TOPICS
But
scientists are always "changing their minds"
KEVIN:
I
can hear the wheels of your mind spinning with the question already…Can
I prove that Jesus is the Savior, Creator, Truth, etc. Right? Well, it seems to me that the bulk
of our discussions center around PROOF and that is a very hard thing to
accomplish. But allow me to
cite 3 examples:
(1)
When I went to substitute sugar I used Sweet-n-low until I saw that
saccharin causes cancer so I switched to the more expensive brand Equal. Then lo and behold I’m reading
the paper last year and now the scientists are saying saccharin DOESN’T
cause cancer…darn those scientists, can’t they make of their mind!
BRUCE:
Well,
I didn’t see the article so I can’t really comment on it. I do recall that for the mice to
get cancer from saccharin to begin with required them to be dosed with
massive amounts of the substance over an extended period of time. Indeed, in massive amounts everything is toxic, even water. Perhaps mice do not get cancer when given
amounts comparable to average human consumption. But you are comparing apples to
oranges.
I
understand the point you wish to imply: that scientists are human and
so they make mistakes just like every other human does, and thus maybe
they are also wrong about evolution.
Right?
Well,
Kevin, that is a pretty weak argument and one that misses the point of
science. The scientific
method is an ongoing process that builds upon the ideas of the past, and
it is cumulative toward the future. Scientists do make
mistakes aplenty and, in fact, this is how science progresses. The self-correcting nature of the
scientific method is one of its most beautiful features. Just because we don’t have all
the answers about everything that causes cancer and how to cure all kinds of cancer does not mean we won’t have all of those
answers in the future, through the advances of medical science, just as it
has done for many other diseases that once held populations in fear, such
as Polio and Smallpox. Science allows for change and revision based
on new or better evidence acquired through more technologically
sophisticated methods of obtaining data.
But
most importantly, Kevin, science is falsifiable! But religious dogma is not! Religions place their sacred
beliefs on a pedestal and proclaim them untouchable. If there
is evidence that suggests their dogma to be inaccurate then, well …
it’s the evidence that is wrong, not the sacred texts, because the texts
are considered above challenge—It’s the old “God said it, I believe
it, so that settles it!” copout. But
which god, which religion,
and which bible?
Do you see the
problem?
God of the Gaps
KEVIN:
(2)
I was reading National Geographic about the theory of evolution
following along with all the “Ages” and lo and behold there is this
“black hole” or blank spot that they don’t know what happened
but…no matter, “we’ll just pick up sometime later and continue
on!” I’ve always been
puzzled by that.
BRUCE:
Note:
Kevin, if you are going to tell me about “such and such article”
that you read, it would be helpful if you could cite the actual
publication information so that I may refer to the article myself for
verification. I have read dozens of Creationist books
and they have a tendency to just selectively quote what they want and
disregard the underlying themes being presented by scientists. Can
you tell me which NG this article is in?
So
what you are saying, Kevin, is that because science does not currently
have all the answers, then by default that means that there must
be some supernatural
explanations (i.e., God) involved that are beyond the capabilities of
science to unravel, right?
This
is called the “God of the gaps” premise. It is a favorite tactic of
Creationists who use it to attack the findings (or specifically, the unknowns) of science. Where ever there is a so-called
“gap” in our current scientific knowledge THAT is where they insert
God, and by "God" they mean their own professed god!
Just
a few hundred years ago no one understood the physics of lightning and
thunder—there was a “gap” in our scientific understanding—and so
THAT is where superstitious people inserted their gods … “The gods are
angry!” “Zeus did it!” “Thor did it!” But
eventually science solved that mystery, didn’t it, and our knowledge
advanced; we came to understand lightning to be a purely natural
phenomena, and suddenly the supernatural
“gap” was closed. Now we
no longer need those “gods” to explain lightning, just as we don’t
need them to explain volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, meteorites,
floods, tornados, and other natural phenomena. Indeed, through science we have
learned to harness things like electricity and use them to our advantage,
as a springboard for progress.
So
my question to you, Kevin, is this: Have
we reached the end of scientific advancement? Have we learned all we are ever going to know about our world and the universe? Are the “gaps” in our
scientific knowledge today destined to be “gaps” forever? Will the scientists five-hundred
years from now look back at our level of understanding today and proclaim,
“Yup, in the year 2000 they really
had maxed-out science, because we just don’t know any more about the
universe now than they did then, so I guess those ‘gaps’ in our
understanding really must be explained by ‘God’ … Wow! Who’d a’ thunk it?!”
Look
at the amazing developments science has produced in just the last century
alone, Kevin! We’ve gone
from horse drawn carriages to walking on the moon, space stations, nuclear
energy and genetic engineering. Three
of the last four cardiac arrests I have ran on survived because of the
modern medical science we employ—these people would most likely have
died just 20-30 years ago. Science
has progressed our understanding of our world more in the last 150 years
than all of the last 6,000 years combined!
And just 50 years from now our modern medical techniques today are
going to be looked upon as archaic! Give
science a chance, Kevin, it deserves it.
Evolution is "just a
theory"
KEVIN:
(3)
And finally, I remember in school being taught that “science”
is based on someones “theory” that is regarded as truth until someone
else comes along and has a “theory” that disproves the first theory. How convenient…
BRUCE:
Well,
I don’t know who your “science” teacher was, but s/he had a pretty
narrow grasp of the subject if THAT is what you were actually taught—and
worse, if that is ALL you were taught.
I don’t mean this to be offensive, Kevin, but your analogies
belie a serious lack of understanding of both the methods and terminology
employed by scientists.
First
of all, it is imperative that you understand what it takes for a
“hypothesis” to become “theory” in the stringent and unforgiving
world of the scientific method. Just
because Joe scientist comes up with an idea that he feels explains some
observed natural phenomena in nature DOES NOT mean that his idea is
immediately called a “theory.” For
something to become theory in science requires years of intensive testing, prediction,
and peer review (peers check for mistakes in data accuracy, consistency,
repeatability and method), in which it must successfully demonstrate that
it accurately corresponds with the OBSERVED EVIDENCE. In other words, the scientific method works backwards from
the physical empirical evidence that is observed and then hypotheses
are presented that attempt to explain the OBSERVED EVIDENCE.
NOTE:
It’s important to mention that biblical creationism works in the opposite
direction that science does. Rather than observing empirical
evidence (the facts of
nature), they state their bible-based conclusion up front and simply call it “FACT.” From there they attempt to
find selective evidence to try and support their conclusion, while
disregarding all evidence that
does not support their dogma. And
where legitimate scientists publish their findings in peer reviewed
professional journals for critique, the creationists publish their work
in mass media Christian book barns that market to evangelical Christian
organizations and churches, and then they quote each other as
"scientific sources." How convenient …
Hypotheses
are rigorously tested against the evidence and predicted results, and if
the hypotheses continue to pass the tests then they become more robust;
but even here they are still a long way from becoming accepted
“theory.”
The
vast majority of hypotheses fail quickly and are discarded, but the ones
that pass continue on in the testing process (which never ends, by the way). After many years of success in
this cycle, the scientific community (world-wide) slowly begins to accept
the hypothesis as being correct--it doesn't say it is "fact,"
only that it is correct insofar as the available data is concerned. Then, and only then, Kevin, does a
scientific “theory” emerge.
But
it doesn’t stop even there! In
science, not even all theories are considered equal! A theory that has withstood the
rigors of decades, even centuries, of testing is considered in more
confidence than one that is much newer.
Such theories that have stood the test of time are called
“Robust” and these are generally viewed as factual because the
evidence for their correctness is so overwhelming that it would be
exceedingly unlikely for anything to refute them. It is simply not in the vocabulary
of science to call something “fact” because to name it such gives the
impression of dogmatism that is not open to revision, which, of course, is
not conducive to the scientific method.
For
example, Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity is still called a “theory” even though the evidence for
its being factual has done nothing but get stronger over the decades. Gravity, too, is
"just a theory” but we don’t see objects floating in midair
waiting to see if some evidence is going to come along and refute it. And like it or not, Kevin, evolution is another such example
of a “robust” theory. It is so strong, in fact, that if it were wrong then
virtually everything we know from ALL OF OUR NATURAL SCIENCES would also
be wrong, because evolutionary theory is not a specific science in and of
itself like biology, anthropology, paleontology, geology, botany, etc. “Evolution” is the term
science has applied to the empirical
findings of ALL OF THOSE NATURAL SCIENCES in concert as relates to the
origin and development of species!
But
an important thing to remember is that science does allow for the consideration of any and all new evidence,
and if powerful evidence were to come forth that proves evolution wrong
then the theory most certainly would change in accordance with the
evidence! Falsifiability is, in fact, the
cornerstone for progress in science. But the same cannot be said for bible-thumping creationism
pundits! To them the
Judeo-Christian Bible is infallible, the “word of God,” and therefore
beyond question. As such, no
amount of empirical evidence against their dogmatic view will be good
enough for them to admit that their Bible creation tales are nothing more
nor less than myths purported by ancient superstitious peoples trying to
understand their place in the world.
When
creationists appeal to their flocks that “evolution is ‘just a
theory’ ” and that biblical creation is also a “theory,” and thus
it should be given “equal time” in our public school science
classrooms alongside (or even in place of) evolution, they are being
flagrantly disingenuous!
There
is simply no evidence whatsoever
that supports the ridiculous claims purported by creationism that our
universe is a mere 6,000 years old; that men and dinosaurs walked the
earth at the same time; that all species were created in their existing
forms today; and that a massive world-wide flood covered the earth to a
level exceeding even the tallest mountain, wiping out all existence save
the animals a certain Noah and seven other people brought aboard an ark
and tended to for an entire year.
Such
mythological tales are not basis for scientific fact and they have no empirical
evidence to support them; as such, they have no place in a science
class where the natural, physical, world is dealt with—our children
today are already ignorant enough in matters of science without bringing
confusing and diametrically opposed religious dogma into the classroom
discussions.
Private
religious views should be just that, private. There is ample opportunity
for believers to practice their religion in churches, homes, and other
public areas that do not give the appearance of state support or
endorsement.
But
"ALL Christians" discount evolution, don't they?
KEVIN:
I figured ALL
Christians believed the universe is 6,000 years old since we don’t
believe the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Maybe
Im an “ultra-fundamentalist”
BRUCE:
I
have already been through this above, but in your statement you made two
wrong assumptions:
(1)
The fact is, the MAJORITY of Christians DO believe in evolution, Kevin! They simply view it as a mechanism
through which their “God” produced mankind. Even the Pope has publicly
endorsed evolution.
(2)
The MAJORITY of Christians DO NOT believe the universe is only 6,000 years
old! That is absurd! The mere fact that you think such
is the case is probably because you buy into the rhetoric that drips on
you from the pulpits instead of cracking the books.
But
since you do think the universe
is only 6,000 years old (as do Chilly and Tom Winters, btw) then, yes,
that makes you an “ultra-fundamentalist.” And while we’re on the point,
Kevin, perhaps you would like to point out exactly WHERE in the Bible that
such a date is given for the age of the universe! I won’t hold my breath, Kevin,
because THERE IS NO SUCH PASSAGE TO BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE, but I guess no
one ever told you that part.
A
Few Questions of my own
If
you would like to really learn something about evolutionary theory from a more
evidence-based stance, instead of from the fundamentalist Christian
propaganda you have been sold, then I would be delighted to help you any
way I can. If on the other
hand you wish to continue the postulation that not only is creationism
true, but that your professed god “did it,” then I would like for you
to begin your follow-up response by answering the following questions:
If all
things which exist have an exterior influencing cause, what caused your
God?
What
objective evidence provides definitive proof for the existence of your
God? Such proof would have to
be conclusive enough to allow somebody who had never previously heard of
your God to accurately identify him.
Why your God and not any other God?
Why your holy book and not any other
holy book? Remember that
without proof of your God’s existence, the answer “because the Bible
is the Word of God” is a circular reasoning fallacy.
How do we
know that the Bible is accurate in all of its accounts and stories?
Were
“Adam and Eve” created with all of Man’s parasites, including
syphilis, herpes, and HIV already in place?
Explain
the dynamics of the Noachian Flood and how they account for life as we
observe it today.
Why
can’t evolution be a tool for your God? [Note: most Christians do accept evolution as a reality;
it’s a small but boisterous group of Protestant American Christian sects
that wish to eradicate evolution because they perceive it as a threat to
their narrow religious stance]
Why do
chimpanzees and Man share a 98% identical genome if they are not close
evolutionary neighbors?
Explain
how Creationism accounts for the ability of bacteria to develop genetic
resistances to antibiotics.
Explain
why it is that all organisms,
from bacteria to plants to humans, are composed of the same set of 20 amino acids; and more, why the code used to translate
nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is also the same in all organisms.
Explain
how Creationism accounts for the consistent sequence of fossils in strata
from early to most recent. For
example, nowhere on Earth do we find mammals in Devonian (the age of
fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting in strata with dinosaur
remains. Simple unicellular
organisms predate those with multicellular organisms, and invertebrates
precede vertebrates; nowhere has
this sequence been found inverted.
NOTE: If creationism is correct, then there should be no sequence
at all—all organisms should be found coexisting throughout the entire
stratagraphic sequence; but as noted, this simply is not the case.
These
are just a few among a few hundred questions I will have for you to
ponder.
|