John Godfrey Saxe took an old Indian parable and made this wonderful poem:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
I've always thought it was funny how people with such limited knowledge and understanding can still have such confidence in their opinions. In regards to science and evolution, there's far more that we don't know than what we do know. It doesn't matter how certain we are about what we do know, what we don't know can still greatly shape what is true.
But beyond the creation v. evolution debate, this poem highlights the error of disbelief in general. The famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, has said many times that he doesn't believe there is a God and hasn't seen any evidence for one. Considering the enormity of the universe and how tiny the fraction is that we have experienced, his view is very much like that of a blind many who has touched only one part of an elephant. He has based his opinion only on his limited experience and can't see the big picture.
I wish I could leave it at that but I've been doing this for a while and I know the common rebuttal offered up by critics who hear this argument. They usually try to turn the tables and say something like, “We'll, Mr. RKBentley, how do you know that somewhere out there in the universe there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster?” Here's the big difference: there is evidence for God. We have the revelation of the Bible. We have the historical accounts of Jesus. We have the nation of Israel. All of these things attest there is a God. What similar evidence do we have for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I admit that I don't know everything. I also admit there's far more that I don't know than I do know. However, there is One who does know everything and even though I don't know everything, I know Him. I also trust what He says. Other people are welcome to grope about in the dark but His children walk in the light! (John 11:9-10)
9 comments:
With regards to science, there is this mistaken view in the public eye of how scientists think and how science functions. Science, effectively, is an exercise in humility and for reasons you think are an argument against confidence in scientific findings. Scientific explanations are transient in a sense, they are provisional models, not absolute. It must always be acknowledged that new data, which is constantly being collected, could change things dramatically.
But note also that confidence can increase as new data comes in. If you acknowledge that new data can change things, then you should also acknowledge that new data can bolster a particular case. We do this in our daily lives, pretty much testing gravity and the solidness of objects constantly. If we are being consistent, then we should know that there is an infinitesimal chance that our understanding of gravity could be so wrong because I could start floating, but so far we have not collected that evidence. Without it we would think gravity is reliable, but with it things would be very different. The likelihood, however, is as I said - infinitesimal.
Some things are so well tested and attested to by the evidence, that they make very strong models for reality. Both gravity and evolution fit into this category. Doubting them requires incredible evidence, but so far there is no such thing. As more evidence comes in, the stronger they seem to be getting. Naturally, they could some day be disproved, that's part of what makes them good science, but the likelihood is exceptionally slim and we do have enough evidence to say that.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has this in its favor: the increase in average global temperatures (Global Warming) as the rate of piracy drops (hence the importance, among FSM followers, of dressing up as pirates). You might wonder how the existence of a flying spaghetti monster implies that fewer pirates means a hotter Earth. But then, you might wonder how the truth of Christianity implies the existence of a modern nation of Israel; throughout most of Christian history, no one thought that the Bible predicted a restoration of Israel; that interpretation followed on the attempts of Zionists to re-create Israel. So I see Israel as less a fulfilled Biblical prophecy or promise and more as re-interpretation of the text to fit later, unrelated facts.
We have a great many ancient texts that purport to be revelations from God, or the gods. The existence of such texts does not, by itself, establish the truth of their claims.
Note that Christianity isn't very compatible with the idea that God is hiding under the sofa cushions in the Whirlpool Galaxy. Yes, God is supposed to be present, and even active, in the remotest regions of space, but He is also supposed to be present and active right here on Earth. A God Who had to be sought out in distant corners of the cosmos wouldn't be the Biblical God, so it is relevant whether so much of the Earth as we can study is consistent with Christian claims.
As for the rest, what the Paleobabbler said.
PB,
I'm going to take some of your points out of order.
You said, “Some things are so well tested and attested to by the evidence, that they make very strong models for reality. Both gravity and evolution fit into this category.”
I really have to laugh because I know you've read my “Five Lies Evolutionists Tell.” Why then would you trot out lie number 4? I'll have to go back and refresh my memory but, at the time, I seem to recall you denied that evolutionists ever really say that.
Evolutionists will never abandon this lie as long as they can equivocate over the term, “evolution.” When you said, “evolution” in that quote, what did you mean exactly? Did you mean merely that animal populations change? If so, then I agree that populations change but that's never what I'm arguing against on my blog. In the evolution v. creation debate, most people are arguing against the common descent of all life from a common ancestor or the idea that one kind of animal (like an ape) can change into another kind (like a man). If you meant the latter in your quote then I categorically reject your assessment of the facts. It is absurd to suggest that the evidence for common descent is as well tested and attested as the evidence for gravity!!
Now to the main point of your comment: you seem to be hedging your bets quite nicely. You seem to want to say so badly that evolution is a fact but you can't, in good conscience, deny that it could still be disproved someday in light of more evidence. As you say, science is transient and current theories are only CURRENT theories. I ask you then, why do you allow the transitory and limited knowledge of science to guide your interpretation of the immutable and perfect revelation from God? It makes no sense to me.
I'll never know everything. There will always be much more that I don't know than I do know. Things I believe to be true now might someday be as laughable as the “science” of blood letting and alchemy. It simply seems folly to me that I should ever trust my limited understanding over God's word.
Thanks for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
Rk:
"I really have to laugh because I know you've read my “Five Lies Evolutionists Tell.” Why then would you trot out lie number 4? I'll have to go back and refresh my memory but, at the time, I seem to recall you denied that evolutionists ever really say that."
I have not made the claims you argue against in lie number 4 (which I explained quite thoroughly was a straw man to begin with). I am saying both theories are well supported by the evidence and are strong models for reality. It seems you are adding to it.
"Evolutionists will never abandon this lie as long as they can equivocate over the term, “evolution.” When you said, “evolution” in that quote, what did you mean exactly? Did you mean merely that animal populations change? If so, then I agree that populations change but that's never what I'm arguing against on my blog."
Common descent is fact, the theory of evolution explains that fact among many others. Some things are so beyond reasonable doubt that fact can be an appropriate term. I also made that quite clear in my response to your five lies post.
"Now to the main point of your comment: you seem to be hedging your bets quite nicely. You seem to want to say so badly that evolution is a fact but you can't, in good conscience, deny that it could still be disproved someday in light of more evidence."
That's how science works. We can say things are fact, but not that they cannot be disproved. You keep making the mistake of thinking that near impossible odds of something being disproved means we should not trust it at all.
" I ask you then, why do you allow the transitory and limited knowledge of science to guide your interpretation of the immutable and perfect revelation from God? It makes no sense to me."
First of all, science does not guide my interpretation of Scripture, it guides my understanding of something which the Bible is silent on. Secondly, you do what you are accusing me of, only I acknowledge that our methods of understanding the world and our methods of understanding Scripture change.
" It simply seems folly to me that I should ever trust my limited understanding over God's word."
By taking Genesis literally, by rejecting evolution, you are doing exactly what you say is folly.
PB,
You said, “Common descent is fact, the theory of evolution explains that fact among many others. Some things are so beyond reasonable doubt that fact can be an appropriate term.”
Then later you said, “That's how science works. We can say things are fact, but not that they cannot be disproved. You keep making the mistake of thinking that near impossible odds of something being disproved means we should not trust it at all.”
I'm weird in that I ascribe to “facts” the characteristic of being true. If something isn't true, I don't consider it a “fact”. I suppose you and I are different that way.
And I just can't let it go about the gravity & evolution thing. Evos shuck and jive all around this issue. You act like we can trace the descent of man with the same certainty we can trace the orbit of the planets. Really? I see the opposite. Maybe Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) is our ancestor and maybe she's not. Maybe neanderthals are ancestors or maybe they're cousins. Maybe birds started on the ground and flew to the trees or maybe they started in the trees and flew to the ground. Maybe dinos were the ancestors of birds or maybe they shared a common ancestor.
Do you seriously believe we are as sure of common ancestors as we are about gravity? Think about it. We're talking about GRAVITY! You know, that thing that we test every second of the day by doing things like walking, standing, & sitting? I think someone is in serious need of a reality check.
Oh well. I still thank you for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Steven J,
Thanks for visiting.
You said, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster has this in its favor: the increase in average global temperatures (Global Warming) as the rate of piracy drops (hence the importance, among FSM followers, of dressing up as pirates). You might wonder how the existence of a flying spaghetti monster implies that fewer pirates means a hotter Earth. But then, you might wonder how the truth of Christianity implies the existence of a modern nation of Israel.”
Ah, yes. There is your penchant for tu quoque. Your argument for the FSM sounds intriguing. Do you win many converts with that? I didn't think so.
You said, “throughout most of Christian history, no one thought that the Bible predicted a restoration of Israel; that interpretation followed on the attempts of Zionists to re-create Israel. So I see Israel as less a fulfilled Biblical prophecy or promise and more as re-interpretation of the text to fit later, unrelated facts.”
I've heard some people talk about the restoration of Israel as a sign of the end times but I never found that persuasive. Biblical prophecies weren't really what I had in mind. I was thinking more of the simple existence of Israel in spite of two thousand years of dogged attempts to exterminate them as a people. There is also their founding and history as described in the OT. Is there any such account for the followers of FSM?
You said, “We have a great many ancient texts that purport to be revelations from God, or the gods. The existence of such texts does not, by itself, establish the truth of their claims.”
But do you think the account of the OT combined with, say, the existence of the Jewish nation carries a certain weight? I suppose not.
You said, “Note that Christianity isn't very compatible with the idea that God is hiding under the sofa cushions in the Whirlpool Galaxy. Yes, God is supposed to be present, and even active, in the remotest regions of space, but He is also supposed to be present and active right here on Earth. A God Who had to be sought out in distant corners of the cosmos wouldn't be the Biblical God, so it is relevant whether so much of the Earth as we can study is consistent with Christian claims.”
Excuse my incredulity but are you kidding me? Maybe I should remind you of my favorite quote from Scientific American, the one that says science seeks to explain the universe only in terms of natural mechanisms. “Science” isn't seeking God in the remote corners of the universe. They're not even seeking Him here. Instead they put their “natural-only” blinders on and conduct science with an unshakable certainty that God really doesn't do anything.
You said, “As for the rest, what the Paleobabbler said.”
I invite you to read my replies to PB.
God bless!!
RKBentley
I am always dumbfounded when I hear people comparing the certainty of gravity to that of common descent (evolution). My dad even did it the other day. I really wish people would learn to think for themselves rather than just parrot what they read on the internet about evolution. I know the reason they use gravity as a comparison is to convey the air of certainty they have about the theory's merit, but the absurd claim doesn't increase evolution's merit just because they believe it.
Claims like these really help me to see that followers of evolution are just that, dogmatic believers in a naturalistic worldview. I sometimes get frustrated wrestling over this worldview, when I believe that there really is a much deeper distrust of and detachment from a higher authority that fuels the materialistic worldview. It feels like arguing with an alcoholic over whether or not his drinking is a problem, all the while knowing that there are the painful past abuse, abandonment, pride, etc. that are the root issues of the problem. It's not the lack of intelligence that keeps them blind, as I believe PB and Steven J. to be pretty sharp...but a hardened heart that cannot feel a connection with their creator.
Not to attempt to dissuade you, Robert, as I believe you do a good thing here. And not that I'm going to stop debating the issues as well--it's probably because it's Friday and I'm tired, so my pessimism is seeping out. :)
One more thing I forgot. PB said that science is an exercise in humility. I beg to differ. I believe the naturalist's position on our origins is the most arrogant available. Sure, new evidence may brush aside former evidence for evolution, but it's all in the name of "We got here on our own. Nature didn't need God's help!"
Of course, if you believe there is no God, then you believe you're not being arrogant. I'd personally rather not have my feet up on the desk when the master I wasn't aware of returns home.
Todd,
Thanks for your comments. I don't know if I've mentioned this yet but I appreciate that you're going back and reading my archives. I'm getting a lot of traffic on my blog now (about 5K views per month) but in the early days I was happy with about 15 views per day. I was excited about some of the stuff I was writing but was disappointed that it wasn't being read.
Anyway, concerning "the theory of gravity," I direct you to lie #4 in my post, "The Five Lies Evolutionists Tell." If you haven't read it yet, here's the address:
http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2010/08/five-lies-evolutionists-tell.html
I enjoying hearing your comments. Please keep visiting and commenting.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment