 (REASON in the BALANCE: The Case Against NATURALISM in Science, Law & Education, Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Illinois, 1995, ISBN 0-8308-19209-0)    

Johnson sees the link between “methodological naturalism” and Darwinism. I very much agree. Thus another book I would thoroughly recommend is Jonathan Sarfati's "Refuting Compromise". This is from Doug Kelly's foreword -

         "The reign of evolution/long-age theory was a major factor in turning Western culture from Christianity to naturalistic humanism in the first half of the 20th century. Most of the churches did not really escape this evolutionary world view. 'Higher critical' theories of Scripture assumed evolutionary development and negated supernatural revelation, shredding the normal understanding of biblical truth-claims. Because so many ministers and priests were educated in Christian institutions that nearly always (in the event of conflict) accomodated the Bible to current 'scientific' claims, rather than such claims to the Bible, the church was enfeebled. And it was largely unable to offer a viable alternative to the evolutionary humanism which eviscerated traditional Christianity at its Genesis roots. (Part of my own higher education was in one such institution).
     But we have seen substantial changes since the birth of the modern creationist movement in the early 1960s. Hundreds of professional scientists in many different fields have 'come on board' over the last 40 years, and the numbers who accept the Genesis paradigm of creation, as opposed to evolution/long ages, show no sign of abatement. Such a scientist is Dr. Jonathan Sarfati...
     Dr Sarfati calls on Christian scholars to work gladly within a framework that presupposes the truth of God's written Word, to use their reason ministerially, and to know carefully the difference between empirical facts of operational science and the speculative claims of origins science."
(Refuting Compromise, Jonathan Sarfati, Master Books, 2004)
____________________________________
*Fresh note on Aquinus: I have just discovered (16 Dec 2009) the online writings of Theodore Plantinga (which I highly recommend). Plantinga in his essay "The Reformational Movement: Does It Need a History?" questions whether the default neo-Calvinist interpretation of Thomas Aquinus (which I reiterate above) is after all valid. Regarding the "Nature/Grace" split, Theodore Plantinga has the following to say -
It should be noted that there has been some revision on this score of late. Quite a number of years ago, Arvin Vos of the University of Western Kentucky, who attended Calvin (College) as an undergraduate but was never an (Evan) Runner man, already argued that the kind of criticism of the tradition of Thomas Aquinas and nature/grace thinking that one commonly finds in Calvinistic and reformational circles is unfair to Aquinas. In effect it attributes to Aquinas certain objectionable views that were held by self-styled followers of his some centuries later. [The Vos thesis is presented in his book Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought: A Critique of Protestant Views on the Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Washington: Christian University Press, 1985). Wrote Vos: "... many have criticized Aquinas for making a distinction between nature and grace. They maintain that such a split inevitably leads to a dualism from which nature emerges as an independent, self-sufficient order, and grace emerges as a superfluous option. In fact, however, this is a position that Aquinas combatted with all his energy throughout his life; he always held grace preeminent over nature." [Pages 162-163] Vos explained further: "... new scholarship on the Middle Ages produced during the past century has convincingly shown that later Thomists departed significantly from Aquinas's original teaching some time during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and that in fact the later Thomist tradition resembles fairly closely the position that Protestants have long attributed to Aquinas himself." [Pages 152-153]] Versions of the Arvin Vos criticism have been uttered more recently by Edward Echeverria as well, and their validity is being acknowledged more and more openly in reformational circles.

___________________________________________
2. Christians Must Challenge Validity
So my position is that Christians must challenge the validity of "methodological naturalism" if by this term science is perceived as a field of human endeavour which is religiously or philosophically neutral. Such a science cannot but be fraught. Since the Triune God is the precondition of all intelligibility, a science which presumes itself neutral in regard to Him will at the very least be unable to adequately account for the rationality it employs, and it will also become increasingly riven by inner tensions. Such an ostensibly "neutral" science is of course that which is is proposed by humanists. The Reformed philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd analyses the inner crisis of such thinking. The medieval "Nature/Grace" dichotomy of Aquinus, inherited from the "Matter/Form" dichotomy of Plato and Aristotle, has now become the modern "Nature/Freedom" dichotomy of humanism:
 Unlike that of the Greeks and the scholastic thinkers, the inner dialectic of the Humanistic ground-motive is not born out of a conflict between two different religions. The deepest root of its dialectical character lies in the ambiguity of the Humanistic freedom-motive. The latter is the central driving force of the modern religion of human personality. And from its own depths it calls forth the motive to dominate nature, and thus leads to a religion of autonomous objective science in which there is no room for the free personality. Nevertheless, the religious self-surrender to autonomous science is, in the last analysis, nothing but the religion of autonomous human personality itself, which splits itself up into two opposite directions, not to be reconciled in a really critical Humanistic self-reflection. This is the result of the Humanistic secularization of the Christian motives of creation and freedom in Jesus Christ. By this secularization the insight into the religious radical unity of human personality is entirely lost.

In its motive of freedom, Humanism requires absolute autonomy for human personality. This implies a rejection of all faith in authority and of any conception according to which man is subject to a law not imposed by his own reason. However, this secularized freedom-motive displayed various tendencies which came into conflict with one another.

Modern man wished to have his destiny in his own hands, and therefore he wished to free himself from all faith in "supernatural" powers. Humanism applied the Copernican revolution in astronomy to the sphere of religion. The latter must concentrate on man and his religious needs. It must no longer require man to surrender completely to a Sovereign Creator and Redeemer, it could no longer be based upon a "heteronomous" (ie "subject to a different law") Divine Revelation.
 

***

The Humanistic science-ideal has led philosophy into a maze of antinomies. Every time philosophical thought tried to surpass the modal boundaries of the different aspects (numerical, spatial, physical, psychical (feeling), logical, historical, linguistical, social, economic, juridical, ethical, pistical) by means of a mathematical or mechanistic method, it punished itself by becoming involved in antinomies.

At this stage we only wish to point out that the consistent following out of the naturalistic ideal of science must reveal a fundamental antinomy in the basic structure of the Humanistic transcendental ground-Idea. This science-ideal, evoked by the ideal of personality, acknowledged no limits to the application of the new natural scientific method. Had not scientific thought been emancipated from the cosmic order and declared "unconditionally" sovereign?

But the moment must come when personality, the new sovereign in the Humanistic ground-motive, which had glorified itself in its absolute freedom, must itself fall a prey to this ideal of science. Personality had been absolutized in its temporal functions of reason. The physical and biological functions had been subjected to the domination of the mathematical and mechanical method of thought. The postulate of logical continuity implied that the psychical, logical, historical, linguistical, social, economic, juridical, ethical, and faith functions of personality must also be subjected to the naturalistic science-ideal. Thereby, the latter dealt a death blow to the sovereignty of the ideal of personality! "Die ich rief, die Geister, Werde ich nun nicht los!"
 Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought (pp 190, 191, 204, 205)

We can see then that there are tests of a philosophical or logical kind which can and ought to be applied by Christians (and by everyone else) to science or art or any other form of human culture. Indeed, Cornelius Van Til argues that no detail of human culture can claim immunity from such scrutiny: "The Christian, as did Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position. The only "proof" of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving" anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof" itself."
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/My_Credo_van_til.html

Thus it is clear that neither Dooyeweerd nor Van Til see science as religiously or philosophically neutral.

It also seems clear from Scripture that to approach nature with the overt intent to systematically understand it without reference to the Creator is a perilous enterprise: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." (Psalm 19:1,2) 
______________________________________
"Cuiridh na nèamhan an cèill glòir Dhè, agus nochdaidh na speuran gnìomh A làmh. Tha là a' dèanamh sgeòil do là, agus oidhche a' foillseachadh eòlais do oidhche." (Salm 19:1,2 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish] 
"Fógraíonn na spéartha glóir Dé agus foilsíonn an fhirmimint saothar a lámh. Insíonn na laethanta an scéal dá chéile agus tugann na hoícheannta an t-eolas dá chéile." (Salm 19:1,2 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."  (Romans 1:20) 
______________________________________
"Oir riamh o chruthachadh an t-saoghail tha a nithean-san nach faodar fhaicinn, eadhon a chumhachd sìorraidh agus a Dhiadhachd, air am faicinn gu soilleir, air dhaibh a bhith so-thuigsinn o na nithean a rinneadh; a-chum gum biodh iad gun leisgeul aca." (Ròmanaich 1:20) [Scottish] 
"Mar ó chruthú an domhain i leith tá a thréithe do-fheicthe – a chumhacht shíoraí agus a dhiagacht – le haithint agus le feiceáil sna nithe atá déanta. Más ea, níl aon leithscéal acu" (Rómhánaigh 1:20 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor 10:5) 
______________________________________
"A' tilgeadh sìos reusonachaidh, agus gach nì àrd a dh'àrdaicheas e fhèin an aghaidh eòlas Dhè, agus a' toirt ann am braighdeanas gach smuain a-chum ùmhlachd Chrìosd." (2 Corintianaich 10:5 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish] 
"Leagaimid ar lár leo argóintí agus gach sórt móiréise a sheasann in aghaidh eolas Dé, agus déanaimid cime de gach smaoineamh d’fhonn é a chur faoi réir Chríost." (2 Corantaigh 10:5 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
Now, for the Christian of course, and certainly for the Reformed Christian, the Scripture is our highest authority. We do not believe it only if and when science endorses it (which would mean that science was our highest authority). Nevertheless, we readily grant the proviso that if our interpretation of nature is fallible, so also is our interpretation of Scripture. If, say, there is a clash between the apparent findings of archeology, anthropology, geology etc and the apparent teaching of Scripture, we must of course do our best to confirm that our interpretation of Scripture on the matter is sound. Christians would surely see this as self-evident. What Christians are far less clued up on, however, is that interpretations on the scientific side are invariably based on assumptions, and it may be of interest to discover these. In cosmology, for example, the "Big Bang" model arbitrarily assumes an unbounded, and therefore a centreless, universe.

The notion of methodological naturalism obscures the degree of philosophical baggage (the power of the prevailing paradigm, for instance) and implies a level of objectivity which is unattainable. It also in the name of "objectivity" offers science exemption from the claims of God's Word, which actually is our main handle on the nature of objective reality. This is not to put science under the authority of the "Church". Scientists are responsible to God directly in their own field and should personally seek the wisdom of God's Word, as should artists, lawyers, financiers etc in theirs. So to this extent, Scripture has a significant role to play as a test (and tutor) for scientific findings, as it is a test (and tutor) for all human thinking - "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
______________________________________
"Oir tha Facal Dhè beò agus cumhachdach, agus nas gèire na claidheamh dà fhaobhair air bith, a' ruigheachd eadhon a-chum eadar-sgaradh an anama agus an spioraid, agus nan alt agus nan smear, agus a' toirt breith air smuaintean agus rùintean a' chridhe." (Eabhraidhich 4:12 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
 "Óir, tá briathar Dé beoúil bríomhar; is géire é ná aon chlaíomh dhá bhéal; téann sé isteach idir anam agus spiorad, idir smior agus smúsach agus tugann sé breith ar chlaonta agus ar smaointe an chroí. (Eabhraigh 4:12 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
 ______________________________________
"There is no wisdom or understanding or counsel against the LORD." (Proverbs 21:30)
______________________________________
"Chan eil gliocas, no tuigse, no comhairle ann, an aghaidh an Tighearna." (Gnàth-Fhacail 21:30 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Ní sheasódh eagna ná tuiscint ná comhairle an fód in aghaidh an Tiarna."  (Seanfhocail 21:30 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
Here are pertinent quotes from two proponents of methodological naturalism who are well aware of their premises:

Scott Todd, immunologist, Kansas State University wrote to Nature magazine: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology,  -
 "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
 Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Accepting "methodological naturalism" seems tantamount to accepting the late Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" or "NOMA". Jonathan Sarfati critiques Gould's view as follows - "(Gould’s NOMA) is based on the philosophically fallacious fact-value distinction, and is really an anti-Christian claim. For example, the Resurrection of Christ is an essential part of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12–19), but it is also a matter of history; it passed the ‘testable’ claim that the tomb would be empty on the third day, and impinges on science because it demonstrated the power of God over so-called ‘natural laws’ that dead bodies decay, they do not return to life...This NOMA distinction really teaches that religion is just in one’s head, which seems to dull the senses of many Christians more than an overt declaration that Christianity is false. So this is even more dangerous."
  CMI’s response to PBS-TV series Evolution/ Episode 1: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea 
For Gould, science deals with the objective world while religion deals with the subjective world (ethics, values, morals etc). The two can get on just fine if they stick to their own domains, like the shark and the tiger. "Don't step over my fence, and I won't step over yours". Neat. But of course Christ steps over all our fences and defences, and the objective world is where He lives and reigns, and it can only be properly understood with reference to Him, as Van Til argues  -
 True human knowledge corresponds to the knowledge which God has of Himself and His world. Suppose that I am a scientist investigating the life and ways of a cow. What is this cow? I say it is an animal. But that only pushes the question back. What is an animal? To answer that question I must know what life is. But again, to know what life is I must know how it is related to the inorganic world. And so I may and must continue till I reach the borders of the universe. And even when I have reached the borders of the universe, I do not yet know what the cow is. Complete knowledge of what a cow is can be had only by an absolute intelligence, i.e., by one who has, so to speak, the blueprint of the whole universe. But it does not follow from this that the knowledge of the cow that I have is not true as far as it goes. It is true if it corresponds to the knowledge that God has of the cow.

***

When therefore we examine the various epistemological views with regard to their "objectivity", we are interested most of all in knowing whether or not these views have sought the knowledge of an object by placing it into its right relation with the self-conscious God. The other questions are interesting enough in themselves but are comparatively speaking not of great importance. Even if one were not anxious about the truth of the matter, it ought still to be plain to him that there can be no more fundamental question in epistemology than the question whether or not facts can be known without reference to God. Suppose for argument's sake that there is such a God. And surely the possibility of it anybody ought to be willing to grant unless he has proved the impossibility of God's existence. Suppose then the existence of God. Then it would be a fact that every fact would be known truly only with reference to him. If then one did not place a fact into relation with God, he would be in error about the fact under investigation. Or suppose that one would just begin his investigations as a scientist without even asking whether or not it is necessary to make reference to such a God in his investigations, such a one would be in constant and in fundamental ignorance all the while. And this ignorance would be culpable ignorance, since it is God who gives him life and all good things. It ought to be obvious then that one should settle for himself this most fundamental of all epistemological questions, whether or not God exists. Christ says that as the Son of God, he will come to judge and condemn all those who have not come to the Father by him.
Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology (being In Defense of the Faith Volume 2), den Dulk Christian Foundation,1969. (Second quote from Chapter 1 online)

And, moreover, we can also see how Dooyeweerd's analysis has a powerful bearing on Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" as a modus operandi. Dooyeweerd uncovers the religious idolatry inherent in any declaration of independence of the logical function, even if legitimacy is ostensibly granted to other ways of engaging with the cosmos:

"By this (rationalistic) original choice of position, the attempt is made to detach the logical function of theoretical thought...and to treat it as independent... It is a religious act, just because it contains a choice of position in the concentration-point of our existence in the face of the Origin of meaning. In the choice of the immanence-standpoint in the manner described above, I myself elevate philosophic thought, whether in the transcendental-logical or the metaphysical-logical sense, to the status of arché of the cosmos. This arché stands as origin, beyond which nothing meaningful may be further asked...It exists in and through itself. This choice of a position in the face of the arché transcends philosophical thought, though in the nature of the case it does not occur apart from it. It possesses the fulness of the central selfhood, the fulness of the heart...It is a religious choice of position in an idolatrous sense. The proclamation of the self-sufficiency of philosophic thought, even with the addition of 'in its own field', is an absolutizing of meaning. Nothing of its idolatrous character is lost by reason of the thinker's readiness to recognize that the absolutizing...which he performs in the theoretical field is by no means the only claimant, but that philosophy should allow the religious, aesthetic or moral man the full freedom to serve other gods, outside the theoretical realm. The philosopher who allows this freedom to the non-theoretician is, so to speak, theoretically a polytheist. He fights shy of proclaiming the theoretical God to be the only true god. But, within the temple of this God, no others shall be worshipped!...In truth the selfhood as the religious root of existence is the hidden performer on the instrument of philosophic thought. Only, it is invisible on the basis of the immanence-standpoint."
Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought (pp 20,21)

Philosophical "polytheism". The proponent of logical self-sufficiency grants God squatting rights beyond the frontiers of the logical. How magnanimous. How spurious. Dooyeweerd's censure is as just as it is percipient. Yet Dooyeweerd's verdict is surely even more applicable to those who travel the opposite direction. Who piously affirm that "The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein", yet slam the door in God's face on entering the cosmos-claiming precincts of Science, not reluctantly but ardently donning the mandatory robe of "methodological naturalism".
3. Keeping God Outside the Door
As an avowed philosophical materialist, Professor Richard Lewontin states at the end of the quote given above (in red), "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door". His consistency to that extent is clear. However, I'm still asking myself why so many Christians have become such adamant advocates of keeping God outside the door of the workplace. And particularly outside the workplace of science, the influence of which on human consciousness is now inestimable, arguably paradigmatic (ie enjoying the status of being "The Big Explanation" of existence). One reason given to me for this advocacy of "methodological naturalism" even by Christians is essentially that "it works". Let's consider this more closely. Firstly, let's revisit the question: What is "methodological naturalism"? And secondly, What are we to make of the degree to which "it works"?

 Firstly: What is "Methodological Naturalism"?
"Methodological Naturalism" is a specific mode of confronting physical reality with human logic in order to elucidate and employ natural laws. God is excluded by definition from the process, since otherwise science is considered to be compromised, and indeed precluded.

To any Christian who thinks he/she has been able to successfully think and work within the above framework, I would say the following: Though you are a Christian who believes that every thought should be taken captive to obey Christ, I respectfully suggest that you have, as it were, partitioned the "hard-drive" in your head so that you simultaneously believe with equal commitment that scientific thought must under no circumstances be taken captive to obey Christ. In denying to yourself that “methodological naturalism" has anything to do with “philosophical atheism", you seem to be allowing, if not inviting, the conclusion that it has more affinity with "philosophical theism". But that is not your position at all, is it? It can't be, or most methodological naturalists would tell you where to go. What you are actually saying is that "methodological naturalism" is neither "atheist" nor "theist", but "NEUTRAL". Yet, as we have attempted to establish above, the notion of a philosophically neutral method is pure make-believe. We could usefully revisit at this point Aristotle and Aquinus, the "Nature/Grace" dichotomy, and Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" (and we might even throw in for good measure Kant's "phenomenal" & "noumenal" categories) because the Nature/Grace split is precisely what you appear to be articulating. Namely, that life consists of two discreet realms:
 Realm 1: the material domain (ie the cosmos!) which man's autonomous objective rationality can potentially analyze exhaustively (but only if God is factored out first).
 Realm 2: the spiritual domain of (non-scientific-therefore-non-verifiable-therefore-irrationally-dogmatic) theology.

All the above, however, does not make clear WHY you feel you must keep God out of science, and precisely what damage you envisage Him perpetrating if He is allowed in. But I think the answer is beginning to dawn on me. You feel that God would be an arbitrary or capricious or unverifiable "gap-filling" postulate in scientific calculations. At least, that's the humanist basis for "methodological naturalism", is it not? That God's infamous habit of "moving in mysterious ways" could be invoked willy-nilly, thus short-circuiting any serious scientific investigation whatsoever. Miracles could be invoked at the drop of a calculator to explain anything and everything. Real science clearly couldn't get off the ground with such a cosmic "gremlin" on board (and invisible with it!). Attempts at "methodology" would be a farce. But wait a minute, I don't recognize this irksome entity from the “Other Side" as the Biblical God, do you? We are told explicitly that "God is NOT a God of disorder" (I Cor 14:23). Indeed God's orderliness, so evident in His creation, is what makes scientific investigation possible -

"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease." (Genesis 8:22) 
______________________________________
"Am feadh a mhaireas an talamh,
cha sguir àm
an t-sìl-chur agus foghar,
agus fuachd agus teas,
agus samhradh agus geamhradh,
agus là agus oidhche." (Genesis 8:22 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Fad a bheidh an talamh ann,
ní rachaidh stad arís
ar shíolchur ná ar fhómhar,
ar fhuacht ná ar theas,
ar shamhradh ná ar gheimhreadh,
ar lá ná ar oíche.”  (Geineasas 8:22 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
Can we not surely say then that God is a God of "method"? In fact can we not go further and say that ALL methodology presupposes the methodicalness of God, and is itself ultimately arbitrary without that acknowledgement? And likewise, what of "naturalism"? Is the Creator of Nature to be excluded from the scientific study of Nature because He is much too fickle (or "fictitious") a variable? Yet whence the laws of Nature but from God the Law-giver and the Judge of all the earth? Can this God do NO right in our eyes? Is He to be spurned both as Law-Maker and as Law-Breaker? -
"By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations,
by understanding he set the heavens in place;
by his knowledge the deeps were divided,
and the clouds let drop the dew.
My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment,
do not let them out of your sight" (Proverbs 3:19-21) 
______________________________________
"Le gliocas shuidhich an Tighearna an talamh;
le gliocas shònraich E na nèamhan.
Le a eòlas-san brisear suas na doimhneachdan,
agus silidh na neòil a-nuas an drùchd.
A mhic na dealaicheadh iad rid shùilean:
coimhead gliocas fallain agus tuigse" (Gnàth-Fhacail 3:19-21 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Bhunaigh an Tiarna an chruinne ar a máithreacha le barr eagna,
agus le barr tuisceana dhaingnigh sé na spéartha.
Bhrúcht na duibheagáin le barr a eolais,
agus fearann na scamaill an drúcht ar an talamh.
Cloigh, a mhic ó, le heagna stuama agus le críonnacht,
ná scaoil as do radharc iad." (Seanfhocail 3:19-21 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
"O LORD, our LORD, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens!" (Psalm 8:1)
______________________________________
"O Iehòbhah ar Tighearna, cia òirdheirc D'ainm air feadh na talmhainn uile! a shocraich Do ghlòir os cionn an nèamh!" (Salm 8:1)
"A Thiarna, ár dTiarna, nach éachtach é d’ainm ar fud na cruinne!" (Salm 8:2 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." (Revelation 4:11)
______________________________________
"Is airidh Thusa, a Thighearna, air glòir, agus urram, agus cumhachd fhaotainn; oir chruthaich Thu na h-uile nithean, agus airson Do thoile-sa tha iad ann, agus chruthaicheadh iad." (Taisbeanadh 4:11 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
“A Thiarna agus a Dhia linn, is fiú thú glóir agus onóir agus cumhacht a fháil, óir is tú a chruthaigh an uile ní agus is trí do thoil a tháinig siad ann agus a cruthaíodh iad." (Apacailipsis 4:11 An Bíobla Naofa [Irish]
______________________________________
If humans are to give account on the Day of Judgement for "every careless word we utter" (Matt 12:36), can we imagine for a moment that those of us who are scientists, who peer into God's Creation perhaps closer than any, will have our carefully premeditated and perennial words of "neutrality" excused?
 Secondly: What are we to make of the degree to which "it works"?
The answer to the two words "it works", is simply another two words, ie "Common Grace" . Consider the following passage from Calvin's Institutes -
 Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts, we insult the giver. How then can we deny that truth must have beamed on those ancient lawgivers who arranged civil order and discipline with so much equity? Shall we say that the philosophers, in their exquisite researches and skilful description of nature, were blind? Shall we deny the possession of intellect to those who drew up rules of discourse, and taught us to speak in accordance with reason? Shall we say that those who, by the cultivation of the medical art, expended their industry on our behalf were only raving? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we deem them to be the dreams of madmen? Nay, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration; an admiration which their excellence will not allow us to withhold. But shall we deem anything to be noble and praiseworthy, without tracing it to the hand of God? Far from us be such ingratitude; an ingratitude not chargeable even on heathen poets, who acknowledged that philosophy and laws, and all useful arts were the inventions of the gods. Therefore, since it is manifest that men whom the Scriptures term ‘carnal’ are so acute and clear-sighted in the investigation of inferior things, their example should teach us how many gifts the Lord has left in possession of human nature, notwithstanding its having been despoiled of the true good....
Nor is there any ground for asking what concourse the Spirit can have with the ungodly, who are altogether alienated from God. For what is said as to the Spirit dwelling in believers only, is to be understood of the Spirit of holiness, by which we are consecrated to God as temples. Notwithstanding this, he fills, moves and invigorates all things by virtue of the Spirit, and that according to the peculiar nature which each class of beings has received by the Law of Creation. But if the Lord has been pleased to assist us by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics, dialectics, mathematics, and other similar sciences, let us avail ourselves of it, lest, by neglecting the gifts of God spontaneously offered to us, we be justly punished for our sloth. (Institutes 2:2:15-16).

Calvin's point is that no-one can discover truth anywhere, without it deriving ultimately from God ("the only fountain of truth"). Take, for example, this passage from Isaiah on the everyday science of agricultural husbandry in old Israel -
 "Listen and hear my voice; pay attention and hear what I say. When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually? Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil? When he has leveled the surface, does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin? Does he not plant wheat in its place, barley in its plot, and spelt in its field? His God instructs him and teaches him the right way. Caraway is not threshed with a sledge, nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin; caraway is beaten out with a rod, and cummin with a stick. Grain must be ground to make bread; so one does not go on threshing it forever. Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it, his horses do not grind it. All this also comes from the LORD Almighty, wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom." (Isaiah 28:23-29 NKJV)
______________________________________
"Thugaibh-se an aire, agus cluinnibh mo ghuth; èisdibh, agus cluinnibh mo bhriathran. A bheil an treabhaiche ri àr, rè an là, a-chum cur a dhèanamh? A bheil e a' fosgladh agus a' briseadh fòidean a fhearainn? Nuair a nì e a aghaidh còmhnard, nach sgaoil e an sin a mheanbh-pheasair, agus nach sgap e an cumin; agus nach cuir e an cruithneachd anns an àite as fheàrr, agus an t-eòrna anns an ionad shuidhichte, agus an seagal na chrìch fhèin? Oir bidh a Dhia ag ionnsachadh eòlais dha, agus ga theagasg. Oir chan eil a' mheanbh-pheasair air a bualadh le inneal-bualaidh: cha mhò a bheirear air roth feuna tionndadh air a' chumin; ach tha a' mheanbh-pheasair air a bhualadh le slait, agus an cumin le luirg. Ach tha sìol airson arain air a bhruthadh: do bhrìgh nach bi e ga shìor bhualadh, no ga bhriseadh le roth a fheuna, no ga phronnadh le a eich. Tha seo fòs a' teachd o Thighearna nan sluagh: tha Esan iongantach ann an comhairle, òirdheirc ann an gnìomh." (Isaiah 28:23-29 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]

"Tugaigí cluas agus éistigí le mo ghlór, bígí aireach agus tugaigí libh a bhfuil á rá agam. An é nach ndéanann an treabhdóir dada seachas treabhadh, seachas an talamh a bhriseadh agus a fhuirseadh? An amhlaidh, nuair a bhíonn sé cothrom aige, nach gcraitheann sé lus mín air, nach gcuireann sé coimín, agus cruithneacht agus eorna ina dhiaidh sin, agus an spealt ar an imeall amuigh? An té a mhúineann an riail sin dó, is é a Dhia é atá á theagasc. Agus ar ndóigh, ní bhuailtear an lus mín le carr sleamhnáin, ná coimín le roth cairte; ach buailtear an lus mín le slat agus coimín le súiste. Ná ní dhéantar arbhar an aráin a bhrú go hiomlán; an té a thiomáineann rothaí na cairte air, buaileann sé amach é, ach ní dhéanann sé a bhrú. Ó Thiarna na Slua an méid sin freisin; is iontach é le haghaidh comhairle agus is cumasach a chríonnacht." (Íseáia 28:23-29 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
So ALL truth, including scientific truth, is God's truth. Satan for his part was from the beginning but a liar and a murderer (John 8:44). Therefore a methodology which discovers truth but at the same time insists that it is discovering this truth successfully by the systematic exclusion of God from all its thoughts surely is afflicted with a fatal internal conflict. As Paul so memorably states in his famous passage in Romans 1 -
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse . For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen." (Rom 1:18-25)
______________________________________
"Oir tha fearg Dhè air a foillseachadh o nèamh an aghaidh gach uile mhì-dhiadhachd, agus eucoir dhaoine, a tha a' bacadh na fìrinn ann an neo-fhìreantachd: Do bhrìgh gu bheil an nì air am faodar fios fhaotainn a-thaobh Dhè follaiseach anntasan; oir rinn Dia follaiseach dhaibh e. Oir riamh o chruthachadh an t-saoghail tha A nithean-san nach faodar fhaicinn, eadhon A chumhachd sìorraidh agus A Dhiadhachd, air am faicinn gu soilleir, air dhaibh a bhith so-thuigsinn o na nithean a rinneadh; a-chum gum biodh iad gun leisgeul aca: Do bhrìgh nuair a b'aithne dhaibh Dia, nach tug iad glòir Dha mar Dhia, agus nach robh iad taingeil, ach gun d'fhàs iad dìomhain nan reusonachadh fhèin, agus gun do dhorchaicheadh an cridhe amaideach. Ag ràdh gur daoine glice iad fhèin, rinneadh amadain dhiubh: Agus chaochail iad glòir an Dè neo-thruaillidh gu dealbh a rinneadh cosmhail ri duine truaillidh, agus ri eunlaith, agus ainmhidhean ceithir-chasach, agus biasdan snàigeach. Uime sin thug Dia thairis iad mar an ceudna, tre ana-miannan an cridhe fhèin, a-chum neòghlaine, a thoirt eas-urraim dan cuirp eatorra fhèin: muinntir a chaochail fìrinn Dhè gu brèig, agus a thug adhradh agus a rinn seirbhis don chreutair nas mò na don Chruithear, A tha beannaichte gu sìorraidh, Amen." (Ròmanaich 1:18-25 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Tá fearg Dé á foilsiú ó neamh in aghaidh éagráifeacht agus urchóid uile na ndaoine úd atá ag coinneáil na fírinne i ngéibheann lena gcuid urchóide. Óir tá a bhfuil le foghlaim faoi Dhia soiléir dóibh de bhrí gur nocht Dia féin dóibh é. Mar ó chruthú an domhain i leith tá a thréithe do-fheicthe – a chumhacht shíoraí agus a dhiagacht – le haithint agus le feiceáil sna nithe atá déanta. Más ea, níl aon leithscéal acu, mar, cé go raibh eolas ar Dhia acu, níor thug siad dó an ghlóir ná an buíochas ba dhual dó mar Dhia. Is amhlaidh a chuaigh siad chun mearbhaill ina gcuid smaointe agus a dalladh an  aigne dhúr iontu. Agus iad ag maíomh gur lucht gaoise iad féin, d’imigh siad le baois; mhalartaigh siad glóir an Dé neamhbhásmhair ar íomhánna a raibh cló an duine bhásmhair orthu nó cló éanlaithe nó ainmhithe nó péisteanna. Sin é an fáth ar thug Dia suas iad don mhígheanmnaíocht de réir ainmhianta a gcroí, sa tslí gur thug siad tarcaisne dá gcoirp eatarthu féin. Mhalartaigh siad fírinne Dé ar an mbréag agus thug ómós agus seirbhís don chréatúr mar rogha ar an gcruthaitheoir, moladh go deo leis. Amen. (Rómhánaigh 1:18-25 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
By inexcusably suppressing the key truth that created things testify to the Creator, and have meaning only in relation to the Creator, methodological naturalism hideously skews the truth it does find. It resolutely snubs the glorious immortal God our Creator, and insists with Darwin that whatever meaning "mortal man" has is to be found only in the study of "birds and animals and reptiles", with these conceived of as creatures of pure blind chance. Methodological naturalism has thus exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and, by recognizing no authority but raw human rationality confronting brute reality, it is guilty of worshipping and serving created things rather than the Creator. Moreover, by means of its Big Lie it metaphysically "murders" every creature which falls into its clutches, interpreting it away from God, instead of unto God, as Adam was charged to do. Thus creatures whose meaning is infinite in Christ are obscenely reduced to gene-driven robots. God forgive us for bringing such a curse on the earth.

The measure of how much truth the Pharisees had grasped from the Old Testament was evident in their response to the Christ of Whom it spoke, when He stood before them. Likewise, the measure of truth methodological naturalists have found will be evident in their response to Him of Whom all their studied creatures speak, when He stands before them.
"For all things are from Him, and through Him, and to Him" (Rom 11:36) 
______________________________________
"Oir is ann uaithesan, agus trìdsan, agus air A shonsan a tha na h-uile nithean" (Rom 11:36 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Mar is uaidhsean agus trídsean agus dósan gach uile ní dá bhfuil ann" (Rómh 11:36 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
In a sense we might even say that, in the context of meteorological observations, Christ actually addressed the Pharisees as "methodological naturalists" -"He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times... Jesus then left them and went away."  (Matthew 16:2-4)
______________________________________
"Ach fhreagair Esan agus thubhairt E riu, Nuair is feasgar e, their sibh, Bidh deagh aimsir ann, oir tha an t-adhar dearg: Agus air madainn, Bidh droch aimsir ann an-diugh, oir tha an t-adhar dearg agus dorcha. A chealgairean, is aithne dhuibh breith a thoirt air gnùis an adhair, agus nach eil e an comas dhuibh comharraidhean nan aimsir a thuigsinn? ...Agus air Dha am fàgail, dh'imich E as a sin." (Mata 16:2-4 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Dúirt sé leo á bhfreagairt: “Nuair a bhíonn an tráthnóna ann deir sibh: ‘Tá aimsir bhreá air: tá an spéir dearg’; agus ar maidin: ‘Déanfaidh sé drochaimsir inniu: tá an spéir dearg, gruama.’ Tuigeann sibh conas dreach na spéire a bhreithniú; an ea nach féidir libh comharthaí na n-aimsirí seo a bhreithniú?Drochghlúin adhaltrach agus í ag lorg comhartha, agus gan de chomhartha le tabhairt di ach comhartha Ióna” – a bhfágáil ansin agus ag imeacht leis." (Matha 16:2-4 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
He does not deny the accuracy of their findings to an extent. On the contrary, He rather argues that, having grasped such everyday "mechanistic" truths makes them all the more culpable in their refusal to bow to the One to Whom all such "signs" point. The One standing before them now with, as it were, "clouded brow".
The Pharisees had knowledge, but when they heard the voice of God "walking in the Garden" they hid their hearts from Him, and plotted to nail Him to a tree. What is the response of methodological naturalists when they hear the voice of the Creator walking in the Garden of zoology, of botany, of anthropology, of geology, of cosmology? Do they fall before Him in delight at finding the Author of Life, the meaning of all things? Do they run to grasp His hand, to walk with Him in animated discussion of each animal and tree and flower, laughing with delight like little children at a sudden butterfly, or in silent awe at the mighty beasts, and in even greater awe at the galaxies beyond galaxies above? I think not. Rather they would seem more likely to wave their clipboards at Him and shout, "Hey! Excuse us, but didn't you notice that sign we posted on that tree you just passed? This is a site of  "Special Scientific Interest", we'll have you know! We really cannot have "gods" wandering in and interfering with experiments and observations. We really must ask you to leave forthwith. And please, as you go - do try not to step on the flowers or frighten the animals - we still haven't even catalogued some of them. And no offense, by the way! It's not that we are all card-carrying "philosophical atheists" around here. In fact we are quite a "broad church", as it were! Some of us are even quite the little "theists" - when we take our lab-coats off, that is. But we are professionals, after all, and naturally (if you’ll pardon the pun) we don't allow any intrusion of such subjective and potentially divisive matters into our work-practices. It would make a mockery of scientific objectivity! Now mind yourself on those thorns & thistles - they could give you a nasty gash...." 
A pertinent quote from JM Spier in his book on Dooyeweerd's philosophy -
"To every Christian who walks according to the Word of God, it should be evident that the line of demarcation dividing humanity does not suddenly disappear in the field of science. The world is divided into a camp of believers (the city of God) and a camp of unbelievers (civitas terrena). Science is not neutral with respect to these two opposing camps. It does not exist by itself but is religious in its background. Science arises out of the human heart and every human heart has chosen for or against Christ. Science is directed to God or away from him. It is performed in obedience to the Covenant or it rejects it entirely. There is no middle course."

JM Spier, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1954, p 24

Dooyeweerd himself credits Abraham Kuper in this regard:
"Dr. Abraham Kuyper heeft de bijbelse openbaring van de religieuze radix der menselijke existentie, die de sleutel is tot de ware zelfkennis, waartoe de wijsbegeerte vanaf Socrates tot het hedendaagse Humanistisch existentialisme tevergeefs langs de weg ener vermeend autoonome theoretische bezinning heeft zoeken te geraken, opnieuw ontdekt. Dit werd bij hem beslissend voor het poneren van zijn befaamde, en zoveel ergernis en misverstand verwekkende stelling dat de antithese tussen geloof en ongeloof noodzakelijk ook in de wetenschap doorwerkt en dat dus van een neutraliteit der wetenschap t.a.v. het christelijk geloof geen sprake kan zijn."

["Dr. Abraham Kuyper rediscovered the biblical revelation of the religious root of human existence, which is the key to true self-knowledge. This is something that philosophy had sought for in vain, from Socrates to present day humanistic existentialism, for they looked for it along the path of a supposed autonomous theoretical attitude. This idea [of the religious root] was decisive for Kuyper in his positing of the famous proposition–a proposition that has caused so much annoyance and misunderstanding–that the antithesis between belief and unbelief necessarily also works itself out in science, and that therefore we cannot speak of a neutrality of science in relation to Christian faith"].

(“Het Oecumenisch-Reformatorish Grondmotief van de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee en de grondslag der Vrije Universiteit,”Philosophia Reformata 31 (1966) 3-15 at 8-9, above translation by Dr J Glenn Friesen).
Van Til comments -

"Men must therefore be asked to repent for the way they have carried on their scientific enterprises, no less than for the way they have worshiped idols."
Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Nutley, New Jersey, 1977, p 39
4. Exchange with Christian Proponent of Methodological Naturalism
 Context: Christian proponent of methodological naturalism is of the view that scientific thinking cannot but be exempt from Paul's words in Romans 1 -
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
______________________________________
"Oir riamh o chruthachadh an t-saoghail tha A nithean-san nach faodar fhaicinn, eadhon A chumhachd sìorraidh agus A Dhiadhachd, air am faicinn gu soilleir, air dhaibh a bhith so-thuigsinn o na nithean a rinneadh; a-chum gum biodh iad gun leisgeul aca." (Ròmanaich 1:20 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]

"Mar ó chruthú an domhain i leith tá a thréithe do-fheicthe – a chumhacht shíoraí agus a dhiagacht – le haithint agus le feiceáil sna nithe atá déanta. Más ea, níl aon leithscéal acu" (Rómhánaigh 1:20 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
Proponent: You think that because the Scientific Method states that we can't detect the supernatural empirically, this means that it declares that there is no supernatural. It does not. Science merely reveals to us God's methods of creating, it cannot displace Him. The Scientific Method is saying if there is evidence for God it cannot detect it. Unless you are willing to say that God is a natural cause and not a supernatural one.
 Response: It seems to me your defining error is in evidence here in your last statement. You err due to your internalization of the pre-Reformation "autonomous nature v religious grace" dichotomy. When you use the word "natural" or "naturalism" you apparently mean a sphere of investigation and knowledge (ie Science) which does not operationally require God. In fact it requires His absence. Or at least it requires that He should stand quietly in a corner and not touch anything. Because anything He touches immediately becomes "supernatural" and thus "unscientific", right? Humanists have not the slightest problem with your position, because you effectively hand them the physical cosmos on a plate. "Were the whole realm of nature mine, that were an offering far too small" ? I put it to you that your standpoint offers "the whole realm of nature" to the pagans and, what is worse, it actually makes common cause with them against God. The late Carl Sagan famously said that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be. You would disagree with him, of course. You would say, "But there's also the God who made the cosmos, Carl". And he would say, "How do you know that, kid?" And you would answer - I don't really know what you would answer - I guess it would be something more than to sing him a snatch of "You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart..." . Maybe you would say, "I know it by faith " And he might say "By faith in what?" At which point you are in a bit of a bind, because if you say to him "Well you see, Carl, science reveals to us God's methods of creating" he will frown at you for abandoning "methodological naturalism". Of course you can recover from your faux pas and regain his smile if you follow up with a good humanist profession such as "Though on the other hand, if there is evidence for God, science cannot detect it". But then maybe he decides to press you. He comes back, "You hold that science cannot detect God, yet you subscribe to God, eh? So you believe in something which is scientifically irrelevant. Something which logic does not require." Thus by putting God in a corner, it is you who ends up in the corner. On the basis of Romans 1 (and Scripture in general) we must be ready to courageously assert that no science whatsoever is possible without God. No thought whatsoever. No breath whatsoever. That the laws of nature utterly testify to God. That the laws of thought utterly testify to God. That there is no hiding place for unbelief. No excuse. We must not be found warming our hands in the courtyard of humanism, but be ready to say when necessary:
"Let us then go to Him, outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore" (Heb 13:13 NKJV)
______________________________________
"Air an adhbhar sin, rachamaid a-mach da ionnsaigh-san an taobh a-muigh den champ, a' giùlan a mhaslaidh" (Eabh 13:13 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Dá bhrí sin, téimis amach as an gcampa chuige agus fulaingímisne an aithis a tugadh dó." (Eabhraigh 13:13 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
As Herman Dooyeweerd comments in his magnum opus "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought":
 "At this point, many a reader who has taken the trouble to follow our argument will perhaps turn away annoyed. He will ask: Must epistemology end in a Christian sermon or in a dogmatic statement? I can only answer by means of the question as to whether the dogmatic statement with which the supposed autonomous epistemology opens, viz. the proclamation of the self-sufficiency of the human cognitive functions, has a better claim to our confidence as far as epistemology is concerned.
    Our epistemology makes bold to accept 'the stumbling-block of the cross of Christ' as the corner stone of epistemology (1 Cor 1:23). And thus it also accepts the cross of scandal, neglect and dogmatic rejection." (Vol 1 p 562)

But let us be encouraged, for Dooyeweerd tells us elsewhere:
 "Calvin also passed through an early Humanistic period during which he wrote his well-known commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. But when he reached the turning-point of his life, he broke radically with the nominalistic dualism that more or less continued to flourish within Luther's world of thought and that was dominated by the scholastic ground-motive of nature and grace.
    In Calvin's Biblical viewpoint this scholastic motive is eliminated. He maintained that the true nature of man cannot be opposed to grace. Nature is in its root corrupted by the fall, and is only restored or (as Calvin more pregnantly states) "renewed" by God's grace in Jesus Christ. This was also Augustine's conception. The Bible does not permit any view of nature, in distinction to grace, in which human reason in its apostasy from God, becomes the mainstay of a 'naturalistic philosophy and theology' ( philosophia et theologia naturalis ). It does not sanction any view in which the nous tes sarkos (that is to say, the intellect which is apostate from Christ in the sense of thinking according to the 'flesh') is declared to be sovereign.

    God's revelation must take hold of the heart, the root of our entire existence, that we may 'stand in the truth'. Calvin hits rationalistic scholasticism at the root of its apostasy from a Christian attitude towards knowledge..." (Vol 1 p 556)  


Proponent: So, how do we empirically measure or observe God?
 Response: It must dawn on us once and for all that "measurement" and "observation" per se testify to the Triune God of Scripture. "You do not use a candle to search for the sun" says Cornelius Van Til: "The Protestant doctrine of God requires that it be made foundational to everything else as a principle of explanation. If God is self-sufficient, he alone is self-explanatory. And if he alone is self-explanatory, then he must be the final reference point in all human predication. He is then like the sun from which all lights on earth derive their power of illumination."(A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977, p 12). The irony of your question is that empiricism is philosophically incoherent unless God is first assumed by the empiricist. Every accurate measurement testifies only and utterly to the Measurer, the One Who moment-by-moment measures and weighs us. We have been told this "from the beginning". We have understood this "since the earth was founded". All our petulant protests to the contrary are in vain. Unbelief, even in its self-preening (dis)guise of "neutrality", is again unmasked and left with no hiding place. No excuse:
 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance?
Who has understood the mind of the LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor?
Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
and calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:12-14, 21-22, 26) 
______________________________________
("Cò a thomhais na h-uisgeachan an glaic a làimhe; agus a shìn a-mach na nèamhan le rèis; agus a chruinnich duslach na talmhainn ann an soitheach-tomhais; agus a chothromaich na slèibhtean ann an sligean, agus na cnuic ann am meidh-chothroim? Cò a sheòl Spiorad an Tighearna, no mar aon de a chomhairle, a theagaisg E? Cò ris a chuir E a chomhairle, agus cò a theagaisg E, agus a sheòl Dha ceum a' bhreitheanais, agus a dh'ionnsaich Dha eòlas, agus a sheòl Dha slighe na tuigse? Nach d'fhuair sibh fios? Nach cuala sibh sgeul? Nach do chuireadh an cèill dhuibh o thùs? Nach do thuig sibh o leagadh bunaitean na talmhainn? Is Esan a tha na shuidhe air cuairt na talmhainn, agus tha a luchd-àiteachaidh mar fhionnain-fheòir; a tha a' sìneadh a-mach nan nèamhan mar sgàil thana, agus gan sgaoileadh mar bhùth anns an gabhar còmhnaidh; Togaibh ur sùilean an àird, agus feuchaibh, cò a chruthaich iad seo: Esan a bheir a-mach an armailtean air àireamh; a ghairmeas orra uile air an ainm; tro mheud a neirt agus treise a chumhachd, cha bhi aon air chall." - (Isaiah 40:12-14, 21-22, 26 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish] "Cé a thomhais i gcroí a bhoise uiscí na farraige agus a leag amach na spéartha lena réise? A chruinnigh cré na talún i miosúr, a rinne na sléibhte a mheá sna scálaí agus na cnocáin in ainsiléad? Cé a thabharfadh treoir do spiorad an Tiarna nó cén comhairleoir a thabharfadh teagasc dó? Cé air a d’iarrfadh sé comhairle chun breithiúnas, chun eolas a chur ar bhealach na córach, chun slí na tuisceana a aimsiú? An ea nárbh eol daoibh? An ea nár chuala sibh? An ea nár insíodh daoibh é ón tús? An ea nach bhfuil sé tuigthe agaibh ó bunaíodh an domhan? Tá cónaí air in airde os cionn roth na cruinne, agus a muintir sin ar nós dreoiliní teaspaigh. Leath sé amach na spéartha mar a bheadh brat iontu, spréigh sé amach iad ar nós both chónaithe. Tógaigí bhur súile in airde ansin agus breathnaígí: Cé a chruthaigh na réanna úd murarb é an té a scarann amach in eagar slua iad agus a ghlaonn orthu go léir ina n-ainm? Tá a chumhacht chomh mór sin agus a neart chomh láidir nach bhfuil aon cheann acu a loiceann air." (Íseáia 40:12-14, 21-22, 26 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
 ______________________________________
Implicit in your question is the conviction that, as far as "empirical reality" is concerned, God is entirely undetectable. In which case, of course, unbelief is entirely excusable. Indeed it is arguably the only stance consonant with the presented facts. And yet the Scripture in Romans 1:20 states (and for added clarity let's quote it from the Amplified Bible) "For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]". You deal with any apparent impasse here by limiting God's self-revelation to the "non-scientific" realm, however that is to be conceived. In a sense you are holding that if there is any inadequacy it is not in the scientists' vision, but in God's revelation. It is certainly not the scientists' "fault" that they cannot see God in what is before them. Indeed, it is the scientists' job to AVOID seeing God in what is before them (particularly if they wish to KEEP their job, I might facetiously add). But what if you are wrong, and Van Til is right (as quoted above), that "since God's face appears in every fact in the universe they oppose God's revelation everywhere. They do not want to see the facts of nature for what they are; they do not want to see themselves for what they are. Therefore they assume the non-createdness of themselves and of the facts and of the laws round about them." Our blindness is culpable. That is the key. We are refusing to see what we do not wish to see. We are not, as we reassure ourselves, victims of frustratingly patchy and inconclusive self-revelation by God. God's self-revelation is inescapable and all-pervasive. We in our unbelief recognize this but suppress it, and so are without excuse. "They are like the prodigal son whose principle requires him to deny that he is a son of his father whom he has left, but who cannot forget his father's voice. God's authoritative word does not speak in a vacuum. It speaks to such as are unable ever to escape the call of his voice.They have to maintain their own principle artificially by building dams anew each day against the overwhelming evidence of the presence of their Creator and Judge." (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977, p64)
And thus, like Haman, in all his measuring the unbelieving measurer but measures his own scaffold:
 "One of the eunuchs attending the king said, 'A gallows seventy-five feet high stands by Haman's house. He had it made for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king.' The king said, 'Hang him on it!' So they hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the king's fury subsided." (Esther 7:9,10) 
______________________________________
"Agus thubhairt Harbonah, aon de na caillteanaich, an làthair an rìgh, Feuch, tha mar an ceudna a' chroich a rinn Hàman do Mhordecai, a labhair math airson an rìgh, na seasamh ann an taigh Hàmain, lethcheud làmh-choille air àirde, agus thubhairt an rìgh, Crochaibh e oirre. Agus chroch iad Hàman air a' chroich a dheasaich e do Mhordecai. Agus thraogh fearg an rìgh." (Ester 7:9,10 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish] "Ansin dúirt Harbóna, duine de na coillteáin a bhí i láthair ag freastal ar an rí: “Maith mar a tharla! An chroch leathchead banlámh ar airde a ghléas Hámán do Mhordacaí, an té a thug anam an rí slán lena thuairisc thráthúil tá sí réidh ina theach.” “Croch uirthi sin é,” arsan rí. Chrochadar Hámán dá bhrí sin ar an gcroch a ghléas sé féin do Mhordacaí, agus chuaigh fearg an rí chun suain." ( Eistir 7:9,10 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
Cf. Romans 1:18 -
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." 
______________________________________
"Oir tha fearg Dhè air a foillseachadh o nèamh an aghaidh gach uile mhì-dhiadhachd, agus eucoir dhaoine, a tha a' bacadh na fìrinn ann an neo-fhìreantachd" Ròmanaich 1:18,19 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]"Tá fearg Dé á foilsiú ó neamh in aghaidh éagráifeacht agus urchóid uile na ndaoine úd atá ag coinneáil na fírinne i ngéibheann lena gcuid urchóide." (Rómhánaigh 1:18 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
As regards empiricism, the real question to be asked is "What are the necessary preconditions of a sound empiricism?" The answer to this question takes us back again to Romans 1, as the following quote from Greg Bahnsen (re Cornelius Van Til) argues -
 "Van Til's apologetic is based upon confidence in natural revelation, for Romans 1 teaches that the created order is a conduit of constant, inescapable, pre-interpreted information about God, so that all men already possess an actual knowledge of him at the very outset of their reasoning about anything whatsoever, a knowledge which makes possible their use of evidence and reason....Van Til has recognized that:
(1) all empirical observation is inescapably theory-laden (there are no uninterpreted "brute facts").
(2) The acceptance and interpretation of what one takes as "factual" is not determined by sense perception alone, but in interaction with one's fundamental philosophical convictions (there is no presuppositionless neutrality).
(3) Empirical, inductive study in itself has certain preconditions which can be intelligibly accounted for only on the presupposition of Christianity (so that scientific and historical study wittingly or unwittingly assumes what believers are defending).
(4) What is assumed by the consistently non-Christian understanding of empiricism and induction contradicts biblical teaching as well as rendering empirical, inductive reasoning impossible in philosophical principle.
(5) Unbelievers (like believers) are not at all unbiased, impartial, without motive and goal, completely open-minded, and purely disinterested in where they will be led by their handling of the empirical evidence."

(Greg L Bahnsen ("Pressing Toward The Mark: Machen, Van Til, and the Apologetical Tradition of the OPC")  See also the very short piece at:
 http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa205.htm
  Proponent: Is Paul talking about scientific evidence in Romans 1 & 2? If so, what field of scientific knowledge do you think he is referring to? Do people have to be scientifically literate to be able to see God's hand in creation? Is scientific evidence the only kind of evidence?
 Response: The tensions in your worldview are in evidence again here. You ask "Do people have to be scientifically literate to be able to see God's hand in creation?"  This obviously invites the answer "No, of course not". Yet you have already informed us above that "if there is evidence for God it (Science) cannot detect it" . It would thus appear that the more scientifically literate we become, the less we can expect to see "God's hand in creation". This is surely absurd. While Paul would seem in the first instance to be talking about everyday solid reality, and while science is, in a sense, "all in the mind", we are yet commanded in the greatest commandment to love the Lord our God with all of our mind. Science consists in the rigorous investigation of discrete facets abstracted from the fullness of reality. Someone once asked Picasso if when he ate a tomato he thought of it in "cubist" terms or whatever. He answered "No, I just eat the tomato". Scientists, like artists, like everybody when it comes down to it, just "eat the tomato". All art and all science flow from the hearts of what are after all everyday "ordinary" people. People who, as the image of God, ought to be taking every thought captive to obey Christ, from Whom and through Whom and to Whom are all things. Thus in answer to your question "what field of scientific knowledge do you think he is referring to?", we say "ALL FIELDS!" All fields of science, of art and of every other human cultural endeavour. Insofar as they reveal truth, they reveal God. Immeasurably! - "O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in ALL the earth" (Psalm 8:1) 
______________________________________
"O Iehòbhah ar Tighearna, cia òirdheirc D'ainm air feadh na talmhainn UILE!" (Salm 8:1 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"A Thiarna, ár dTiarna, nach éachtach é d’ainm AR FUD na cruinne!" (Salm 8:2 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
"The earth is the Lord's and EVERYTHING in it, the world, and ALL who live in it" (Psalm 24:1)
______________________________________
"Is leis an Tighearna an talamh agus a LÀN, an DOMHAN agus iadsan a tha nan còmhnaidh ann." (Salm 24:1 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish] "Leis an Tiarna an talamh agus a LÁN, an domhan AR FAD agus a maireann ann" (Salm 24:1 An Bíobla Naofa)  [Irish] 
______________________________________
"For with You is the fountain of life; in Your light we see light" (Psalm 36:9) 
______________________________________
"Oir Agadsa tha tobar na beatha; ann ad sholas-sa chì sinne solas." (Salm 36:9 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish] "Óir is leatsa atá foinse na beatha; agus i do sholas-sa a fheicimid an solas" (Salm 36:10 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
"The heavens are Yours, and Yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it" (Psalm 89:11) 
______________________________________
"Is Leatsa na nèamhan; mar an ceudna is Leat an talamh; shuidhich Thusa an cruinne-cè agus a làn." (Salm 89:11 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish] "Is leat na flaithis, is leat an talamh; is tú a bhunaigh an domhan agus a bhfuil ann" (Salm 89:12 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
"Christ, in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3)
______________________________________
"Crìosd, anns a bheil uile ionmhasan a' ghliocais agus an eòlais falaichte." (Colòsianaich 2:3 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish] "Ar Chríost a bhfuil stóir uile na heagna agus an eolais i bhfolach ann" (Colosaigh 2:3 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
The Creation ("Nature") has no other meaning than Christ. Science has no other meaning than Christ. It was the central heinous lie of Eden that Man could be the autonomous arbiter of meaning -
 "And you will be like God" (Gen 3: 5) 
______________________________________
"Agus gum bi sibh mar dhiathan" (Gen 3:5 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Agus go mbeidh sibh cosúil le déithe" (Geineasas 3:5 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
Humanism thinks in a circle. A vicious circle. Firstly, science is defined as a mode of thought which must exclude God. Then, lo and behold, we are told that scientific research cannot detect God. Christians think in a circle too, of course. Or at least they should. A glorious circle in which Christ is Alpha and Omega of all existence -
"Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the centre of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders (ie by all creation)...He came and took the scroll (of history) from the right hand of Him Who sat on the throne... And they sang a new song: "You are worthy...!"  (Rev 5:6-9)
______________________________________
"Agus dh'amhairc mi agus feuch, ann am meadhon na rìgh-chathrach, agus nan ceithir beò-chreutairean, agus ann am meadhon nan seanairean, Uan na sheasamh mar gum biodh E air A mharbhadh...Agus thàinig E agus ghlac E an leabhar à deaslàimh an Tì a tha na shuidhe air an rìgh-chathair... Agus sheinn iad òran nuadh, ag ràdh, Is airidh Thusa..." (Taisbeanadh 5:6-9 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Agus chonaic mé an tUan, mar a bheadh tar éis a bhásaithe, ina sheasamh i lár slí, idir an ríchathaoir agus na ceithre dúile beo, agus na seanóirí...Agus tháinig sé agus thóg sé [an scrolla] as deaslámh an té a bhí ina shuí sa ríchathaoir...Chan siad iomann nua á rá: “Is fiú Thú...” (Apacailipsis 5:6-9 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
Science shall also sing that song. Because without Christ, whether acknowledged or unacknowledged, science does not even have the coherence of white noise: As soon as ever we depart from Christ, there is nothing, be it ever so gross or insignificant in itself, respecting which we are not necessarily deceived.

(Jean Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Argument) (see extensive quote from same passage at "Post Scriptum", being part 6a below)
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-01/cvgn1-02.txt
5. In Summary
In the Christian context the contention is between the Reformed view and the Scholastic-come-Gnostic view. The latter still pervades much of evangelical and Reformed thinking. Its roots are deep in the subsoil of early Greek metaphysics (see, for example, the excellent brief survey in the chapter "Philosophy and Theology III"  in Herman Dooyeweerd's book "In the Twilight of Western Thought", The Craig Press, 1968). Essentially it is characterized by a spiritual/material divide. Medieval theology internalized it definitively when Thomas Aquinus synthesized Aristotle and Scripture and this became the governing structure of the Roman Catholic worldview. The Greek disjunction which Aquinus bequeathed is evident in the polarities between which has swung the pendulum of European history, precipitating massive cultural volte-faces. For example, between, on the one hand, the non-material idealist universal absolutes of rationalism/neo-classicism and, on the other, the transient corporeal particulars of ultra-relativistic irrationalism/ empiricism/ romanticism. Its baleful effects on Christians are at least twofold  -

a) seducing us into a fatal compliance regarding its non-negotiable dogma of rationalistic, philosophically materialistic, neutrality and autonomy regarding God and His Word. This is the heart of the humanist tenet of the "scientific method" (so-called), which seems to have near universal acceptance even among those in the Reformed constituency. Our acquiescence is fatal because in bowing the knee to the humanist idol of "autonomous human rationality" we grievously compromise our allegience to the Triune God of Scripture as the exclusive basis of rationality. We so readily forget that the very Logos became flesh and dwelt amongst us. If we could only hear the cock crow, we would turn aside and weep bitterly at our serial syllogistic betrayals of the Lord of All Sanity. He Who bequeathed to us One like unto Himself, ie the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13), the Spirit of a Sound Mind (2 Tim 1:7), that we might speak coherently on His behalf (Acts 1:8). Thus it is dismaying to encounter in so many intelligent radio discussions the deference of Christians present to the premise that "religion" is "non-rational" by definition, (humanism and science, of course, being vaunted as "rational" by definition). So often we simply roll over and offer up our throats on this issue, don't we? Like pink-bellied pups piddling themselves. We might well consider whether the Apostle James could not be pointedly adapted in this context as "Show me your faith devoid of rationality and I by my rationality will show you my faith" . Certainly Peter enjoins us to be -
"ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us" (1 Peter 3:15) 
______________________________________
" Bithibh ullamh a-ghnàth a-chum freagradh a thoirt...do gach uile dhuine a dh'iarras oirbh reuson an dòchais a tha annaibh" (1 Peadar 3:15 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Bígí réidh i gcónaí le cosaint a dhéanamh in aghaidh aon duine a iarrann oraibh bonn a thabhairt leis an dóchas atá ionaibh" (1 Peadar 3:15 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish] 
______________________________________
 b) inculcating & incubating in us a view of the Gospel as of relevance only to the "spiritual", to the "soul", and to an ephemeral disembodied hereafter. Thus, to take an example from linguistics, our Reformed churches in Scotland have sadly failed to provide Gaelic-speakers with any Biblical/theological rationale for the support of the Gaelic language. Gaelic is apparently perceived as but a worldly affair and its demise of no Christian consequence. Interest in it may even smack of incipient idolatry. Apart from occasional sniping on a few high-profile moral issues, any notion of stewardship of our culture before God is conspicuously minimal. This smacks of Gnosticism. From which has arisen Pietism. "Is it well with my soul?" is all that matters. Yet Adam's remit was to govern and cultivate the Earth for the Lord. It remains our remit. This "Cultural Commission" is not in opposition to the "Great Commission" of the Gospel. It is part of it. The Gospel is to every creature and to every culture. We are taught to pray -"Thy kingdom come,Thy will be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:10)
______________________________________
"Thigeadh Do rìoghachd. Dèanar Do thoil AIR AN TALAMH, mar a nìthear air nèamh" (Mata 6:10 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig)[Scottish]
"Go dtaga do ríocht; go ndéantar do thoil ar an talamh mar a dhéantar ar neamh" (Matha 6:10 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
Christ reconciles all things in heaven and on EARTH by the blood of His cross (Col 1). We are waiting, and the Creation groans with us as we wait, for the redemption of our BODIES (not for ESCAPE from our bodies). 1 Cor 6:13 tells us -
"Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body" 
______________________________________
"A-nis chan ann airson neòghlaine tha an corp, ach airson an Tighearna: agus an Tighearna airson a' chuirp"  Am Bìoball Gàidhlig [Scottish]
"Ní don drúis atá an corp ann, áfach, ach don Tiarna agus is don chorp atá an Tiarna ann"  An Bíobla Naofa)  [Irish]
______________________________________
"The Lord for the BODY"! What kind of earthy spirituality is this? And thus we wait for the new heavens and the NEW EARTH in which righteousness dwells. Contrary to the old mission-hall chorus, this world IS our home. We are NOT just passing through. Certainly it must yet undergo some radical and painful refurbishment! But renovations have begun! And heaven will only fully be our home when it has come down to earth as the New Jerusalem. And Christ, the True Man, will walk among us again (Rev 21:1-3). "The Word" says John, "became flesh, and dwelt among us" 
______________________________________
"Rinneadh am Facal na fheòil, agus ghabh E còmhnaidh nar measg-ne" (Eòin 1:14 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Agus rinneadh feoil den Bhriathar agus chónaigh sé inár measc" (Eoin 1:14 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
He became flesh in order to reconcile all things. To resolve any dichotomy between spiritual and physical, soul and body. To heal the manifold fragmentations to which Adam's disobedience has made us prey (pray, even). So Christians are in a sense the true materialists. Physicality belongs to Christ. So physicality belongs to US (1 Cor 3:22-23). Likewise, rationality belongs to Christ. So rationality belongs to US. Let us claim our inheritance. Let us rise and follow the trumpet blast. Let us not be intimidated by the high walls of Jericho.
"That Thy way may be known upon earth,Thy saving health among the nations" (Psalm 67:2)
______________________________________
"A-chum gun aithnichear Do shlighe air an talamh, Do shlàinte am measg nan uile chinneach." (Salm 67:2 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Chun go n-aithneofaí do shlí ar talamh agus do shlánú i measc na náisiún go léir" (Salm 67:3 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]
______________________________________
6. Post Scriptum
 As post scriptum , some further quotes from a) Calvin, b) Van Til, and c) Dooyeweerd -
a) Calvin: Notice here Calvin's reference to Romans 1 (among other Scriptures), his insistence on an integrated worldview rather than the discrete, polarized realms of "Nature" and "Grace", and his stern warnings that we err in these matters to our own cost  -

Since the infinite wisdom of God is displayed in the admirable structure of heaven and earth, it is absolutely impossible to unfold The History of the Creation of the World in terms equal to its dignity. For while the measure of our capacity is too contracted to comprehend things of such magnitude, our tongue is equally incapable of giving a full and substantial account of them. As he, however, deserves praise, who, with modesty and reverence, applies himself to the consideration of the works of God, although he attain less than might be wished, so, if in this kind of employment, I endeavour to assist others according to the ability given to me, I trust that my service will be not less approved by pious men than accepted by God. I have chosen to premise this, for the sake not only of excusing myself, but of admonishing my readers, that if they sincerely wish to profit with me in meditating on the works of God, they must bring with them a sober, docile, mild, and humble spirit. We see, indeed, the world with our eyes, we tread the earth with our feet, we touch innumerable kinds of God's works with our hands, we inhale a sweet and pleasant fragrance from herbs and flowers, we enjoy boundless benefits; but in those very things of which we attain some knowledge, there dwells such an immensity of divine power, goodness, and wisdom, as absorbs all our senses. Therefore, let men be satisfied if they obtain only a moderate taste of them, suited to their capacity. And it becomes us so to press towards this mark during our whole life, that (even in extreme old age) we shall not repent of the progress we have made, if only we have advanced ever so little in our course...

I now return to the design of Moses, or rather of the Holy Spirit, who has spoken by his mouth. We know God, who is himself invisible, only through his works. Therefore, the Apostle elegantly styles the worlds, "ta me ek fainomenoon blepomena", as if one should say, "the manifestation of things not apparent," (Heb. 11: 3.) This is the reason why the Lord, that he may invite us to the knowledge of himself, places the fabric of heaven and earth before our eyes, rendering himself, in a certain manner, manifest in them. For his eternal power and Godhead (as Paul says) are there exhibited, (Rom. 1: 20.) And that declaration of David is most true, that the heavens, though without a tongue, are yet eloquent heralds of the glory of God, and that this most beautiful order of nature silently proclaims his admirable wisdom, (Ps. 19: 1.) This is the more diligently to be observed, because so few pursue the right method of knowing God, while the greater part adhere to the creatures without any consideration of the Creator himself. For men are commonly subject to these two extremes; namely, that some, forgetful of God, apply the whole force of their mind to the consideration of nature; and others, overlooking the works of God, aspire with a foolish and insane curiosity to inquire into his Essence. Both labour in vain. To be so occupied in the investigation of the secrets of nature, as never to turn the eyes to its Author, is a most perverted study; and to enjoy everything in nature without acknowledging the Author of the benefit, is the basest ingratitude. Therefore, they who assume to be philosophers without Religion, and who, by speculating, so act as to remove God and all sense of piety far from them, will one day feel the force of the expression of Paul, related by Luke, that God has never left himself without witness, (Acts 14: 17.) For they shall not be permitted to escape with impunity because they have been deaf and insensible to testimonies so illustrious. And, in truth, it is the part of culpable ignorance, never to see God, who everywhere gives signs of his presence. But if mockers now escape by their cavils, hereafter their terrible destruction will bear witness that they were ignorant of God, only because they were willingly and maliciously blinded. As for those who proudly soar above the world ton seek God in his unveiled essence, it is impossible but that at length they should entangle themselves in a multitude of absurd figments. For God--by other means invisible--(as we have already said) clothes himself, so to speak, with the image of the world in which he would present himself to our contemplation. They who will not deign to behold him thus magnificently arrayed in the incomparable vesture of the heavens and the earth, afterwards suffer the just punishment of their proud contempt in their own ravings. Therefore, as soon as the name of God sounds in our ears, or the thought of him occurs to our minds, let us also clothe him with this most beautiful ornament; finally, let the world become our school if we desire rightly to know God.
(Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Argument)
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-01/cvgn1-02.txt

b) Cornelius Van Til: Two relevant quotes from Van Til, both of which make reference to Romans 1 -
 "The apostle Paul speaks of the natural man as actually possessing the knowledge of God (Rom 1:19-21). The greatness of his sin lies precisely in the fact that 'when they knew God, they glorified him not as God.' No man can escape knowing God. It is indelibly involved in his awareness of anything whatsoever. Man ought, therefore, as Calvin puts it, to recognize God. There is no excuse for him if he does not. The reason for his failure to recognize God lies exclusively within him. It is due to his willful transgression of the very law of his being.
    Neither Romanism nor Protestant evangelicalism (ie as distinct from consistent Reformed thought - FMF) can do full justice to this teaching of Paul. In effect both of them fail to surround man exclusively with God's revelation. Not holding to the counsel of God as all-controlling they cannot teach that man's self-awareness always presupposes awareness of God. According to both Rome and evangelicalism man may have some measure of awareness of objects about him and of himself in relation to them without being aware at the same time of his responsibility to manipulate both of them in relation to God. Thus man's consciousness of objects, of self, of time and of history are not from the outset brought into an exclusive relationship of dependence upon God...
    Romanism and evangelicalism, however, do not attribute this assumption of autonomy or ultimacy on the part of man as due to sin. They hold that man should quite properly think of himself and of his relation to objects in time in this way. Hence they do injustice to Paul's teaching with respect to the effect of sin on the interpretative activity of man. As they virtually deny that originally man not merely had a capacity for truth but was in actual possession of the truth, so also they virtually deny that the natural man suppresses the truth.
    It is not to be wondered that neither Romanism nor Evangelicalism are little interested in challenging the 'philosophers' when these, as Calvin says, interpret man's consciousness without being aware of the tremendous difference in man's attitude toward the truth before and after the fall...
But the one thing which, on this (Romanist, Arminian, - FMF) basis, we cannot admit, is that his claim to be able to interpret at least some area of experience in a way that is essentially correct, is mistaken. We cannot then challenge his most most basic epistemological assumption to the effect that his self-consciousness and time-consciousness are self-explanatory. We cannot challenge his right to interpret all his experience in exclusively immanentistic (ie naturalistic, - FMF) categories. And on this everything hinges. For if we first allow the legitimacy of the natural man's assumption of himself as the ultimate reference point in interpretation in any dimension we cannot deny his right to interpret Christianity itself in naturalistic terms". (Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith , 92, 93)
 "...(T)he doctrine of general revelation and of common grace must not be taken as justifying a neutral area between the non-Christian and the Christian. There is no escape from taking it as such unless, with Calvin, appeal is made to the knowledge of God which the natural man inescapably has (Rom. 1:19, 1:20, and 2:14), but which he seeks to, but cannot wholly, suppress (Rom. 1:18).
    As far as the principle of interpretation is concerned, the natural man makes himself the final point of reference. So far, then, as he carries through his principle, he interprets all things without God. In principle he is hostile to God. But he cannot carry through his principle completely. He is restrained by God from doing so. Being restrained by God from doing so, he is enabled to make contributions to the edifice of human knowledge, the forces of creative power implanted in him are to some extent released by God's common grace. He therefore makes positive contributions to science in spite of his principles and because both he and the universe are the exact opposite of what he, by his principles, thinks they are." (Cornelius Van Til , A Christian Theory of Knowledge , pp 21, 22)

c) Herman Dooyeweerd:
And, finally, a superb quote from Dooyeweerd -
    "We have nothing to avoid in the world but sin. The war that the Christian wages in God's power in this temporal life against the Kingdom of darkness is a joyful struggle, not only for his own salvation, but for God's creation as a whole, which we do not hate, but love for Christ's sake. We must not hate anything in the world but sin.
     Nothing in our apostate world can get lost in Christ.There is not any part of space, there is no temporal life, no temporal movement or temporal energy, no temporal power, wisdom, beauty, love, faith or justice, which sinful reality can maintain as a kind of property of its own apart from Christ.
...It is all due to God's common grace in Christ that there are still means left in the temporal world to resist the destructive force of the elements that have got loose; that there are still means to combat disease, to check psychic maladies, to practise logical thinking, to save cultural development from going down into savage barbarism, to develop language, to preserve the possibility of social intercourse, to withstand injustice, and so on. All these things are the fruits of Christ's work, even before His appearance on the earth. From the very beginning God has viewed His fallen creation in the light of the Redeemer."


(Herman Dooyeweerd, "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought" Vol II, p 34)

______________________________________________
For extended consideration of the "form-matter", "nature-grace", "nature-freedom" ground-motives the reader is referred to Herman Dooyeweerd's book:
"Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Secular, and Christian Options" (pdf file 11 meg).
A link to this freely downloadable book is located here

More on Herman Dooyeweerd - The Dooyeweerd Pages
Studies Relating to Herman Dooyeweerd

More on Cornelius Van Til -
www.vantil.info
Hear Cornelius Van Til on AUDIO


Recommended website: "TrueOrigins" at - http://www.trueorigin.org/

Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh 2009