Duhemian and Augustinian Science

There is a distinction that Plantinga created between two types of activities that describe themselves as science. One of them is "Duhemian science" and the other is "Augustinian science". There are a number of positions on the nature of the scientific activity that become clear when this distinction is used.

According to Plantinga, Duhemian science is a type of science that is independent of one's metaphysical and religious commitments. By this Plantinga does not mean to exclude all metaphysical and religious views. He only wishes to exclude those that are not universally shared. Now Plantinga is not sure on whether Duhemian science will use methodological naturalism. He says that "perhaps we should speak of 'methodological neutralism', or maybe 'metaphysical neutralism'". The point is that all of the knowledge gained from this sort of science would be public and rely on universally shared beliefs.

Plantinga also believes in Augustinian science. This is the sort of science that investigates the natural world with some sort of metaphysical or religious commitments. These commitments may be Christian, Buddhist, Islamic or secular humanist, but the point is that they are commitments formed from an area outside of science itself. This kind of science would investigate the questions that presuppose some kind or commitment, or perhaps they would investigate certain questions to find out more information. This kind of science is only available to those of a particular group.

These distinctions make it easier to characterize four different positions on religious or metaphysical commitment in science. One of these positions is that only Duhemian science is actually science. This is the position shared by everyone who denies that ID is science, yet affirms that evolutionary theory is science. They either believe that Duhemian science includes methodological naturalism, or believe that methodological naturalism has been vindicated in some way by scientific activity. A second position is the one shared by ID advocates. They differ amoung themselves as to whether Augustinian science is science, but agree that their position is part of Duhemian science. They also believe that methodological naturalism is not a part of Duhemian science, but that it is methodologically neutral instead. A third position is held by those who advocate biblical creationism. They believe that Duhemian science is restricted to non-historical areas of science that deal with repeatable experiments. This Duhemian science is expects that the universe holds to order and rules, but does not need a commitment to either methodological naturalism or methodological neutralism. Their Augustinian science is based on the Christian faith, and it investigates historical and non-repeatable events in the natural world. The fourth and final position is that of the presuppositionalists within a tiny section of the Reformed camp and the postmodernists. These people believe that there is no Duhemian science. Every science is Augustinian, and attempts to do Duhemian science are merely attempts to do Augustinian science while hiding one's commitments. Each of these views is made clear by the distinction that Plantinga created.

Each of the views differs on the nature of science. They differ on whether methodological naturalism is a part of Duhemian science and even on whether there can be such a science. They also differ on what domain Augustinian science has and on whether it exists or not. What these differences do make clear is that positions within the creation-evolution discussion are tied to particular views of the scientific enterprise. These debates are not about the facts alone, but also about philosophical views of what science is.