I've written before how the evolutionists' demand for “evidence” is usually nothing more than special pleading. We're accused of having a faith bias for our theory (which we do) but they also have a philosophical foundation for their brand of science that is very “faith-like” in practice (which they deny). Just recently, though, I've spotted a No True Scotsman spin thrown into the mix. The illogical argument has been there all along, I just failed to correctly identify it before now. How embarrassing for me.
Anyway, I'm in another forum discussing the philosophical foundations of science while being insulted in return (as usual), when one of the nicer evos (who posts under the name GrannyM) made this comment:
“What you [RKBentley] say here is absolutely true and it illustrates convincingly why Creationism is not science and can never be considered science: We do not know, and can not know, what an omnipotent deity could do, or would do. Where such a being is in play, there can be no science at all.”
GrannyM is referring to the philosophical, faith-like assumption of methodical naturalism which underpins all of secular science. Her point seems to be that if God were to perform a miracle, then all of nature is suspect. We could never be sure if something truly occurs naturally or if God simply made it appear that way.
I fail to see how a miraculous creation has any impact on science. If Adam were alive today, we could study him “scientifically.” We could take his pulse, temperature, blood pressure, etc. We could take blood samples, x-rays, study his DNA, and submit him to a battery of medical tests. We could have him run obstacle courses, take IQ tests, and test his abilities in a variety of ways. There is nothing about his supernatural origin that shields him from scientific inquiry. The same is true about the universe. So a refusal to consider a supernatural origin is a philosophical choice and not a scientific one.
Curiously absent from GrannyM's comments is any demonstration that creation is false; she only argues that it's not “scientific.” That's where the “No True Scotsman” argument lies.
I've written before how the No True Scotsman argument is a fallacy. In summary, it's an arbitrary qualifier that some people impose to disqualify their opponent's argument without having to deal with it. In this instance, the evolutionist is disqualifying creation from being “scientific” on the arbitrary grounds that it holds to a supernatural explanation. The demand for a natural explanation is a tenet of secular science and not an objective standard. There is no scientific evidence that says only natural explanations are scientific!
The word “science” means “knowledge” and not “natural.” It seems to me, people should be more interested in what is true than what is natural. If God created the universe by fiat, than that is what is true regardless of whether or not it is “scientific”.
The militant evolutionist says, “Real science only looks for natural explanations.” Yep, that's a No True Scotsman argument alright. It's text book. I just can't believe I didn't catch it before.
3 comments:
If we had Adam in front of us, we could indeed subject him to medical studies. Suppose, having x-rayed him, we found what every orthopedist and radiologist we could find identified as a healed fracture of one of his leg bones. Are we justified, on the basis of this discovery, in concluding that at least Adam was not created just the other day, and has lived long enough to break his leg and heal from the injury? Suppose, more simply, that upon simple outward visual inspection, we find what every anatomist we consult agrees is a bellybutton. Are we justified in concluding that Adam was actually born? Suppose, for that matter, that you do the same test on me and make the same observation: are you justified in assuming that I was born, rather than specially created?
In myriad ways, the world around is testifies to a history. We see that the sidewalk is wet, the trees are dripping, and that puddles have formed in the street, and infer that it has rained recently. We find a swollen patch of skin with a red spot in the middle and assume that we sustained an insect bite without even feeling it at the time. We do a DNA test, and find that, e.g. American Indian tribes share mitochondrial DNA variants with Asian populations that they don't share with other populations, and infer that they migrated to North America from Asia.
You are arguing that it is bigotry to assume that no supernatural cause has woven traces of a false history into rocks and stars and genes. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, you are arguing that it is possible to do science on the assumption that any evidence that implies a particular history (whether of an event a couple of seconds in the past or a billion years) might have a more recent, supernatural cause. We could take Adam's blood pressure, and wonder if we were really measuring his blood pressure or the effects of some supernatural interference with the workings of the sphygmometer.
I'm not sure how one would go about justifying methodological naturalism, which at its most basic is the principle that evidence means something. If you doubt this, I cannot imagine how adducing evidence would relieve your doubts! Of course, the point is that you do not doubt this: on a myriad myriad issues, you accept that evidence is a perfectly good reason for drawing conclusions (your most recent post implies that this is true even on historical questions). You wish to make an exception for a relative handful (albeit a rather large handful)_ of issues, such as the age of the Earth and the universe, common ancestry of humans and other species, etc. You want one rule of evidence to apply to most questions, and another to apply to questions to which you desire "supernatural" answers. That is, of course, the very special pleading of which you accuse "evolutionists."
Steven J,
Thanks for your comments. Due to the length, I have to break my reply into two parts.
You said, “If we had Adam in front of us, we could indeed subject him to medical studies. Suppose, having x-rayed him, we found what every orthopedist and radiologist we could find identified as a healed fracture of one of his leg bones. Are we justified, on the basis of this discovery, in concluding that at least Adam was not created just the other day, and has lived long enough to break his leg and heal from the injury?”
The discussion I was having online that prompted the comments from GrannyM was on a thread dealing with “the appearance of age.” I generally avoid using that term because I believe it is a misnomer and carries a lot of unnecessary baggage. If Adam were examined on the very day he was created and we found the evidence of a broken bone that you suggested, I would tend to agree with you that it would be an invented feature that gives the false impression of age. However, what if we examined Adam 50 years after his creation? By this time, he would show wear and plaque on his teeth, probably sport a few scars and maybe some healed bones, and be suffering from a whole host of other maladies that are common to man. The longer Adam lived, the less distinguishable he might become from any naturally born man. At that point, it would only be by revelation that we would know of his miraculous origin. The same is true of the creation today. We're not looking at the perfect world that God created but the 6,000 year old broken world that has been judged with a global flood and groans under the weight of the Curse.
But in any event, a divine creation has not prevented scientific inquiry.
You said, “Suppose, more simply, that upon simple outward visual inspection, we find what every anatomist we consult agrees is a bellybutton. Are we justified in concluding that Adam was actually born? Suppose, for that matter, that you do the same test on me and make the same observation: are you justified in assuming that I was born, rather than specially created?”
A similar point was brought up on the thread. We need to be careful in saying how God should have created the universe. He created the trees in one day, for example. Did the trees have rings? Ring normally are indicators of a tree's age so we might say no. However, rings also provide strength to the wood and if God had intended Adam to build anything, He might have created the trees with rings. Some people might say it would be deceiving for God to do this but it isn't – God has still TOLD Adam that He made the trees in a day.
I've used the analogy of “reproductions and fakes.” If I create a piece of furniture that resembles an antique piece, it's not deceiving as long as I present my work as a “reproduction.” If instead I made a piece then tried to sell it as an original, I would be engaging in a fraud.
Continued...
You said, “In myriad ways, the world around is testifies to a history.”
The earth has a history. It's around 6,000 years old and it's been through a lot. You might think it looks billions of years old but we don't really have an objective way of testing what a world looks like after 4 billion years or even 6,000 years.
You said, “You are arguing that it is bigotry to assume that no supernatural cause has woven traces of a falsehistory (sic) into rocks and stars and genes. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, you are arguing that it is possible to do science on the assumption that any evidence that implies a particular history (whether of an event a couple of seconds in the past or a billion years) might have a more recent, supernatural cause. We could take Adam's blood pressure, and wonder if we were really measuring his blood pressure or the effects of some supernatural interference with the workings of the sphygmometer.”
Actually, science is suspect if there were no God. A Creator suggests there should be purpose and order in the creation. If the universe has no purpose, how can we have any confidence in any finding of science? Even our senses are suspect. Our thoughts are merely purposeless chemical reactions in our brains that might happen to convey some survival advantage.
You said, “I'm not sure how one would go about justifying methodological naturalism, which at its most basic is the principle that evidence means something. If you doubt this, I cannot imagine how adducing evidence would relieve your doubts! Of course, the point is that you do not doubt this: on a myriad myriad issues, you accept that evidence is a perfectly good reason for drawing conclusions (your most recent post implies that this is true even on historical questions).”
I have a reason to have confidence in science. I believe that the God who created everything is a rational Being. He does not change so I don't expect physical laws to change. He is everywhere so I expect His laws to apply everywhere. And most importantly, He does not lie and so I have a reason to believe His revelation. It's true I don't invoke a miracle for every phenomenon. Why should I? God created natural laws and so I believe they operate in much the same way that you believe them to operate (except that I have a rational reason to do so). But God has also said that He created the heaven, earth, and everything in them in six days; I believe that too.
Thanks for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment