I was watching another debate on YouTube the other day. It's no wonder that more evolutionists won't debate creationists; they routinely get trounced. I've heard their excuses – that creationists are professional debaters, they don't want to give creationism a forum, or that such debates seem to legitimize creationism by giving it equal time with evolution. I think it's just because they're routinely embarrassed by their poor performance. But I digress.
During this particular debate, the evolutionist made the comment that creationists' treatment of the evidence “violates the rules of science.” That phrased piqued my interest. I googled the phrase and found a site by Neil deGrasse Tyson where he gives 5 Simple Rules of Science:
(1) Question authority.
(2) Think for yourself.
(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment.
(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads.
(5) Remember: you could be wrong.
Such a list begs the question: who made these the “rules”? Of course, these are simply his rules; other scientists might make a different list of rules. So they're not really “rules,” are they? They're more like opinions of what the rules should be. There is no immutable, objective, absolute standard that says what science is or how it should be approached.
Look at that list again and think about what Tyson is saying in rule #3, for example. Now ask yourself, where is his scientific evidence for idea that we should test ideas with scientific evidence? It's not an easy question to answer, is it? His “rule” has more of a philosophic premise rather than an objective scientific basis. Tyson has a secular paradigm, a starting point that he uses in his approach to science but obviously his paradigm isn't grounded in science. He, and others like him, have shaped a brand of science that conforms with a religion of naturalism. These elitists think they have a monopoly on what science is and they think they have the right to qualify what counts as evidence.
I've seen this many times before. From Scientific American, we find this gem:
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.
The irony in this statement is that seeking only natural mechanisms is more of a philosophical principle rather than a scientific one. Note their use of the word, tenet: it's a belief – a dogma! There is no scientific evidence for it, no place in the universe where the tenet can be observed or tested.
Evolutionists treat science like a religion. They are zealots with a unshakable faith in materialism. No observation, no piece of evidence, and no argument will ever be considered if it contradicts the doctrine that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.
In a NY Times book review, Richard Lewontin made this most amazing admission:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Evolutionists do the very thing they accuse creationists of doing; they start with a conclusion, then seek evidence to support it. They may not know how the universe began but they know God didn't do it because that's not “scientific.” They claim they will go wherever the evidence leads but they have decided in advance that it can never lead to a supernatural explanation. In spite of all their scientific rhetoric, every evolutionist approaches science from a starting point that can't bear scientific scrutiny. There is no scientific evidence to support their core belief of naturalism!
5 comments:
Look at that list again and think about what Tyson is saying in rule #3, for example. Now ask yourself, where is his scientific evidence for idea that we should test ideas with scientific evidence?
And if he had such evidence, why would it matter, if we weren't committed to using scientific evidence to test claims? You're basically asking us to test and defend the claim that claims should be tested and defended; the best answer I can give is the last 300 years of scientific advances. Science works. As for what you propose in its place ...
You don't make explicit what, exactly, you would wish to use in place of or addition to scientific evidence. You imply that it is some other sort of evidence, but don't describe it except, implicitly, as a "divine foot in the door" (since if that's not what you're arguing for, there's no point to complaining that Lewontin is arguing against it).
At its most benign, the divine foot in the door is "we don't entirely understand what causes lightning, so let's conclude that it's Thor's hammer, because that's what my revealed religion teaches." Of course, while the Aesir-worshiper is sticking that foot in the door, someone else is explaining that Hermes appeared to him in a dream and explained that it was Zeus' thunderbolt. And so forth and on: there is no obvious end to possible supernatural explanations, appeals to miracles, and inspired dogmas whose truth is self-evident to the true believer. How do we choose between them?
And in its less benign form? An acquaintance once asked me (I think he may have been joking) if it was possible that white people were directly created by God while "my Nubian brothers" were evolved from monkeys. I explained to him that all scientific evidence for common ancestry of humans and monkeys is evidence for the unity and common ancestry of all humans, and that no creationists propose that some humans evolved while others were created. He accepted this -- but it occurred to me that, if we're allowing for non-scientific evidence, it isn't adequate. If we can explain away, e.g. shared GULO and cytochrome-c pseudogenes and various shared endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimps as "that's just the way the Creator made us," how do we justify ruling that out (leaving only common ancestry) in the case of separate races? In the 19th century, a few prominent biologists were willing to allow evolution to explain all species except humans, and a few creationists wanted to posit multiple separate creations of human races ("co-Adamism"), so what's to prevent someone from reviving this particular divine foot and trying to stick it in the door?
"But," you sputter, "that's not biblical! That's not the divine foot I want to stick in the door!" I certainly assume it is not. So what? What makes you so special? Why do your scriptures and your interpretation of them constitute an alternative to scientific evidence that we need to consider, but no one else's do (unless perchance they happen to support you preferred answer)? Every critic of "naturalism" seems to think that only his little faction gets to to propose non-naturalistic accounts, and that everybody else will just keep quiet (which seems vastly unlikely) Back when miracles were an acceptable way to solve what are now scientific problems, settling disputes between rival miracle claims was handled by burning rivals at the stake. Science -- in its dogmatic, bigoted way -- considers this cheating, and frankly, given your complaints about social hostility towards Christianity, I don't think you'd want to bring it back right now. So what were you planning to do? Do you have any repeatable miracles you'd like to produce for us?
They claim they will go wherever the evidence leads but they have decided in advance that it can never lead to a supernatural explanation. In spite of all their scientific rhetoric, every evolutionist approaches science from a starting point that can't bear scientific scrutiny. There is no scientific evidence to support their core belief of naturalism!
Historically, of course, scientists started as creationists, and assumed that scientific evidence would support supposed supernatural revelation, and backed away -- bit by bit and reluctantly -- from creationism as scientific evidence failed to do that. Note that there's nothing to prevent, e.g. radiometric dating from indicating a 6000-year-old Earth, or genetic testing from showing a drastic bottleneck in the ancestry of every species ca. 4500 years ago. Scientific evidence might not be able to show that a Triune God created the world through His Word, but it could back many aspects of the biblical account -- and instead contradicts virtually all of them.
Note that "naturalism" is not some subset of testable ideas and evidence for or against them. A claim that God's nature requires Him to create this way rather than that way is as testable as any other. As I noted above, the basic creation account in Genesis implies many testable predictions, but creationists didn't like the results of those tests and insisted that science should encompass testing ideas against something other than the evidence -- or that we should agree to call some claims "evidence" just because you feel like advancing them. This is entirely arbitrary and insupportable.
Steven J,
You said, “And if he had such evidence, why would it matter, if we weren't committed to using scientific evidence to test claims? You're basically asking us to test and defend the claim that claims should be tested and defended;”
I've written before how some evolutionists say they won't believe anything without evidence so I ask them why they believe they shouldn't believe anything without evidence?! Science is not like math. It's as much a philosophy as it is anything else. My point in asking these rhetorical questions is to open the evolutionists' eyes to the philosophical side of the science they seem to worship.
You said, “You don't make explicit what, exactly, you would wish to use in place of or addition to scientific evidence.”
Science is fine. But science is not the final arbiter of truth. I'm interested in what is true and I laugh at the ridiculous criticisms that God could not have created the universe miraculously because that's not a sufficient scientific explanation.
You said, “"But," you sputter, "that's not biblical! That's not the divine foot I want to stick in the door!" I certainly assume it is not. So what? What makes you so special?”
Ah, here you strike at the heart of my point. “Is there a Creator?” is a different question than “Is the Creator the God of the Bible?” How should I answer such a question? With science? Hardly! Truth is immutable and we must seek it out any way we can. I will use all of the tools available to me: not just science but also history, reason, logic, and experience. I will not be like the one-dimensional evolutionists who summarily reject what could be the truth on the flimsy grounds that they will only seek an answer that is natural.
You said, “Historically, of course, scientists started as creationists....”
Can you prove that scientifically? Why do you appeal to history rather than provide me with scientific evidence?
If Jesus were a historical figure, and proved His divinity with miracles – including His own resurrection – then what He had to say about the authority of the Old Testament or the account of the creation must be considered. You may not count that as scientific evidence but it could still help us learn what is true.
You said, “Note that "naturalism" is not some subset of testable ideas and evidence for or against them. A claim that God's nature requires Him to create this way rather than that way is as testable as any other.”
You've strayed a little from the point. I'm questioning the claim that every phenomenon must have a natural explanation and your response is that a miraculous creation should be tested by YOUR brand of science.
If we were able to study Adam immediately after God created him, we might see unusual things like that he has no belly button, no scars, no build up of plaque, nor cholesterol in his veins. But Adam is not here to examine, is he? If we studied Seth, we might see that he looked like more like men who lived today having been born and living a normal life. Only being 1 generation removed from the perfectly created Adam, Seth might still be extraordinary but he would seem to have a more “natural” appearance. But neither is Seth available for examination. The further we move away from Adam, the more natural things might seem. What you cannot explain is why “science,” which can only study people here and now, does not allow for the possibility of a miraculously created Adam. Why can't there be a Divine foot in the door?
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
I do not draw a hard and sharp line between "scientific" and "historical" evidence. Both depend on people's reports of what they did and observed. And both are plagued with the problem of erroneous or even, on occasion, outright fictional reports, which is why in both cases it is best to rely on multiple sources (repeatability in science -- can this observation be confirmed independently? -- and multiple original reports in history. You speak of "historical" evidence when what you really want is mythological evidence. There is no more reason to suppose that Adam and Eve were real people than to suppose that Ask and Embla, or Deucalion and Pyrra, were; it is not merely that he is not here to examine, but that genetic studies of modern humans and other species indicates that he was never here to examine, but is merely part of one culture's etiological and creation myths. It is difficult to establish exactly what Jesus said about the authority of the Old Testament (unless you simply assume that the gospels are inerrant, which is one of the points in dispute here), or that he actually did miracles (it's odd that he should respond to a request for a sign, not by doing a miracle or pointing out that he'd done other miracles and that eyewitnesses to them could be found, but by insisting that it was perverse and rebellious to ask for evidence -- it's almost as if there were an early stratum of Jesus stories that didn't claim he did miracles, and traces of these survived into the gospels).
I thought I explained why there can't be a divine foot in the door. Everybody and his uncle has a divine foot to shove in, and a demand that this evidence be disregarded and that myth accepted as a scientific datum.
Steven J,
You said, “I thought I explained why there can't be a divine foot in the door. Everybody and his uncle has a divine foot to shove in,”
You've explained nothing. You merely seem to be saying that since there are so many competing ideas of who the divine one is, then there can't be ANY divine one. You'll pardon me for not being satisfied with that answer.
I'm not pleading for special treatment of the evidence. I want to know the truth. If you say that truth can only be learned through scientific evidence than I want to see your scientific evidence for the “truth” that every phenomenon must have a natural cause! Can you offer nothing to justify this fundamental tenet of science besides a zealous commitment to naturalism?
Post a Comment