The second of two responses to the Creationist
By Richard Young
Richard's e-mail address is:
oblio@globalserve.net
=================================
Let's begin.
Our friend writes:
"Everyone recognizes Popper s contribution to this discipline, in the sense
that falsifiability is a TYPICAL characteristic of science. But it is not a
NECESSARY characteristic, as has been demonstrated by numerous philosophers"
I have no qualms with that statement, largely because nothing of any
critical importance hinges on its truth or falsehood. However, if we do
away with the necessity for falsification, will our friend also ask that we
do away with requirements that a valid theory have explanatory and
predictive powers, then, demarcation problem notwithstanding?
I will hazard to guess that the creationist would prefer instead to steer
clear of the specifics of what constitutes a valid scientific theory:
creationism would satisfy only the strangest of the possible criteria.
Best strategy would be to simply state that philosophers of science
disagree, and then quickly move on to less barren pastures.
>Our letter
>writer says, "think about it for yourself" and then proceeds to illuminate
>us with his demarcationist criteria. But why should we accept his criteria?
Our friend's attempt to wriggle free of the questions I've presented ("Of
what use is a theory that couldn't be tested? Of what use is a theory that
had no predictive powers?") fails. I'd like to see real answers to these
questions.
Regarding the issue of supernatural miracles as being acceptable scientific
explanations, I admire the creationist's candour in admitting that such
things are indeed non-explanations in the "inductive sciences" (i.e. science):
"[…] although postulating intelligent intervention is completely inappropriate
in the inductive sciences, the same is not true in the historical sciences."
and
"In the inductive sciences the whole point is to discover how the natural
world operates on its own, i.e., IN THE ABSENCE OF INTELLIGENT
INTERVENTION. Postulating an intelligent agent would thus contradict the
implicit goal of research in the inductive sciences."
It is a good start to see that this fellow believes that the supernatural
has no place in a science classroom. If our friend were a bit more open
about his ideas of creation, we'd see that they probably could not be
expressed in a way separate from the supernatural. For the sake of B.C.'s
students, let's make sure our friends stay true to that sentiment.
Our friend mentions Pasteur and his refutation of spontaneous generation,
and then informs us that this pulls the rug out from beneath evolution.
This view seems directly lifted from the propaganda of the Institute for
Creation Research in California. The ICR biography of Louis Pasteur
alleges that he was responsible for the "conclusive demolition of the
then-prevalent evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation," and that
"in his lifetime he was the object of intense opposition by almost the
entire biological establishment because of his own opposition to
spontaneous generation and to Darwinism. It was only his persistence and
sound experimental and analytical procedures that finally compelled most
biological and medical scientists to give up their claims of the
naturalistic origin of life and their treatment of disease based on this
notion."
The concept of spontaneous generation, the notion that inanimate matter
could suddenly become alive, goes back at least to Aristotle. "Everyone
knew" that maggots came from rotting meat, for instance. Even Descartes
stated: "Since so little is required to make a being, it is certainly not
surprising that so many animals, worms, and insects form spontaneously
before our eyes in all putrefying substances" (quoted in Margulis and Sagan
1995:55). Spontaneous generation had been disproved by Redi in the 1600's:
"...all worms found in meat were derived from flies, not putrefaction"
(quoted in Margulis and Sagan 1995:56), and Spallanzi in 1768. However,
other experiments seemed to support the concept, and this idea did persist
until it was disproved finally by Pasteur in the mid 1800's. However,
there is no evidence that spontaneous generation was a specifically
evolutionary concept; it was simply the best explanation of a phenomenon
that scientists had until Pasteur's experiments. There is also no evidence
that Pasteur "was the object of intense opposition by almost the entire
biological establishment because of his own opposition to spontaneous
generation and to Darwinism." The ICR's last sentence above is perhaps the
most absurd. Far from a "naturalistic" treatment, early theories of disease
proposed that at least some of them resulted from possession or sin. By
recognizing the microbial origin of disease, Pasteur actually set the
treatment of disease on a naturalistic path for the first time
Later in the email, our friend quotes heavily from several sources on the
"religiousness" of evolution. Evidence for this claim seems to be that
certain writers use religious imagery. (The inability to separate
figurative language from literal language seems to be a common trait among
creationists.) If--as this fellow seems to want us to believe without any
good grounds--evolution is a religion, then the solution would be not to
give creationism equal time in the science classroom, but to remove
evolution, as Judge William Overton wrote in his decision against
creationism in Arkansas, 1986.
The creationist then turns to the fossil record for help:
"You see, Ken, the fossil record has always been a
problem for Darwinism. It was a problem for Darwin and it is a problem for
Darwinists today. Darwin s greatest critics were not clergymen, but
paleontologists. They told Darwin that the fossil record does not fit into
his theory very well because it is clear that living things appeared on
Earth suddenly and remained more or less unchanged for the remainder of
their tenure in the fossil record. Darwin s excuse was that the fossil
record is "imperfect"."
The fact is that we do have many examples of transitional sequences
available. The idea that all transitional sequences could be found is not
one that Darwin would have supported.
Like many creationists, this fellow must necessarily see only the gaps in
the fossil record. The assumption seems to be that all animals that have
ever existed must be represented in the fossil record. This is nonsense.
The fossil record is necessarily gappy (yes, there certainly are gaps in
many lineages, though there are fewer every year), but to completely ignore
the areas where transitions have been documented beautifully is pure
disingenuousness. If one is inclined to do some reading on the matter that
does not come from the pen of a creationist, one can learn a great deal.
For starters, I'll recommend:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
I don't expect this information to be refuted by present company. In fact,
I don't even expect them to visit this site. However, I feel obligated to
provide the information, the best information that we have on our origins.
I'll leave the topic of fossils after one more comment.
Is it just a coincidence that
1. we never find a hominid fossil lower in the strata than the earliest
mammal, or that
2. we never find a mammal fossil lower in the strata than the earliest
reptile, or that
3. we never find a reptile fossil lower in the strata than the earliest
amphibian?
Presumably the chaos that ensued in the Great Flood would have mixed up all
those corpses at least a little bit, no?
The creationist goes on:
"According to our letter writer, "The theories of evolution can be tested
and they have predictive powers." Really? It would seem that some important
predictions have been falsified"
Perhaps he would be so kind as to describe to us one or two of the
predictions of evolution that have been falsified. Before he does this,
though, perhaps he could tell us how important the falsification criteria
really is. Earlier in the same email he appears to indicate that he
believes falsification to be an unnecessary component of a theory. He
can't have it both ways.
Later in this email, the creationist calls me "misinformed" for having
allegedly described natural selection as probably the most important
mechanism of evolution. Unfortunately, he doesn't offer a word of
explanation in an attempt to better inform me. I'm all ears.
Still, this gives me a good opportunity to focus in on one important
difference between evolutionists and creationists, between science and
pseudoscience. A scientist, when shown sufficient evidence to the
contrary, will change his/her mind. A creationist will not. If you doubt
this, simply ask them the question "What would it take to convince you that
evolution is the best explanation we have for the existence of different
species?" S/he will probably go silent. (NB: Once upon a time,
creationists would answer by saying that a single transitional form would
do the trick. Not so today. Today they want several thousand transitional
forms. It's a tribute to the many successes of paleontologists.)
Contrast this with my position: if I could be pointed to any aspect of our
world that could not be explained, even in principle, naturalistically,
then-and only then-I would probably take recourse in the supernatural. It
seems obvious to me that if I lived in a less enlightened age I'd probably
be a True Believer (creationism, bodily ascension of the Blessed Virgin,
the whole nine yards). I'm thrilled that I don't.
The creationist then invests considerable energy in attempting to convince
us that life contains "information" and that where there is information,
there must be Intelligent Design (i.e. the hand of god). Obviously, much
of this component of our discussion will hinge on the definition of
"information".
Let's assume we can arrive at a mutually agreeable definition for the word.
I will then propose that we endeavor to explain the origin of
"information" naturalistically (assuming scientists already haven't).
Contrast this with the position of the creationist: s/he will attempt to
explain the origin of "information" by postulating the pre-existence of an
even more complex kind of "information", a god. As you may have guessed,
this is not science.
No, it is not science. Nor is it--in the opinion of the majority of
Christians--Christianity. Consider this heartfelt plea:
Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in
defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for
Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth,
Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in
accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by
Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist
movement to get their points of view established in educational
institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously
expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for
Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism
brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public
simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many
intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is
sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will. [Young, Davis,
"Christianity and the Age of the Earth" Zondervan (1982)]
I can only agree.
Let's move on to our friend's discussion of William Dembski, a
creationist--though possibly not a "young earth creationist". Dembski's
claim to fame seems to be his idea of "a three stage Explanatory Filter".
There are three stages in the search for an explanation, and they must be
dealt with in the following order:
1. Can it be explained by invoking physical laws?
2. Can it be explained by invoking random processes?
3. Can it be explained by invoking Intelligent Design?
(I think #3 is in the form of a question for rhetorical purposes only.)
It seems to me that this is a modern re-formulation of the "God of the
gaps" (i.e. the evidence for the existence of a god lies in whatever we
cannot yet explain) which fell out of favor over a century ago once
theologians realized the danger of this approach: as the gaps in our
knowledge grow smaller, God's real estate shrinks correspondingly. As long
as there is even the slightest gap in our knowledge (and there probably
always will be), the "God of the gaps" will have a place, a tiny place.
Right now, his place seems to be at the instant "before" the Big Bang.
Since the topic of complexity spontaneously arising from simplicity utterly
fascinates me, let me dwell here a moment. Creationists traditionally
invoke a perverted version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in order to nip
in the bud any possibility for spontaneous increased ordering. If, as the
argument goes, order can spring from chaos all by itself, then what need is
there for a God? When worded this way, it comes as no surprise that this
is a very important subject for the creationist.
So I must ask, do our friends realize that that particular battle is long
lost? Localized spontaneous ordering is a perfectly NATURAL part of the
NATURAL universe. Simple example: clouds and sand dunes spontaneously form
regularly spaced ripples. How can this be?? I suppose our friends might
argue that an invisible god uses a giant invisible rake to bring about this
order.
An even better example of spontaneous self-ordering: in the 60s,
researchers at Cambridge University found that phospholipids would come
together in a bilayer spontaneously in solution to form empty cell-like
structures called vesicles, when the solution was jiggled by sound waves.
This finding is made all the more profoundly significant by the fact that
living cell membranes consist of exactly such a lipid bilayer.
I would say that such findings simply must force the creationist to
re-assess his/her position. These days, I dare only to be cautiously
optimistic about the ability of certain people to honestly think through
these things. There is much at stake in the creationist mind: reject
creationism and burn in hell; accept it and spend eternity in paradise.
It's easy to see how the question of the origin of life cannot possibly be
considered objectively in the mind of a creationist.
I'll now move on to the most recent email from our creationist friend,
dated, I believe, March 17, 2000.
He (if I'm wrong to presume he is a he, please correct me) begins by
avoiding discussion of the Noachian Flood. (I take it that you've asked
him about it.) I think our friend is astute to recognize that if he is
exposed as a "young earth creationist", who is therefore necessarily a
Biblical literalist, the ice beneath his feet thins to the point of
lukewarm soup. Therefore, I won't press this issue. Anyway, arguing
against the Flood has all the excitement and intellectual stimulation of
hunting dairy cows.
He expresses concern about your comment that science is essentially an
atheistic endeavor. If by "atheistic", Orland, you meant "without a belief
in god(s)", then I agree completely. When a scientist is doing proper
science, there are no gods in the equation.
Our friend continues:
"Are we to believe that such notable scientists as Boyle, Pascal, Newton,
Linnaeus, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Pasteur, Mendel, Kelvin, Maxwell, etc.
were not REAL scientists?"
I think we can safely say that when these religious (I'll take it as a
given that they were all religious) men were actually doing science, that
they were in fact seeking naturalistic explanations for naturalistic
phenomena. Imagine Faraday saying "the current-carrying conductor has a
magnetic field around it because God wills it thus": this would most
decidedly be non-science.
Can Christians/Muslims/Hindus, etc., do science? Of course they can,
precisely to the extent that they can put aside the supernatural in their
quest for the natural. (Whether a creationist can do science is quite
another question.)
How the scientist then interprets/internalizes his/her results is then up
to that scientist. For example, a religious evolutionist will see the
handiwork of God in every adaptation and speciation. A non-religious
evolutionist will see the work of natural laws and chance combined with
natural selection and time. Both are scientists, but their personal
responses to their findings are just that--personal.
Our friend is visibly perturbed that science should be considered an
atheistic endeavor. I think this results from his definition of atheism
and/or an inability to separate the science from the scientist. To him, it
seems atheism is the positive believe in the non-existence of god(s). That
is certainly one of the common definitions, but there is another: it is
taken directly from the word itself:
"a" = without + "theism" = belief in god(s)
These two kinds of atheism are known respectively as strong and weak
atheism. I think it's obvious that endeavors such as science (as well as
cooking, highway construction, pet grooming, acting…) can proceed just fine
without its participants holding a belief in the existence of a god. An
atheistic dancer performs indistinguishably from a religious dancer.
If a scientist truly believed that his/her god supernaturally caused
phenomenon x, then where is his/her incentive to bother trying to figure
out how x is caused?
Science necessarily tells us nothing about the existence (or the
nonexistence) of gods and the supernatural, since these things obviously
lie outside the realm of the natural world. When we turn our attention to
the supernatural, then our ponderings cease to be scientific and start to
be spiritual, mystical, poetic, inspirational, uninsprational, depressing,
etc.--anything but scientific.
Is science (weakly) atheistic? Absolutely. Scientific investigation can
only be considered scientific insofar as it is bereft of the supernatural.
It is necessarily naturalistic. It has nothing to say about gods, tooth
fairies or leprechauns.
Our friend continues:
"I suppose I could go on quoting Darwinists all night in this regard but I
think I've made my point. Scientists do indeed make leaps of faith."
If scientists take "leaps of faith", then creationists take "space shuttle
rides of faith". Our friend describes uniformitarianism (the geological
doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner as at present
are sufficient to account for all geological changes) as a "leap of faith",
yet it is no more a leap than is the assumption that the sun will appear
tomorrow morning. The creationist leap of faith is a completely different
animal: it is the assumption that there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
omniscient being whose creative actions were exactly as described in an
ancient Jewish holy book, and that they occurred within the last 10, 000
years. That's much more than a simple, assumption that the sun will rise
tomorrow. Referring to both as "a leap of faith" is simply willful
obscurantism.
Our friend continues, this time with an insistence that creationism is free
of the supernatural:
"Who conducts "research" on the supernatural realm and how would this be done
anyway? Creationists believe that reasonable inferences about origins can
be drawn by examining such things as the fossil record, geology, genetics
etc. They do research by studying the natural world within the context of
theism, not by studying the supernatural."
The truth is, creationism is explicitly founded on a holy book, and I'm
disappointed that our friend will not admit as much. I suspect, though,
that he is much more frank about this on Sunday mornings. Just a suspicion.
The literally interpreted Genesis account of origins requires that almost
every natural law be suspended so that a god can work his/her magic to
create humans out of dust. There is no jot or tittle of science here,
despite the all the creationist protestations.
On the matter of creationist research: is it a coincidence that creationist
"findings" seem always to be perfectly in synch with the Book of Genesis?
Is it also a coincidence that scientific findings that conflict with the
Book of Genesis are also those that are most aggressively attacked by
creationists? I am insulted that we are implicitly asked to believe that
the answer to both questions is yes.
Above, I used the term "scientific findings" instead of "evolutionary
findings" because creationism has a bone to pick with many if not all
branches of science (putting aside for the moment the fact that it
conflicts fundamentally with the scientific method itself). If we are to
believe creationists, then
- astronomers are wrong in their work on planetary, galactic and universal
origins, the source of comets, and the speed of light
- physicists are wrong in their work on radiometric dating
- geologists are wrong in saying that coal is the result of millions of
years of heat and pressure acting on bio-matter
- paleontologists are wrong in seeing common ancestors among various
fossilized species
- chemists are wrong in carbon-14 approaches and in stating that
self-replicating molecules can spontaneously arise
- biologists are wrong… in everything they do
Imagine a balance with several centuries of hard earned scientific
knowledge on one side and the Book of Genesis on the other. In the mind of
a creationist, the two balance. To me this is only hard to believe if you
ignore the very real fear of eternal damnation.
The beauty--and danger, if you happen to be a creationist--of Darwin's idea
is that the arising of complexity from simplicity can now be explained.
Evolution makes God redundant. However, it does not necessarily make a
belief in God redundant. But the need for supernatural intervention to
make complexity possible does evaporate when one has an understanding of
evolution. It's completely understandable why a certain minority of
Christians would fight tooth and claw against evolution, even in this day
and age: one of the most common reasons to believe in a god is William
Paley's old argument that the existence of order and design in nature
require it. We now know that patterns and apparent design can arise
perfectly naturally and without violating any laws of thermodynamics. No
gods required.
Our friend then expends considerable energy typing in close to a thousand
words arguing that science has its roots in Christianity. I appreciate the
effort, for even cutting and pasting such a sizeable amount of text must
have been strenuous. However, I fail to see what this issue has to do with
the evolution/creation controversy. I have seen it argued quite
compellingly that science was born despite, not because of, religionistic
attitudes. In any case, it's an issue that would require its own separate
thread, and I barely have time to address the ones we're working on now.
Later, our friend asks:
"If it [the brain] is just reducible to neurons and the underlying
chemistry, how did this incredibly complex neurochemistry get built?"
Again, the writer of these words seems hopelessly addicted to a God of the
gaps. The brain is so complex that it would take a god to build one.
Therefore, a god built the brain. What can be said in response to such an
argument? I'll try this: one cannot explain complexity by postulating
complexity. The term "supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron. It is a
confession of ignorance used in place of the hard work required to get at a
solution.
Finally, our friend provides us with a lengthy quote from Alvin Platinga on
the issue of the reliability of human cognition. Our grasp of reality may
be flawed, the argument goes, so then how can we be sure that our science
is not just as flawed since it is the work of a possibly flawed mind? (I
may be oversimplifying, but I do believe I've captured the gist of the
argument that enthralls our friend, to the tune of several hundred words.)
Here are my thoughts, and they are only that-my (possibly flawed, but no
worse than the products of any other human mind) thoughts. That our ideas
may be flawed is all the more reason to rely on the scientific method for
understanding the world, and to reject religionism as a method for
understanding the world. Imperfect though it may be, science leaves itself
open to correction, revision and growth. Religion relies almost
exclusively on personal feelings, unquestionable, unchangeable dogmas, and
a limbic fear of pain and desire for pleasure (one way of regarding the
hell/heaven business). Nothing in religion is open to revision, though I'd
be glad to be shown I'm wrong about this.
Here's a reality, though, that we can be sure of: if any board in B.C. ever
adopts creationism as part of its science curriculum, it will be the
laughing stock of not just the country, but the civilized world.
Richard
Hooge, please continue to keep me informed of any moves to introduce
creationism in any of its guises. As Thomas Jefferson said, the price we
pay for freedom is eternal vigilance.