I read an interesting headline in The Atlantic recently:
The CDC’s Big Mask Surprise Came Out of Nowhere. The agency’s communication strategy has lagged so consistently behind the research that it’s brought new meaning to the concept of “following the science.”
Ah, yes. “Follow the science.” Due to the recent pandemic, I suppose nearly everyone has heard that phrase by now. And everyone who's heard it probably has an idea of what it means – basically, that we should make our decisions based on facts discovered by scientific inquiry. This quote, attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson, summed it up this way: Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything.
That sounds somewhat noble, doesn't it? I mean, if we're interested in learning what is true, then we need to set aside our biases, look at the “facts” objectively, and face reality – whatever it is. We should do this regardless of what we want the truth to be.
https://unsplash.com/@j_alt99
In my experience in Christian apologetics, I've heard this concept expressed many times in the creation v. evolution debate. Whenever it's cited, it seems the intent of the evolutionist is two-fold: 1) to make himself look unbiased and clear-thinking and 2) make the creationist look closed-minded and unwilling to accept the truth in spite of overwhelming evidence.
As a Bible-believing, young-earth creationist, let me start by saying I didn't come to my faith by ignoring the truth. I believe in God and the Bible for pretty much the same reasons I believe anything – I've been convinced that what I believe is the truth! I attended public schools and graduated high school believing evolution. At that time, I waffled between agnosticism and atheism. It wasn't until I was a grown man that I became a Christian and, even then, I did not become a creationist until some years later. There are probably many others like me so to suggest we just believe creation only because we want it to be true is more of an ad hominem than an argument.
But
besides all that, exactly how unbiased are evolutionists? Consider
this quote from Scientific
American:
“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 obvious question is: why does modern science look for only “natural mechanisms”? That sounds like a bias to me. It's a bias toward naturalism where they intentional exclude any possibility of a supernatural explanation in favor of natural one. On what grounds can they say that every phenomenon must have a natural cause? Nowhere in the universe can methodological naturalism be observed or tested so the idea even contradicts itself. This is why they call it a tenet – a belief or principle, similar to religious dogma.
Richard Lewontin, an American evolutionary biologist, made this very revealing admission [found here and attributed to Billions and Billions of Demons – January 9, 1997 ISSUE]:
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.
I'm sure Lewontin is probably kicking himself for saying that because his quote has been used by creationists for decades to expose the bias held by evolutionists. Of course, he's not the only one who has made comments like this. Some years back, Nathaniel Abraham, a creationist and biologist, was fired from his research position at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution because he didn't believe in evolution. His supervisor, Mark E. Hahn, wrote in a letter to him (source Boston.com):
You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work.... This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted.
By Hahn's own admission, research at his institution can only be carried out and interpreted one way – in light of biological evolution. Anyone who disagrees, will not be doing research there!
I could cite a dozen more examples like this but there's no need. We all see what's happening. If anyone looks at the evidence, thinking in advance there can be only a natural explanation for it, then he's guaranteed to find one. This is how militant evolutionists view science. When they say they go wherever the science leads, they're lying. The possibility of a supernatural creation is excluded a priori by their dogmatic tenet of naturalism.
An explanation is a set of reasons why matters are one way, rather than some other conceivable way. An explanation depends on causes operating in a regular manner: according to laws, such that they can produce some effects and cannot produce others. Causes that operate according to some discoverable nature are "natural" by definition; causes that do not do this are unacceptable in science, because they explain nothing. "God was pleased to make it this way" fails, not because God is a supernatural cause, but because it is compatible with any observation and predicts nothing.
ReplyDeleteCreation, to be a scientific explanation, would need to include some details of God's design philosophy and the predicted results of His interventions, so that we could properly test hypotheses about creation. "God made the Earth, but a fully mature Earth with an appearance of age" (or however you might prefer to phrase it) is entirely untestable; it is compatible with literally any results of radiometric dating, stratigraphy, etc.
It has been suggested that creationism, originally, was a properly testable hypothesis. The methods of science are perfectly capable of detecting that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, but they did not discover this, and creationists fell back on a horde of speculations about why radiometric dating is unreliable (though surely it is within God's power to make it reliable!).
Likewise, it was perfectly conceivable that examination of the human genome would find no shared pseudogenes or endogenous retroviruses shared with other primates. Given the degeneracy (that's a technical term meaning that more than one codon corresponds to each possible amino acid) of the genetic code, it's by no means necessary that even our protein-coding genes be as similar as they are to those of other apes -- at least not on creationist assumptions.
I note that Lewontin is (or at least was when he was working and publishing) a Marxist; he tends to use the term "materialist" more broadly than is strictly applicable out of ideological loyalty to Marx and his "dialectical materialism." It would be better to translate it as "testability" -- the "divine foot in the door" is an explanation that is compatible with anything and predicts nothing because it depends on inscrutable forces without limits or constraints. His point is that we often settle for incomplete or poorly supported explanations because they are still superior to no real explanation at all -- no reason why "God did it" this way rather than any of a hundred other imaginable ways.
I do not know the facts of the Nathaniel Abraham case (and neither do you); the article you link to does not explain the nature of the work he was hired to do. Indeed, it's very hard to find any details of the actual purpose of his work with zebra fish proteins, but without them, I cannot determine the merits of firing him. If he was supposed to figure out the evolutionary relationships of various fish families based on the nested hierarchy of protein homologies, it would be rather an impediment to the successful completion of that work if he denied a priori and incorrigibly that any such relationship could possible exist.
If you hire a researcher to find out who killed JFK, and he insists that nothing will convince him that JFK is not still alive at a tropical resort in Cuba, he's not likely to prove helpful to your purpose.
Steven J,
DeleteThanks for your comment. I've read it a couple of times and I'm not sure which approach I want to take in response. Should I do a point by point reply? Or should I just reply with a general summary that addresses your overall objection? Hmm. For the sake of brevity, I'll go with the latter.
I get the impression that you're straining at gnats. The entire point of my post is that evolutionists claim to be objectively following the science but I say they have a bias toward only natural explanations. To them, miracles cannot be the explanation for anything because they're not “scientific.” Yet if God created the world miraculously, then that is what is TRUE regardless of whether it is scientific.
If all of our current methods of inquiry were available immediately after the creation, I wonder what we would find? We could examine Adam, listen to his heart, measure the oxygen in his blood, or check his cholesterol. Would we be able to determine his “age”? He might look like a young man even though he were only 1 day old. I wouldn't expect to find things like scars, healed broken bones, or a buildup of enamel on his teeth. The further we move away from his creation, the harder it would become to see the signs of his miraculous creation. He would start acquiring things like scars and calluses. He might start becoming wrinkled and gray. He might start looking like any other person. Perhaps the same thing is true for all of creation – after 6,000 years, the world has few signs left that show its miraculous creation.
Can you say for certain that a rock miraculously created by God would show a radiometric date of zero? I doubt it, because radiometric dating consistently fails to accurately dates rocks of known ages, such as those formed in the St. Helen's eruption. I've heard all the reasons evolutionists use to explain why 30 year old rocks show radiometric dates between 250,000 – 2 million years old but all of their excuses only prove the point of my post. They'll never question the efficacy of radiometric dating. They'll never question the “well established” dates assigned to rocks of unknown origin. They'll never waver in their faith in “millions of years” because a 6,000 year old earth would be a miracle and that's not an option.
Thanks again for visiting and your comment. Please keep checking back. God bless!!
RKBentley
You complain that scientists claim to follow the evidence, but in fact insist on one class of explanations (naturalistic) over others that the evidence might point to (miraculous).
ReplyDeleteThen you point out that we cannot expect a miracle to leave any sort of particular evidence (as a specific example, we can't expect that an Earth created 6000 years ago will in fact produce radiometric dates consistent with that age, because God might have created the rocks with decay isotopes already present, or have altered all decay rates consistently, or whatever).
That is, on your own account, miraculous creation does not predict any sort of outcome of observation, or prohibit any sort. Any sort of evidence is consistent with creationism, but none points to it. That was my point. It is not straining at gnats; it is an essential, inescapable feature of science.
Now, yes, as a logical point, creation might be the truth. A lying Creator might be the truth. A truthful Creator, though, is more problematic, given the immense quantities of evidence consistent with, and predicted by, an Earth billions of years old and common descent with modification. You are arguing, basically, that scientists are hypocrites because they refuse to regard evidence as irrelevant to finding truth.
Now, regarding the problems of potassium-argon dating, it's not the fault of actual scientists that Earth's atmosphere contains 1% argon, and that perfect vacuums cannot be achieved, so when you heat a sample to expel the accumulated argon, its signal is overwhelmed with residual argon in the sample chamber. I suppose that argon in the atmosphere therefore counts as one more evidence against creationism; if God created the world less than 10,000 years ago and wanted us to know it, he would have avoided obvious failure modes for certain forms of radiometric dating.
Steven J,
DeleteYou said, “You complain that scientists claim to follow the evidence, but in fact insist on one class of explanations (naturalistic) over others that the evidence might point to (miraculous).”
I'm pointing out how secular scientists claim there is no evidence for God, when they admit they've already rejected the possibility of God BEFORE they even do any research. You can call that complaining if you'd like.
You said, “Then you point out that we cannot expect a miracle to leave any sort of particular evidence (as a specific example, we can't expect that an Earth created 6000 years ago will in fact produce radiometric dates consistent with that age, because God might have created the rocks with decay isotopes already present, or have altered all decay rates consistently, or whatever).”
I don't think I said that but, in a way, I guess that could be right. Jesus walked on water. If I tried to investigate that “scientifically,” how could I possibly discover it? The best I evidence I have are the eye witness accounts of the event.
You said, "That is, on your own account, miraculous creation does not predict any sort of outcome of observation, or prohibit any sort. Any sort of evidence is consistent with creationism, but none points to it. That was my point. It is not straining at gnats; it is an essential, inescapable feature of science.”
The evidence being consistent with creation is evidence FOR creationism if the same evidence is against secular origins. As I've discussed before, the law of conservation of matter/energy is consistent with a miraculous creation but contrary to the idea that energy poofed into existence out of nothing.
You said, “Now, yes, as a logical point, creation might be the truth. A lying Creator might be the truth. A truthful Creator, though, is more problematic, given the immense quantities of evidence consistent with, and predicted by, an Earth billions of years old and common descent with modification. You are arguing, basically, that scientists are hypocrites because they refuse to regard evidence as irrelevant to finding truth.”
Like I've already said, Adam would have looked like a young man when he was created but the reality is he was only 1 day old. God is not deceitful or lying if He told us Adam was only 1 day old even though Adam looked older. A lying or deceitful god would have taken billions of years to create the universe, then told us he only did it in six days.
Thanks for visiting and your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Scientists have a bias towards ideas that can be supported or disconfirmed by evidence. You point out, in your answer, that miraculous creation is consistent with any radiometric age for a given sample; it predicts no particular result. You emphasize that there are no testable consequences for creationism; how then can the evidence point to it? Evidence points to explanations that predict that evidence and prohibit other sorts of conceivable evidence; and that is precisely the property that miraculous "explanations" lack. This is not straining at gnats; it is pointing out what the word "evidence" means.
ReplyDeleteYes, creationism might be true. The idea that we are brains in vats (which are themselves part of an elaborate computer simulation built by aliens) might be true, but it is not a possibility worth investigating, being untestable, unfalsifiable, and arbitrary. For that matter, how many possible versions of creationism are equally possible? Maybe the oceans are really the blood of Ymir, the primordial giant slain by Odin (who knows what a primordial giant might have in his blood?); shall we demand that scientists seriously consider this possibility?
It is not the fault of "evolutionists" that the Earth's atmosphere contains 1% argon, or that engineers cannot contrive to create a perfect vacuum, so that vacuum chambers automatically contain some argon, or even that argon is the decay product measured in potassium-argon dating. This creates an automatic lower limit in the ages that can be reliably measured using K-Ar dating. Presumably a Creator Who wished the Earth to testify to its young age could have created the atmosphere without any argon; does the presence of provide, therefore, evidence against such a Creator?
Why do so many evolutionists on teh interwebs have problems with people calling them evolutionists, but are perfectly willing to call us creationists? By the way, both words are valid, and established, respected evolutionists have been known to refer to themselves in this way.
ReplyDeletePiltdown Superman,
DeleteShould I call you PS or Cowboy Bob? Either way, thanks for visiting and for your comment.
You're right that “evolutionist” is a perfectly valid and acceptable word. When we're talking about the evolution v. creation debate, we need a useful term to describe who believes what. After having been called an “atheist,” Charlie D. said this in a letter to the Grimsby News:
“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.”
So the person who literally invented the theory of evolution called believers in his theory, “evolutionists.” The reason some people get so bent out of shape about it now escapes me. I suspect it's because they habitually use the term “creationism” in place of the word “creation.” For example, they'll say something like, “What is the evidence for creationism”? Isn't that funny? They're asking for evidence that people believe in creation! But they don't want their scientific theory to seem in the same camp as a theistic belief of origins.
When we call them evolutionists, they think it's a pejorative in the same way they mean, “creationist.” Of course, I don't take it as a pejorative. I've heard them say things like, “there is no such thing as an evolutionist!” If only that were true!!
Thanks again for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
You'll probably be seeing a different name crop up on here. I just happened to be logged into the PDSM account on this browser.
DeleteDr. Jason Lisle has some excellent work on apologetics and logic (I strongly recommend The Ultimate Proof of Creation, which is not a "smoking gun", but how to do apologetics). He pointed out the way some people use loaded words. It poisons the well to say things like, "Science vs creationism", for example.
As for people getting upset over the word "evolutionist", I have had a wagon train-load of tinhorns who will find any possible excuse to ridicule the st00pid dumb Xtian creatard, and even disagree with statements of face — including correcting them on their own evolutionary belief system! They are obstreperous for its own sake. I have many screenshots of attacks at The Question Evolution Project and others to support my claims.