Humanism vs. Christianity
~
The Polarization of America
by Patrick Vosse
Part One
Evolutionism vs. Creationism |
Chapter 3 - Creationism is Poor Science
The concern among Creationists
is that Evolutionism tends to be
atheistic and teaching evolution in
schools can prejudice children against a theistic
perspective. As discussed in the previous chapter, efforts to require
creation to be taught in lieu of, or at least along
with, evolution have been struck down by the courts. Intelligent Design
proposes an approach to creation
that purports to be scientific and an acceptable alternative to
evolution. To meet the court requirements for any form of creation to be
included in the school curriculum, it must be a secular form of science.
Since ID "Intelligent design" is the only
Creationist position that approaches a scientific explanation of
creation, we will test it against the standards established
by the scientific community.
Within the Humanist
"Secular-Progressive" element of our society, there is the common
opinion that Christians are ignorant, unreasoning, and
superstitious. There is a type of elitism
among the liberals that
separates society into the educated, secular liberal
"enlightened" and the ignorant, superstitious "irrational" (and usually
Christian). This is partly due to the argument about Creationism,
but not entirely, as we will discuss later. They point
out that, whereas Evolutionism is supported by
scientific observations and good hard science,
Creationism is only supported by myth and "pseudo-science." Before we can discuss the relationship of creation
to science, it is necessary to
describe the basis of scientific thought, the scientific method.
The Scientific Method
The scientific method
has been used by scientists for over 200 years. It is directly
responsible for the technological and scientific advancement we enjoy
today. It is the foundation of science and all scientists
adhere to its rules or risk sanction from their peers. The scientific
method is a process by which one moves from observation of the physical
world to verifiable explanations about how and why those observations
happen. The scientific method consists of seven steps.
Each step must be taken, and taken in order–no short cuts allowed.
Step 1: Observations
The scientist observes
objects or phenomena in nature and notices a pattern or
interesting organizational structure. It is the mark of a good scientist
to be observant and curious. It is also necessary to be able to
recognize patterns and relationships that may have a common cause. A
constant danger is bias in the observations.
Preconceived ideas can move the scientist to make incomplete
observations that favor his initial concept.
Step 2: Form a Question
The observations raise
questions about the phenomena: "How?" "Why?" However, this is not and
easy step. The question must be asked with a specific focus directed at
the basic cause of the observation. Ask the wrong question and you may
go down the wrong path and come to the wrong conclusion. For instance,
you observe that the stars, moon, and sun
move relative to your position on earth. From this
observation, you can formulate several questions: Why do the heavenly
bodies move about the earth? Which is moving, the earth or the heavenly
bodies? What causes the celestial motion? Why is the earth stationary
and the heavenly bodies move about it? Which is moving, the heavenly
bodies, the earth, or both? Often the question selected is based on
previous experience and cultural prejudice and the
scientist must be very careful not to let preconceived
ideas guide him down the wrong path.
Step 3: Form a Hypothesis
Once a question is formed, the natural
next step is to answer it. Sometimes a single answer becomes obvious but
often there is more than one possibility. The scientist
draws upon his training and advice from colleagues to form a possible,
most likely, explanation to the question. This is the hypothesis.
The hypothesis may be true or not. It may be the
correct answer to the question or not. It may be the complete answer or
not. It is a proposed explanation.
Step 4: Test the Hypothesis
The next step is to determine if the
hypothesis is 1) a correct explanation and 2) the only
explanation. To do this the scientist designs an
experiment to test the hypothesis. It is
also appropriate at this stage to determine if the hypothesis if
falsifiable and propose an experiment to determine
if the hypothesis is wrong. All hypotheses, to be considered within the
process of the scientific method, must be
falsifiable. There must be a way of showing that it is false, if indeed
it is false. If there is no way to prove a hypothesis false, it cannot
be considered within the scientific method process.
For example, I may form a hypothesis
that "All swans are white." I may make a thousand
observations that confirm that hypothesis because the
only swans I see are white. However, it is possible that one day I will
see a black swan and that would prove the hypothesis false. On the other
hand, I may form a hypothesis that "there are beings from another
dimension that cannot be sensed or known by humans." There is no way I
can observe these beings to prove they exist. But more important, there
is no way I can prove the hypothesis false either; therefore, it is not
a subject that can be considered within the purview of science. This
extremely important condition is vital when considering both Creationism
and Evolutionism.
If, however, the hypothesis
is falsifiable then the scientist
will conduct an experiment to prove it
true. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the details of how
such an experiment is conducted, but the scientific community
has specific requirements and procedures that must be
followed if the experiment is to be considered valid.
Step 5: Analyze the Data
Once the experiment is
completed and the results are collected, the next step is to determine
what the data means. This is not always simple and sometime
the data are not consistent. However, it is important to analyze the
data correctly in order to determine if the experiment proves or
disproves the hypothesis. Scientists often use statistics
to analyze the data. Unless there is a clear and definable pattern in
the data, the experiment is inconclusive. In that case, it must be
repeated until data is obtained from which a conclusion can be made, or
a new experiment must be designed. Often at this point, the original
hypothesis is modified.
There is always a danger that the
scientist has a preconceived ideas or bias about the hypothesis
and will interpret the data in a way to fit his prejudice.
That is why it is necessary to have a control that objectively evaluates
his work.
Step 6: Publish the Results
Once the experiment is
complete, data analyzed, and conclusions formed, the
scientist must present his research for peer review. This is usually accomplished by publication in a
professional or scientific journal of established reputation that is
generally read by experts in the field under discussion.
Scientists are
conservative, a characteristic necessary when
exploring new areas of enquiry. Usually, when an article appears in a
journal that proposes to prove a new hypothesis, the
scientific community does not just accept the article as
fact. The role of the scientist is to see if he can
prove the hypothesis wrong. First, they analyze the premise for
consistency with established theoretical principles and then they review
the procedure for possible errors. Some scientists will try to duplicate
the experiment and obtain same or conflicting data.
Some scientists will try to prove the hypothesis wrong by
exploring the falsifiable requirement of the
scientific method. Only when the experiment
and its resulting data are confirmed and the
hypothesis meets the falsifiable
criterion with the hypothesis is the hypothesis declared a theory.
Step 7: The Hypothesis is Established as a Theory
The terms hypothesis and
theory are often interchanged but within the scientific
method, they have distinct meanings. As
discussed above, a hypothesis is an unproven concept. The hypothesis may
be correct or it may not. However, if it is correct and the scientific
community confirms that fact, eventually the hypothesis
is generally accepted as a correct explanation for the observations
that started the process and it is considered a
theory.
The transition from hypothesis
to theory does not happen immediately
because, as mentioned above, scientists are a conservative
group and some need more proof than others
do. However, eventually, if the hypothesis is correct and provable, it
will be accepted as a theory.
Let us consider three examples of
applying the scientific method, one in which the
hypothesis is true and the scientific method verified
that it was true and two in which the hypothesis is false and the
scientific method exposed the error.
When Albert Einstein
published his hypotheses for General and Specific Relativity, it caused
reverberations throughout the scientific community. His
thinking was profound and revolutionary. It was once said that only
three people in the world truly understood the physics and math and one
of them was Einstein. When Einstein published his
hypotheses, he included experiments that could confirm their correctness
or prove them false. Over the years there have been numerous experiments
conducted by hundreds of scientists – all confirming that
Special and General Relativity as
proposed by Einstein are correct. They proved that gravity does bend
light and every nuclear reactor and nuclear bomb testifies that E=mc2
is true. However, many of the scientists were focused on showing that
the hypotheses were false. A scientist might win the Nobel Prize if he
could do so. However, they could not and the scientific community now
accepts these hypotheses as theories. And Einstein’s
theories have changed history.
Several years ago, researchers at the
University of Utah developed a hypothesis regarding
"cold fusion". Atomic "fusion" is the process by which
atoms fuse together, as opposed to "fission" in which atoms split apart.
Both processes produce enormous power (Einstein’s E=mc2) but "fusion" produces much more power
using hydrogen instead of uranium and there is no radioactive waste.
Fusion drives the sun and gives it, and all stars,
so much energy. The problem is that, whereas fission is relatively easy
to produce and control (fission is the process used in nuclear
reactors), fusion required large amounts of energy to force atoms
together and contain the reaction. The fusion energy is so great that
fusion, i.e. "hydrogen," bombs are triggered by a fission,
"atomic," bomb, to provide the initial energy to fuse the hydrogen
atoms. Scientist have been working for decades to develop a fusion
reactor but the enormous heat and energy plus the containment problems
have so far prevented any practical success. When the University of Utah
researchers claimed to have succeeded in producing cold fusion in the
laboratory, a tsunami-like shock waves spread throughout not just the
scientific community, but also all areas of society. If
it were true, we would have cheap, renewable, non-polluting, and
unrestricted supply of energy. We could end poverty and a new age of
prosperity throughout the world would be realized. After the initial
shock, the scientific community proceeded to prove the hypothesis wrong
and find errors in the experiment. The physics looked
good, but the proof is in the testing. Unfortunately, much
to the embarrassment of the Utah researchers, no one could reproduce the
published experiment successfully and they found errors in the testing,
design, and implementation.
The Bell Curve is a
controversial, best-selling 1994 book by the Harvard psychologist
Richard J. Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institute political
scientist Charles Murray. The premise of the book was that intelligence
is an accurate predictor of social and financial success. Their
observations consisted of measuring IQ of
individuals and comparing them to the subject achievements. One of the
interesting and quit controversial conclusions they came to was that
there is a racial, biological, difference between the IQ of the races
and the Caucasian race was more intelligent than the dark-skinned races.
This was supported by a large amount of statistical data that showed
African-Americans had much lower score on their IQ tests. The
observations could not be challenged; it was a fact. However, the
observations were not complete. The statistics did not account for the fact that, when and where the
study was conducted, African-Americans did not have access to a good
education, had generally worse reading skills that their Caucasian counterparts
were raised in difficult family situations, and so forth. The
observations were also biased; there are poor Caucasian districts that
give IQ results the same as African-Americans living in similar
circumstances. The fact is environment can result in lower IQ, not just
the other way around. Consider the successful dark-skinned achievers
that have won Nobel prizes, are famous doctor, lawyers, engineers
and…presidents. The study and its conclusions are now generally rejected
as poor scholarship.
These examples show why good
scientists are conservative and careful. They
approach new hypotheses with the attitude, "I’m from Missouri, show me".
Perhaps that is the most important part of the scientific method; it keeps everyone honest.
Testing Creationism
Now let us see how Creationism
specifically Intelligent Design, meets the criteria of the scientific method.
Step 1, Observation
ID "Intelligent design" and
evolution both make the same observations: The diversity of life ranging from simple to
complex organisms, each fitting
nicely into a specific ecological and chronological niche. There may be
some disagreement on the fossil record in terms of timing,
but the observations without interpretation are
consistent with the scientific method.
Step 2, Form a Question
How did life come to be as
we now observe it? How can we explain the organization of organisms
from simple to complex in what appears to be a progressive
development over time? These are the questions at the
root of the argument and both the Evolutionist and
the ID "Intelligent design" Creationist must answer them.
Step 3, Form a Hypothesis
It is here that Creationists
diverge from Evolutionist. ID "Intelligent design" proposes that there are organisms
such that random mutation and natural selection
cannot account for their development; therefore,
there must be an intelligence that guides the
progressive development of organisms.
Is there a scientific experiment
that can 1) prove there is a guiding intelligence
and, 2) prove that intelligence guides the evolutionary
process? If not, the enquiry cannot proceed. Also, remember the
requirement that the hypothesis must be falsifiable. Is there a test that can prove that the
Intelligent Design hypothesis is false? If not,
the enquiry cannot proceed; the question is not within the purview of
science. In fact, the ID "Intelligent design" hypothesis
has not progressed beyond this step. One can argue that ID
"Intelligent design" is not, in fact a hypothesis at all but
rather, not withstanding the "intelligent guide", merely a critique of
the Evolution hypothesis.
Does this mean that ID
"Intelligent design" is wrong? No! It just means that it is not subject
to investigation by the scientific method. It is
not a valid hypothesis that can be tested and there is
no test that can prove it false. And that it the problem with
God "His glory is above earth and heaven" (Ps
148:13). God is not knowable through the limits of scientific enquiry.
That is why he must be revealed to mankind and why revelation
requires faith to accept. This is a concept
the Humanist rejects completely.
The Backlash Effect
The proponents of evolution
are quick to point out that Creationists
have simply packaged faith-based creation
theology in an untenable proposition that does not meet
the criteria of the scientific method. They claim that, at best, Creationism is
pseudoscience. The Evolutionist’s position, they
claim, is based on reasoned investigation supported by credentialed
scientists and philosophers–the educated and erudite–whereas the
Christians who stubbornly cling to superstitious
myths are ignorant and unreasonable and the best they
can come up with in their ignorance is pseudoscientific nonsense. As
Richard Dawkins (the "high priest of Atheism") puts it in The God Delusion,
"Christians need to raise their consciousness".
The difficulty lies in the fact that
liberal Humanists "Progressives" will judge
Christians on the errors they make. The creation
argument is not tenable scientifically and the attempt to make it so
has given those opposed to religion an example of how
Christians are "not reasonable". For them, if Christians are not
reasonable in their arguments about science (which, for
the Humanist, is demonstrable and the penultimate of being reasonable)
then they must be unreasonable about everything.
The picture painted by the Humanist
contingency is that Christians are troublemakers that
oppose progress with irrational superstition, as
evidenced by their obsession with creation
versus evolution. The problem is that many who are not
necessarily interested in the specific details of creation versus
evolution hear the stereotype labels for Christians and, as a result,
there is a sort of "immunity" against Christianity
that develops within the secular society. This has the opposite effect
of evangelizing and is counterproductive.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact
that the conflict between Creationists and Evolutionists has cause
polarity among Christians. Recently, there have been several incidents
where college professors were fired from conservative Christian
colleges because they supported a concept of theistic
evolution. In one case, the professor was among the top
Old Testament scholars in the world. The polarization
within the Christian community over creation
gives Humanist the fuel they need to advance
their argument that Creationism is an arbitrary
superstition.
Copyright © 2011 by Patrick Vosse
All Rights Reserved
|