I came across Clark’s analysis of the problem of science many years ago in college. I got a lot of liberal Baptists upset and uncomfortable with just one argument. It looked like I was attacking their gods. I was using one of their gods (“logic”) to kill another of their gods (“science”). It was awkward. I subsequently forgot about Clark’s argument until recently.
All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.In syllogistic form this is expressed as: “If p, then q. q; therefore, p.” Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of Christianity, stated it this way:
All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.
So when theologians bend over backwards to please the unbelieving scientific community, they are abandoning their commitment to logic in order to do so.