Science v Creationism

by Mr Ben 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mr Ben

  Science v Creationism

  Hi everyone. I keep popping back here every now and then to see what’s going on, and I have noticed that the same questions about science and creationism are continually posted and answered now, as they were when I first came here. I used to answer some myself but I’m just not that regular in ex-field service! The other motive I have for this post is that I have noticed that certain posters, who, although are probably genuinely trying to help, truthfully don’t know what they are talking about. They are answering many of these questions and being given a lot of credence. So, I thought I’d make a kind of definitive post on the subject of science and creationism (if anything so generalised can be called definitive!) so that the many people who genuinely attempt to answer these questions don’t have to keep answering the same questions over and over again. It will be just easier to point to this post. Please bear with me as I continue to add to this post over the coming months, because even though this is just an overview, I will be covering a large area of empirical knowledge.

  I request that you do not comment or post on this thread as it will eventually become quite long enough as it is as I continue to add sections, and I don’t want it to become any more difficult to read than necessary as it would be were it interspersed with lots of comments. For comments and "bttt’s" please use the separate thread "Comments on Science v Creationism" that I have started here:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/148601/1.ashx

  I intend to avoid being over technical and write as often as I can in a generalised, easy to read manner, and, in particular, I will write without references, as this isn’t meant to be a formal dissertation but a helpful overview to those with a general interest in the subject. Also, the fact that there are about a thousand references has something to do with my reluctance to type them up! But for those who are interested in checking for themselves, and are interested in a really in-depth review, please refer to "Science and Earth History by Arthur N. Strahler", which I will be using to walk through an overview of the subject. I have recommended this before but I now realise that few will ever read it due to the cost. A less technical read, and substantially cheaper, would be Scientists Confront Creationism, edited by Laurie R. Godfrey, which, in my opinion, represents popular science at its best. Also, an excellent internet resource is Alan F’s site at: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm

  Introduction.

  Firstly, I think it’s a bit of a misnomer to say Evolution v Creationism because although science is divided into different disciplines, for obvious reasons, these different disciplines often overlap. Physics makes use of mathematics, for example. In this way science has become like a kind of tapestry with all the different disciplines contributing to the whole. Moreover, creationists often quote from many different scientific disciplines, so I am calling this Science v Creationism.

  But what is science, and what isn’t it? Imagine there are two mountains representing two ways of knowing, between which lies a great gulf. One mountain represents the Belief Fields, which do not require observation of the real world to validate them. On this mountain you can find appreciation for the beauty of nature or art or belief in the supernatural. The second mountain represents the Research Fields, which do require input from the real world. On this mountain you can find science and the humanities.

  We are not saying one is valid and one is not, just that they are different and serve different roles; there is no need to reconcile the two for they are not in opposition, they are just different. Spirituality, not science, can provide comfort to the bereaved through belief in an afterlife, for example.

  In real life this illustration works out thus. I think the Mona Lisa is beautiful. I think the Mona Lisa is ugly. Because these statements lie on the mountain of belief, both statements are valid in themselves and do require validation from facts or measurements from the outside world. However, consider this statement. The Mona Lisa is three centimetres wide and seventy centimetres tall. This is not a subjective or belief statement, and this statement lies on the research mountain because we can go and measure the Mona Lisa and a definitive answer can be given as to whether or not it is so. On the one hand the mountain of belief requires no measurements from the outside world to be validated: on the other hand the mountain of research does require such measurements to be validated.

  There is only tension between the two when, say, a religion, uses are rather abuses science to give itself credibility or to try and show that science supports it’s religious beliefs. This can also be dangerous to the education of the people who are taken in by this as they become confused as to the difference between science and pseudoscience.

  So when you hear someone say Science isn’t valid because it excludes God as an explanation for phenomena, you will know that they do not understand that by definition science excludes knowledge fields that cannot be validated by input from the real world. The concept of god, like the concept of art, simply isn’t scientific. It’s an oversimplification but you get the idea.

  Truth. Science doesn’t or rather shouldn’t purport to find the "truth", whatever that may be. Scientific statements are, theoretically at least, always subject to a probability, no matter how small, of being in error, even when it is asserted to be correct. For example, it might be stated that rock A weighs 5.25 kilos. But a careful re-checking might show rock A to be 5.249 kilos. (In practice several measurements will yield a statistical mean.) A scientific statement will be held to be correct until further notice because it rests on a body of evidence that can be checked, but additional evidence in the future might mean the scientific statement or theory has to be modified or completely replaced to explain the new evidence. The most interesting theories will make predictions in the sense of directing scientists where to look for new evidence that would tend to validate or tend to invalidate the theory. Scientists still use the word "laws" of science largely because of tradition, but they are not absolute truths. You can overturn any of these laws if you can provide sufficient evidence from the real world that can be checked, or peer reviewed, by others. For example, the statement that the sun and not the earth is the centre of the solar system is a scientific statement (the heliocentric theory) that is considered valid because it explains a large body of evidence (facts from the real world). If you wish to try and overturn this theory you will need to present a new theory that adequately explains all the existing evidence whilst having the earth at rest. It isn’t hard to do. Everything could be a dream, for example, or, God made the universe ten minutes ago with all our memories, fossils, light from distant stars etc. completely intact with only the appearance of the sun at rest relative to the earth. But none of this is science. It isn’t testable but rather it is just assertion. Such assertions belong on the mountain of belief. The heliocentric theory is a scientific theory because it can be tested. In this way the heliocentric theory is considered valid until further notice, always with the possibility that in theory it could be overturned, but don’t hold your breath if you think it will be overturned anytime soon! (Ok, you can say they move relative to each other, but you know what I mean!) In the real everyday world people, scientists included, are likely to just say it’s true that the sun is the centre of the solar system, rather that constantly repeating "until further notice".

  Therefore, unlike the belief fields, science has a method which can be checked or peer reviewed by others, checks and balances as it were, by which knowledge is secured that deliberately tries to minimize the many possibilities of human or mechanical errors, deliberate or otherwise. So when anyone says to you science cannot be trusted because some science has proved to be incorrect or even a fraud, you know they do not understand that it is the scientific method itself that has exposed such errors or frauds. In this way the scientific method is forever self-examining, self-checking. Any theory, especially at the frontiers of knowledge may prove to be inadequate or completely wrong and may need to be modified or replaced by another theory that explains facts or observations that the earlier theory could not. But the uncertainty at the frontier of knowledge does not invalidate the extremely well trodden foreground.

  In this way science, or at least the empirical sciences, do not deal in absolutes. A scientific statement should not be considered as "absolute truth". That withstanding, common sense dictates that in everyday life we behave - quite rightly - as though some scientific "laws" were indeed absolutely true. You wouldn’t step off a twenty storey building on the supposition that at that exact moment the "law" of gravity would change. Would you?

  Scientific statements, unlike statements of belief, are, in practice, falsifiable. However, a piece of evidence that contradicts a well established theory might not automatically overthrow it, but rather reveal how the theory can be modified to better explain that part of the real world it seeks to explain. But if the theory cannot be modified, it will have been falsified and a new better theory will be sought. In this way science is falsifiable whilst at the same time avoiding premature or naïve falsification. For example, should Newton’s theory of gravity have been automatically thrown out because it failed to explain the movements of Uranus, despite its excellent record in predicting the movements of the other planets? Obviously not. That would have been naïve falsification. As it turned out another theory was postulated that another as yet unknown planet was affecting the orbit of Uranus, and, using the very Newtonian celestial mechanics that were in question, it was calculated, or predicted, where that planet should be. Astronomers turned their telescopes to that part of the sky and Neptune was discovered. Despite Einstein’s refinements to gravitation theory, Newton is still sufficiently accurate to be used by rocket scientists to navigate the solar system.

  At the cutting edge of science there may well be multiple hypothesis or theories all of which explain the currently known facts. As more facts come in, it is exciting to see which theory will prove to have been the most accurate! This is part of the excitement of science and this applies to evolutionary science. Science observes the fact that living things evolve by observing fast reproducing and mutating micro-organisms, and much more slowly evolving plants and animals which are so slow the process usually cannot be observed directly but can be observed over many lifetimes of the organism by looking at the fossil record. Information about the fossil record is constantly coming in and this will or will not fit some, all or none of the current theories as to how evolution took place. Was it a slow, gradual process as Darwin thought, or did change occur over a relatively short period of time followed by long periods without change (called Punctuated Equilibrium)? So when you hear people say that evolution is in trouble because evolutionist cannot agree with each other, or that a renowned evolutionist rejects Darwinism, or "Scientists reject Darwin!" you will know that they do not understand (or are dissembling) that the disagreements are between the competing theories as to how evolution takes place, and not about whether evolution took place in the first place.

  But this isn’t just about evolution. It is Science v Creationism. We will define Creationism for our discussion as that particular brand that attempts to explain the universe in terms of the Bible, particularly Genesis. They try to give themselves credibility by calling it Creation Science. But as you can see from the introduction above, the very name tells you it must be a pseudoscience because the theory that God created everything in a recent creation cannot be tested, cannot be falsified. And it doesn’t matter whether you believe God created the world is six literal days or days of seven thousand years. This belongs on the mountain of belief. If it tries to set up camp on the mountain of research, it needs to be kicked back out because, as we have said, its premise invokes a supernatural, non-empirical concept. Nevertheless, it has gained many converts who have been duped into believing that it rests upon a foundation of real science and who are subsequently unable to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.

  More later...
• 

  Rooster

  this is so kind of you..
• 

  Caedes

  Good article,

  It seems quite common for people to believe that an idea they have spent five minutes talking about on a public forum should carry as much weight as a scientific theory with a mountain of evidence built up over decades. Whilst science is open to new ideas, some people don't seem to understand that without empirical evidence their opinion on a subject means nothing.

  I can only assume that the scientific method and it's implications are not taught sufficiently well at school.
• 

  hillary_step

  Caedes,

  It seems quite common for people to believe that an idea they have spent five minutes talking about on a public forum should carry as much weight as a scientific theory with a mountain of evidence built up over decades. Whilst science is open to new ideas, some people don't seem to understand that without empirical evidence their opinion on a subject means nothing.

  lol...So true. My experience on this Board with such people is that those who criticize the scientific process do so from two vantages. The first is that they do not understand how evidenciary falsification works, and the second is that they already have a conclusion that they need to have reinforced.

  If science needs to be cherry-picked, dishonestly represented, ignored in the big picture but strained at in the detail, they will do it. Whatever it takes to support their conclusion and protect their "faith".

  HS
• 

  Mr Ben

  [Reminder: please don't post here, see above, thanks.]

  Pseudoscience

  Pseudoscience may be defined as information that is promulgated as science but fails to meet the qualifications for admission to empirical science. Some of the norms or normal qualifications that a scientific presentation is expected to meet might include:

  - The value attached to a scientific statement must not be dependent on the personal characteristics of the scientist, i.e. his religion, race, sex, etc. Is this true of creationists?

  - The scientific statement is open and expected to be published for critical peer review amongst other experts in the field of research. Scientists eagerly try to have their work published in scientific journals to have their work minutely scrutinised by experts. Pseudoscience literature prefers to write and seek support from popular audiences who have little or no education in the fields being discussed. Is this true of creationists?

  - Another norm present in science but not pseudoscience is the principle of parsimony, or "Occam’s razor", which means more or less that where possible the explanation for a phenomenon makes use of natural phenomenon already accepted through extensive prior observation and experimentation. For example, let us compare two theories for UFO’s. One model might make use of natural plasma phenomenon similar to the corona (St. Elmo’s fire) and ball lightning; things we know exist and have a degree of understanding about. The other model requires belief in previously unknown extraterrestrial intelligent beings from an unknown world that have flown over an unknown amount of space, possibly passing through several if not several hundred generations on the spacecraft, endured the trip with all its problems of radiation, food, water, education, room and medical facilities for health and reproduction etc. etc. so as to fly around mostly north America for several decades for an as yet unknown purpose. We could say more, but at this stage and without trying to "prove" anything and without looking at any further facts or testable data, we can quite reasonably ask which scenario seems more likely? I could just as easily invent any theory I wanted if "Occam’s razor" did not "cut" away the least likely ideas. If I asserted that fairies, a non-human terrestrial intelligence, built and directed UFO’s, that would actually be a more likely explanation than E.T.I. because one of the assumptions is known to be true, i.e. that the planet earth is known to support intelligent life. But do you think it is more likely than a naturalistic hypothesis? Do creationists make use of the common sense principle of parsimony? This is important because in areas that are not well understood by science, theories that do not violate already accepted and well documented knowledge are much more likely to be reliable than appeals to the supernatural. For example, suppose you observed measurements of continental drift and there was no theory to explain it, you could come up with a theory of crustal plate movements to explain the data or you could say that the god Triton was angry and was pushing them apart. Even if 99% of people believed that the god Triton or was the cause that still would not make any difference to the common sense effect of Occam’s razor.

  When pseudo-scientists say that scientists are not being impartial or disinterested because they exclude Triton or [insert name of deity here] then you will understand that peer review and Occam’s razor, amongst other things, tend to automatically filter out belief statements and pseudoscience. For example, imagine that to explain an apple falling to the ground the following theories are presented. A testable theory of gravitational attraction, a theory of fairies, a theory of Extra Terrestrial gravitational ray guns, and a theory of (insert name of any God). Which do you think science will examine and why?

  Compared below are some typical attitudes of science and pseudoscience. Ask yourself which best applies to creationists.

  Typical attitudes and activities Scientist Pseudo-scientist

  Admits own ignorance and need for more research Yes No

  Finds own field difficult and incomplete Yes No

  Advances by posing and solving new problems Yes No

  Welcomes new hypothesis and methods Yes No

  Proposes and tries out new hypothesis Yes Optional

  Attempts to find or apply new laws Yes No

  Cherishes the unity of science Yes No

  Relies on logic Yes Optional

  Uses mathematics Yes Optional

  Gathers or uses data, particularly quantitative ones Yes Optional

  Looks for counterexamples Yes No

  Invents or applies objective checking procedures Yes Optional

  Settles disputes by experimentation or computation Yes No

  Updates own information Yes No

  Seeks critical comments from others Yes No

  Falls back consistently on authority No Yes

  Suppresses or distorts unfavourable data No Yes

  Writes papers that can be understood by anyone No Yes

  Is likely to achieve instant celebrity No Yes

  Pseudoscience is also identified by the use of flawed or false argument techniques. I am not saying that scientists have never used any of these false arguments, but it is reasonably rare and scientists are usually brought to book by peer review. Some of these false arguments are:

  The straw man logical fallacy generates false assumptions or postulates then shows they are indeed false. Often the false assumptions are put into the mouth of scientists, or an old outmoded and discarded hypothesis is presented as current, and then the pseudo-scientist will show how it is false.

  Often the straw man is followed swiftly by the non sequitur or the false dilemma where the pseudo-scientist asserts that because the straw man is indeed false therefore his alternative scenario or hypothesis must therefore be valid, whereas in reality there are other viewpoints to consider.

  A similar technique is the stacked argument where a question is so worded that you are given only two possible answers, both of which are incriminating.

  Another ploy, called the residue fallacy points out that there are many things science does not know and therefore all explanations offered by scientists must be suspect.

  Circular reasoning

  is where an asserted and unproven premise is assumed to be true, upon which all subsequent arguments are based. It becomes circular when the conclusion of the argument "proves" the premise was "true".

  False analogy

  is where an analogy is used to prove rather than illustrate a point, or where the analogy is inappropriate and leads to a false conclusion.

  An Ad hominem argument attacks the person of the opponent rather than the opponent’s argument.

  Relativism

  is where all theories on a subject are presented as being of equal probability of being right, including the one presented by the pseudo-scientist, whereas the truth might be very different. Often the fact that more than one theory exists is used as proof that any theory might be right. This is often used where a scientific hypothesis is based solely on indirect evidence.

  As mentioned earlier, the principal of parsimony is often violated in pseudoscience.

  A red herring introduces a point not relevant to the discussion but serves to deliberately divert the reader’s attention.

  Taking scientific quotes out of context and selective quotation is another favourite tactic, along with seeing or explaining things only from a provincial viewpoint, or drawing conclusions from very generalised statements etc.

  Having explained the tools of analysis we will now start to look more closely at the history and arguments of creation scientists.

  [More later. Reminder: don’t post on this thread. See 1st post.]
• 

  funkyderek

  Mr. Ben:

  [Reminder: please don't post here, see above, thanks.]

  Does the logo at the top of the page say "Jehovahs-Witness.com Discussion forum" or "Mr. Ben's blog"?

  Some interesting points but I disagree that hypotheses involving gods are necessarily outside the realm of science. Those involving creation 6,000 years ago by an honest god, for example, can be falsified by any evidence that the universe is older than 6,000 years. Scenarios that are immune to scientific testing (such as a god who planted fake fossils) can safely be ignored by any whose goal is to seek the truth.
• 

  Dansk

  Mr. Ben,

  Now that your thread has been hi-jacked (I know what you were trying to do ) I think you would be as well to make your own website and provide a link. Funkyderek does have a point about a personal blog and this being a discussion forum.

  OR

  You could ask the mods if they would kindly block all traffic to a new read-only thread where only you and they have access and the rest of us could post on your other thread - but I'm not too hopeful.

  Best wishes,

  Ian
• 

  hooberus

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  Preface

  The preface gives background about the book and its author.

  1. Evolution vs. the Biotic Message

  • Introduces the issues and major themes of the book
    • Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.
    • Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord.
    • Many evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists remaining silent on key issues.
  • Introduces a new creationist theory — Message Theory — to replace evolution.
  • Introduces the argument from imperfection — Stephen Gould's "Panda Principle" — and gives the first of several key reasons to overturn it. Unordinary designs (so called "imperfect" designs) are the expected result of a designer who is sending a message. They also form a unique style, which, like handwriting, allows us to identify that life had only one author.

  2. Naturalism vs. Science

  • Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
  • Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
  • Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.

    The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.

  • Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
    • Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
    • Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
    • Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
    • Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
    • Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection.

  more: http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  (available from http://www.creationresearch.org)
• 

  hooberus

  from: http://saintpaulscience.com/about.htm

  The Biotic Message is a science book on the creation-evolution controversy. It quotes frequently, if not exhaustively, and only from the author's opponents — the evolutionists. It focuses keenly on all the literature of the anti-creationists, to address the issues they raise. The book engages evolutionists on their terms, on their issues, using their testimony, and their ground rules — including the central role of testability within Science.

  The book focuses on the biological issues. It is not about age, geology, cosmology, floods, or catastrophes. It contains no theology or religious discussion. People on various sides of those issues can comfortably embrace this book.

  The book is lengthy and densely packed. It is not lite reading, it is for the serious student of the origins controversy. Though perhaps best described as a freshman-level college text, it has been enjoyed by highschool students and is suitable for public schools. A strong background in science is not necessary, as the book is tutorial in its approach.

  Half the book dismantles evolutionary illusions, such as:

  • The carnival shell game maneuvering behind natural selection and the anthropic principle.
  • The inability of evolutionary geneticists to make their models consistent with their claims and the data.
  • The flexibility and untestability of evolutionary theory, it has no coherent structure. Many evolutionists are quoted to demonstrate the contradictions within evolutionary theory.
  • The philosophical double-standards held by evolutionists, one standard for creation, and a lesser one for evolution.
  • The misuse of terminology and classification methods to create evolutionary illusions.
  • The fossil record systematically refutes the predictions of Darwinism. This is documented by quoting evolutionists themselves.
  • Punctuationists (such as Stephen Gould) responded to their setbacks by constructing a theory that is compatible with a complete absence of evidence for evolution. Few students know that punctuated equilibria theory is specially constructed to destroy the appearance of lineages and identifiable ancestors.

  The analysis of evolutionary theory receives praise from creationists and evolutionists alike.

  The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a scientifically testable creation theory to take its place. The new theory overturns Darwin's and Gould's arguments about "imperfect" designs, and most notably, the evolutionist's central argument — the nested pattern of life. The full range of biological issues are discussed, from vestigial organs, to embryology, to biomolecules, to biogeography, and more.

  The central claims of the theory are simple and plausible: Life was reasonably designed for survival, and to convey a message that tells where life came from. The message can be described in two parts:

  1. Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.
  2. Life was designed to resist all other explanations.

  In other words, evolutionary theory helped shape the pattern of life — with a reverse impact. Life was intricately designed to resist all evolutionary explanations, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's.

  more: http://saintpaulscience.com/about.htm

  see also the other publications available from the Creation Research Society
• 

  Dansk

  Well, I'll gladly follow science any day! It's willing to admit ITS mistakes!!

  Ian