Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Two:
Preliminary Application to the Origins
Debate
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Section One – Introduction: Plotting the Road
Ahead
In
our previous section, we discussed several general principles.
In this section, we will discuss a preliminary application
of those principles to the debate about origins, evolution,
and creationism.
We
have now completed a discussion of our 7 essential elements
for clarity and effective examination. During 3 of those segments,
we promised to return and make additional, more practical
comments later on in the study. One of those occasions was
the segment on equity, in which we raised the question of
whether or not creationism should be disqualified on the grounds
that it results from unscientific processes. In our segment
on evidence and interpretation, we talked about how theories
originate and promised to discuss the practical applications
of that information. And finally, in the segment on presuppositions
above, we closed while looking forward to a few illustrative
examples to be given in a later section. In this section,
we will now finish addressing these remaining issues, at which
point we will be ready to move ahead and define each of the
competing theories.
Premature
Dismissal in the Origins Debate:
Is Faith Unscientific? (Part 1)
In
the segment on the issue of equity, we discussed the possibility
of dismissing an opposing view on the grounds that it employs
faulty methodology or at least methodology, which does not
meet the qualifications for a particular field or debate.
In that same segment, we also stated that such a dismissal
is applied unfairly if the disqualifying elements of the opposition’s
methods are not first demonstrated. As we noted during that
segment, this is similar to convicting a person without a
trial. On the other hand, it is quite fair to dismiss a particular
point of view from consideration or debate once the disqualifying
elements of its methods have been demonstrated by examination.
As we noted earlier, the fundamental necessity is that the
dismissal must result from an examination of the contested
points, not before or without such an examination or presentation.
And so we must now, in fact, examine this very question to
find out whether or not creationism can be fairly dismissed
from the debate and from scientific consideration.
There
are perhaps 3 basic grounds that are suggested for dismissing
creationism from scientific consideration. And each one of
these suggestions for dismissal address whether or not the
methodology of creationism is scientific or unfit for science.
The first suggested reason for dismissing creationism is on
the grounds that it is based upon presupposition, what might
be called “blind faith,” rather than being based
upon evidence such as observation and experimentation, as
science should be. The second suggested reason for dismissing
creationism is on the grounds that it is un-falsifiable. And
the third suggested reason for dismissing creationism is on
the grounds that it does not make predictions, which is a
central part of the scientific process. All of these suggestions
for dismissal constitute critiques of creationism on methodological
grounds. In short, its methodology is not compatible with
definitive scientific methodology.
To
be clear up front, it must be stated that if creationism does
indeed originate from unscientific processes, then it truly
should be disqualified from scientific debate and it truly
should be considered outside the realm of science. In order
to conclude whether or not creationism should be dismissed
from scientific consideration on the grounds that it is inherently
unscientific by its very nature, we now turn our attention
to examining these basic criticisms.
The
first criticism of creationism’s methodology is that
creationism is founded and built upon presumption, or “blind
faith,” not evidence. On this point as well, we have
to be candid. If creationism’s conclusions are assumed
on faith, using science only as a crutch after the fact, then
it truly is unscientific and should be dismissed from scientific
consideration and it should not be called science.
But
is this truly the case? Do creationists arrive at the belief
in God before, without, or regardless of considering the evidence?
Central
to this issue is the question of what is meant by the idea
of faith, particularly within the historical Judeo-Christian
religion. If we’re going to pull ourselves out of the
mire and entrenched positions of this longstanding debate,
we need to take the colloquial connotations out of familiar
words and concepts, such as faith, and talk frankly, even
technically, about what we’re saying. By colloquial,
we mean the informal, everyday, or even slang perceptions
about what a term means or how a concept works, which really
exaggerate or distort the true meaning or process.
There
is perhaps no more pertinent example of this than the modern
concept of faith, both within the Christian culture and the
non-Christian culture of our day. First, it is important to
note that faith is simply another word for “belief,”
and this is especially true in the Judeo-Christian tradition,
from which creationism springs. And more to the point, faith
is often thought of as being synonymous with “blind
faith” or assumption. You believe because you don’t
have evidence. Or, you believe in spite of evidence. And that
is what makes it faith, or at least that is the way people
often use the term “faith” in common, everyday
discourse. This can also be called a “pre-suppositional”
approach to faith since it is faith based upon things that
are effectively “presupposed to be true.”
Some
religions, particularly Platonism and eastern religions such
as Hinduism and Buddhism, have historically asserted this
kind of inner, subjective path to belief apart from external
evidence. And as long as “faith” is perceived
as synonymous with “blind faith” or “something
you hold to be true regardless of evidence,” belief
in creationism is disqualified immediately as unscientific
because science requires establishing truth based upon evidence
and testing. And if this is indeed an accurate definition
of Christian faith, then it should in fact be disqualified
as unscientific, because science has to do with conclusions
that can be reached from observation and evidence, not simply
assumed. So, in order to determine if Judeo-Christianity and
creationism should be dismissed as unscientific, we have to
determine if the kind of belief found in Judeo-Christianity
is also this presupposing, inner faith.
As
discussed in detail throughout our “Why Christianity?”
article series, the world’s religions fall into two
distinct categories, with syncretistic religions by definition
being a mixture between those two. The two categories are
Propositional Mysticism and Evidentiary Monotheism. As further
outlined in the study, propositional mystical religions are
defined by their core doctrine that truth is subjective and
learned through inward enlightenment that is independent of
the external realities of the physical, material world. In
fact, the disregard for the external, physical, and material
are neither incidental nor mere analytical characterizations
of these religions. The explicit views of these religions
directly degrade and disregard the role of external experience
in favor subjective, inner discovery when it comes to perceiving
truth.
Evidentiary
Monotheistic religions are fundamentally distinct from Propositional
Mystical religions on this issue. In contrast to mysticism’s
rejection of external evidence in favor of strictly inner
discovery, the evidentiary religions insist upon external
demonstration for all truth claims and subjective, internal
perception is subordinated to what can be objectively known.
What is important to note is that Judaism and Christianity
originated as evidentiary
religions.
However,
despite the evidentiary approach inherent to original, historic
Judeo-Christianity and creationism, it is a simple fact that
many modern Christian sects, perhaps even a very significant
portion of them, now center on a pre-suppositional approach
to truth. The presence of this pre-suppositional approach
in modern Christianity is most recently a product of the influence
of Calvinist (or Reformed) sects, which assert that belief
is something directly inserted into someone by God and kept
their by God’s unilateral action, regardless of evidence.
As an integral part of this doctrine, these sects also reject
the ability of a man to choose God on his own. And consequently,
the prospect of a man deducing God’s existence by observing
external, or objective, evidences is rejected explicitly in
this prominent, modern view.
These
two pre-suppositional teachings do not originate from the
original Judeo-Christian traditions. Instead, their presence
within the modern Christian tradition at large is the result
of Propositional Mysticism influencing later Christian traditions
through syncretistic processes. The mystical doctrine, which
holds that truth is internal and subjective and denies objective
and externally-known truth, comes from Platonism and enters
into the hybrid half-Christian, half-platonic Gnosticism,
and from those roots into the Roman Catholic views asserted
by Ambrose and Augustine in the fourth century. These concepts
were maintained and even further articulated over time until
asserted in their more recognizable, modern form in the Reformed
tradition of John Calvin (from which springs Calvinist theology).
One
of the many unfortunate results of this syncretistic in-flow
of the mystical, subjective approach to knowledge is that
the entire Judeo-Christian tradition is branded as being,
by definition, pre-suppositional, when in fact this is only
the case for later Christian sects who adopted this particular
view of knowledge from non-Judeo-Christian religions. And
one consequence of this unfortunate mislabeling of all Judeo-Christianity
as inherently pre-suppositional is that this characterization
then becomes a basis for charging Judeo-Christianity with
unscientific methodology.
So,
in order to clear up this common, mischaracterization or misperception
of the original Judeo-Christian approach to faith, we have
to examine the earliest Judeo-Christian writings to see how
the religious texts themselves define the religion. On this
point, we might consider Moses and Jesus, the respective founders
of these traditions. Moses did not come simply insisting that
others accept him as God’s messenger or to simply follow
their hearts on the matter. Instead, he gave external signs
to the people of Israel and Egypt.
Exodus 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them,
The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac,
and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited
you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt: 17 And I have said, I will
bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land
of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and
the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a
land flowing with milk and honey. 18 And they shall hearken
to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall
say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with
us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’
journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the
LORD our God…4:1 And Moses answered and
said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not
appeared unto thee. 2 And
the LORD said unto him, What is
that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. 3 And
he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground,
and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the
tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became
a rod in his hand: 5 That
they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared
unto thee. 6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy
bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took
it out, behold, his hand was
leprous as snow. 7 And
he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his
hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom,
and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. 8 And it
shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither
hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe
the voice of the latter sign. 9 And
it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these
two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt
take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest
out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.
Likewise,
Jesus himself is recorded as providing a multitude of external
signs for the very purpose that those signs would demonstrate
the veracity of his claims.
John
5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John:
for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the
same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father
hath sent me.
John
10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto
him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If
thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the
works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness
of me.
And
his disciples after him followed this same pattern, providing
external signs to demonstrate the truth of their message.
Mark
16:20 And they went forth, and preached every
where, the Lord working with them,
and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Hebrews 2:3 How shall we escape, if
we neglect so great salvation;
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was
confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles,
and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
In
fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition is so strong in its rejection
of merely internal, subjective “truth” that other
passages outright condemn “truths” that originate
in men’s hearts only.
Jeremiah 14:14 Then the LORD said unto
me, The prophets prophesy
lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded
them, neither spake unto them: they
prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a
thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Jeremiah 23:16 Thus saith the LORD of
hosts, Hearken not
unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they
make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and
not out of the mouth of the LORD.
Other
passages could be cited in this regard, but there is no need
to be exhaustive. As can be seen clearly from the passages
above, providing external demonstration was a central part
of Judeo-Christian tradition at its very start. Clearly, at
its origin, Judeo-Christianity did not employ or condone a
method for determining truth that centered and relied upon
people’s own internal, subjective impressions or perceptions.
In
fact, the reliance upon external demonstration in the original,
Judeo-Christian tradition can be further broken down into
2 categories of evidence:
1)
Firsthand experience
2)
Eyewitness testimony
The
category of “firsthand experience” can, in turn,
be broken down into 2 subcategories.
A)
Natural experience
B)
Supernatural experience
Natural
experiences can include anything from the world around us
at large, such as the observation of the characteristics of
mountains, the stars, other human beings, etc. to more personal
interactions like having someone steal from you or watching
someone die. All of these are natural phenomena that we experience
throughout our lives.
Furthermore,
the types of information that can be learned from these evidences
also includes 2 closely-related categories:
1)
Theological concepts
2)
Moral rules
To
further substantiate that the earliest Judeo-Christian tradition
relied upon natural experiences of this kind, we consider
the words of Paul in Romans 1-2.
Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness
of God revealed from
faith (4102) to
faith (4102): as it is written, The
just shall live by faith (4102). 18 For the wrath of God
is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because
that which may be known
of God is manifest (5318) in them; for God hath shewed
(5319) it unto them. 20 For
the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Here
Paul speaks the visible world as providing evidence for theological
concepts, such as God’s existence and his ability, “his
eternal power and Godhead.”
It
should also be noted that the Greek word for “faith”
throughout this passage is the Greek word “pistis”
(Strong’s No. 4102), which simply means, “conviction
of the truth of anything.” It is the noun form of the
verb “peitho,” (Strong’s No. 3982), which
means “to persuade.” The noun “pisteuo”
(Strong’s No. 4100) is also derived from it. “Pisteuo”
means “to think to be true, to be persuaded of”
and is translated as “believe” 239 times out of
its 248 occurrences in the New Testament. So, in the New Testament,
faith is simply the English translation of a Greek noun meaning,
“belief.”
And
what kind of faith or belief does Paul say the just will live
by? How does Paul say that the just should be persuaded? In
verse 19, Paul speaks of the truths of God being “manifest”
and “shown” to men. The Greek word for “manifest”
is “phaneros” (Strong’s No. 5318), which
means, “apparent, manifest, evident, and plainly recognized
or known.” The word for “showed” in the
phrase, “God showed it to them,” is the Greek
word “phaneroo” (Strong’s No. 5319), which
means, “to make manifest or visible” or “to
be plainly recognized.”
But
how are the truths of God being made visible or plainly recognizable
to men? Verse 20 tells us plainly that the truths of God “are
clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood
by the things that are made.” So, according to Paul,
the created world itself is the manifest, or evident, demonstration
of the truths of God. The just will be persuaded by the evidences
available in the created world from the beginning. And it
is because the truths of God are evident and evidenced by
creation that in verse 20, Paul says the disbelieving are
“without excuse.” They are without excuse because
the evidence by which they were to be persuaded, which they
were to believe, was apparent and manifest all around them
in the created world. For Paul, a devout Jewish man who converted
to the earliest form of Christianity, faith is not a groundless
faith or a faith where you presuppose God’s existence.
Faith was a matter of believing that for which there was ample
physical evidence, even the entire world itself and all that
was in it.
As
he continues his discussion that the truths of God are revealed
to man first in the natural, created world, Paul goes on to
state that sexual morality is revealed by the physical structure
of the male and the female body. By doing so, Paul clearly
places morality in the category of truths deduced from objective
observations, not one’s own subjective opinion.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed
the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like
to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their
own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,
who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave
them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural
use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned
in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence
of their error which was meet.
These
simply are not the arguments and appeals of a man who believes
that truth is learned through subjective perception rather
than external evidence. Instead, these are appeals and arguments
based upon what is externally, observable.
Furthermore,
concerning the central doctrine of resurrection, God himself
puts Abraham into an external situation to force Abraham to
ponder the experience of death and the deductions that can
be made from it.
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered
up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up
his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in
Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting
(2049) that God was
able to raise him up, even from the dead; from
whence also he received him in a figure.
The
Greek word translated as “accounting” here in
Hebrews 11 is “logizomai” (Strong’s No.
3049), which means to “to count up or weigh the reasons,
to deliberate, to reckon up all the reasons.” When God
wanted to put Abraham to a test, he commanded Abraham to kill
his son Isaac. Faced with the experience of his son’s
death, Abraham deliberated and pondered these things and the
result was his belief, or faith, that God could raise Isaac
from the dead. Even in such matters, what a man believes is
depicted as being a result of contemplating the things he
experiences, in this case, human death.
In
addition to natural experiential evidence, in the original
Judeo-Christian tradition there is also supernatural experiential
evidence. Supernatural experiences include events that suspend,
reverse, or otherwise override the natural norms that we call
“the laws of nature.” Darkness throughout the
day time and only in particular areas, walking on water, multiplying
loaves and fishes, resurrecting the dead, the ability to see
the future as well as the past – these are just a few
prominent examples of supernatural evidences. The above quotes
concerning the miracles of Moses, Jesus, and Jesus’
disciples are examples of this kind of experiential proof.
But it is important to note that supernatural experiences
are always depicted in scripture as occurring in the external,
objective world, never as mere subjective, mental or inner
experiences of one individual.
Some
men did experience God directly. Moses and even Adam are just
a few chief examples. And the description in the text of scripture
is that even in these experiences, such men saw proof that
the being they were encountering was the Creator. As we saw
earlier, in Exodus 4, Moses petitions God for proofs, which
God then immediately provides in the form of supernatural
events right in front of Moses, including striking Moses’
hand with leprosy and healing it as well as turning Moses’
staff into a serpent and then turning it back.
Likewise,
Adam also himself saw proof of the Creator firsthand. Chapter
2 of Genesis provides an expanded, more detailed account of
the creation of Adam on Day 6 of the creation week.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good. 22
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the
fifth day. 24 And
God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after
his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing
that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that
it was good. 26 And God said,
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth. 27 So God created
man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him; male and female created
he them.
Genesis 1 clearly records that God created the birds on Day 5 and all the land animals on Day 6 before the creation of man. But, in Genesis 2, after He makes Adam, God once again created both the birds and land animals right in front of Adam while standing there in the Garden of Eden.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of
the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And
the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there
he put the man whom he had formed…15 And
the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of
Eden to dress it and to keep it…18 And the LORD
God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an
help meet for him. 19 And
out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them
unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever
Adam called every living creature, that was
the name thereof.
Having
seen the creatures all around him, Adam was then shown how
these creatures came to be when God himself made some more
of those same creatures before Adam’s very eyes. Adam
saw proof that there was a Creator and he saw proof that the
being interacting with him was that Creator. While it is true
that as human beings living today, scientists cannot make
an experiment where they observe “in a laboratory”
God recreating the original creation of life, there is however
a historic record of one man who did observe “in a garden”
God recreating the original recreation of life. We cannot
recreate the origin of life, but God could and he did in front
of man for one man to observe. We have to consider the possibility
that we might have this information about the creation of
the world because someone was there who did see proofs and
who did recount it so that it was passed down to us. And we
have to thoughtfully consider the criteria by which we evaluate
this prospect.
Here
is where we arrive at the role of eyewitness testimony as
evidence. And as we can see explicitly in the case of Moses
in Exodus 4, God’s intention was that those who did
have such supernatural experiential proofs would testify to
others about them.
It
is important to note the striking one-to-one comparison here
between how modern men come to believe in the latest scientific
news and how the role that the Judeo-Christian tradition expects
eyewitness testimony to play. What percentage of average people
or even other scientists actually get to see any particular
scientific experiment firsthand or verify its results themselves?
Very, very few – a handful at most. The rest of us just
read about those experiments in peer reviews, science journals,
popular scientific magazines, or textbooks or we hear about
them through the modern “oral tradition” that
we call the TV or radio news. And yet, although we don’t
see the experiments ourselves, we believe the testimony of
those who relay them to us, even though they themselves are
many times removed from the actual experiment that proved
or supported the particular scientific discovery.
While
creationists are often criticized as having a system where
“truth” is dictated by “authorities”
or as simply believing “what the Bible says” or
“what our pastor says,” it is impossible to overlook
that the exact same parallel is taking place when it comes
to evolutionary science or any other information that we hear
for that matter. The scientific academia represents “an
authority” that dictates the truth to people just as
much as religious leaders of the past do. “What our
teachers told us” and “what our textbooks said”
are just as often the basis for belief in evolution. What
we hear as on the news or the moral viewpoints we hear expressed
by authority figures or pop icons are accepted in the same
manner than many Christians today uncritically swallow whatever
they hear from the pulpit, without research or second thought.
Our
point here is not that anyone should automatically accept
anyone’s credibility, but instead that we understand
the criteria that determine the credibility of a person and
the credibility of the information they relay. Nor is it our
point that we should believe every piece of information that
is relayed to us or that we should only believe that which
we experience first hand. In truth, we would believe almost
nothing if our level of skepticism were that high, and in
knowing nothing, our ability to function and make decisions
would virtually disappear whenever it required information
beyond our direct, personal experience. Moreover, it is simply
reality that no one operates on that level of skepticism.
We all operate daily on information that we hear from those
around us. No one simply throws out all eyewitness testimony
or even all secondhand testimony. Instead, we selectively
accept some and reject others. The question is whether or
not our selection criteria are well-thought-out, rational,
and consistent. How do we scrutinize what we hear? By what
criteria do we decide what information is reliable and what
information is not reliable? Ultimately, it’s a question
of how we each determine “who is credible?” And
that’s a question that most of us don’t ever stop
to think about.
In
answering these questions, there are 2 criteria that must
be considered.
First,
is the person relaying the information in a position to know
what they are attesting to? Is one person in a better position
than another? Here, firsthand testimony becomes crucial because,
of all the people in a position to tell us what actually took
place, the people who saw it for themselves are the most qualified.
That does not rule out second hand testimony, but it simply
identifies the relative value that the actual observer has
over anyone who wasn’t an observer.
Second,
what potential corroborating or rebuttal evidence is available?
Very often, we don’t have access to the unique events
that are reported to us but we evaluate their legitimacy based
upon common experiences that we have had. It is the combination
and interplay between these 2 criteria that allow us to justifiably
or unjustifiably discount firsthand testimony because it conflicts
with things that we already know or to accept even secondhand
testimony because it does fit with what we already know.
And
the Judeo-Christian tradition is no different in this regard.
Not every person experiences supernatural proofs themselves.
This is the function of eyewitness testimony. Those who have
had such experiences relay them to others. And those who hear
the testimony weigh the report to determine if it is credible
or not. And the primary way to verify the report is compare
it to what we can and do experience and observe. Here again,
Paul’s comments in Romans 1 provide an excellent example.
Paul himself claims to have had supernatural experiences in
the external world, which others could also observe. The New
Testament recounts that at other times, Paul himself worked
miracles to demonstrate the veracity of his teachings. But
here he is writing a letter, and so the potential to make
a supernatural demonstration to his audience is somewhat constrained.
So, what does Paul do? He appeals to natural, observable experiences.
The natural, observable experiences available to his audience
serve as the basis for evaluating Paul’s testimony to
them.
Likewise,
Paul isn’t standing before us today. Yet his testimony
remains. He claims to be an eyewitness to some extraordinary
events. And all that we have to evaluate the veracity of his
claims are the natural experiences and observations. And this
brings us to the conclusion of this segment.
Replete
in its most-revered writings and present from its earliest
days, the Judeo-Christian tradition asserts that belief should
be based upon the following combination of evidences: 1)
supernatural experiential evidence, 2)
natural experiential evidence, and 3)
eyewitness testimony. Not all of us have access to the first,
but by careful consideration of the second, we can evaluate
the third. And on that note, it is not necessary for every
one of us to have supernatural experiences any more than it
is necessary for everyone one of us to be present or perform
the scientific experiments, news events, or world history
that we hear about and believe year after year. We will never
be in a position to experience every event ourselves in order
to believe it. Instead, we simply need to listen to the report
and consider it in comparison to the evidence that is available
to us.
The
unfortunate misperception of the Judeo-Christian tradition
as one of pre-suppositional or blind faith is demonstrably
false. This is only the case for later Christian sects who
adopted this particular view of knowledge from non-Judeo-Christian
religions. In light of the historical facts, however, only
the later, more recent Christian sects who’ve adopted
mysticism’s view of belief and truth should be disqualified
from scientific discourse. Those Christians that hold to the
objective, evidence-based view of knowledge and belief found
in the earliest Judeo-Christian tradition, employ an inherently
scientific methodology and always have from the very beginning.
Yet ultimately, the presence of subjective, pre-suppositional
belief in some modern Christian sects due to the syncretistic
influence of mystical religions does not negate the historical
fact that the basis for original Judeo-Christianity and the
creationist model is an evidentiary approach that is expressly
compatible with the scientific method. So, since the creationist
model arises out of an evidentiary approach, it cannot be
rejected on the grounds that it is unscientific because it
is based upon presupposition.
Premature Dismissal in the Origins Debate:
Is Faith Unscientific? (Part 2)
As
we stated in our previous segment, there are 3 basic grounds,
which are suggested for dismissing creationism from scientific
consideration. Having now covered the first criticism, we
will now move on to the second. The second suggested reason
for dismissing creationism is on the grounds that it is un-falsifiable.
The issue of “falsifiability” is a new topic to
this study. So, we will need to take our time to explain and
explore it.
Modern
science and most modern scientists subscribe to the necessity
for any theory to be demonstrated by empirical means. Empiricism
involves the acquiring of knowledge or information by means
of actual experience and observations.
“Empiricism
– in philosophy, the
attitude that beliefs are to be accepted and acted upon only
if they first have been confirmed by actual experience.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Empiricism
– a philosophical
approach that views experience as the most important source
of knowledge. It is the philosophical outlook of most scientists.
Empiricists try to answer as many questions as possible
by using information
gathered by the senses.” – Worldbook Encyclopedia,
Contributor: W. W. Bartley, III, Ph.D., Former Senior Research
Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace,
Stanford University.
The
requirement of empiricism is at the heart of the scientific
method itself, and rightly so. Furthermore, empiricism is,
in turn, connected with “falsifiability,” another
closely-related aspect of the scientific method.
“Falsifiability”
was first proposed as a criterion for valid science by Sir
Karl Raimond Popper. Popper lived from 1902-1994, was born
in Austria, and later moved to England due to the rise of
the Nazis. Popper’s field of expertise was philosophy
of science and during his time teaching the scientific method
in London, he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, which provides
some indication of his prominence and contributions in that
field.
“Popper,
Karl Raimund – Popper, Karl Raimund (1902-1994),
was an Austrian-born philosopher whose central concern was
analyzing the nature of science…Popper was
born in Vienna, Austria, and taught there until 1937, when
he left the country because of the rise of the Nazis. He
served as professor of logic and scientific method
at the London School of Economics and Political Science
from 1949 to 1969. Queen Elizabeth II knighted
him in 1965, making him Sir Karl Popper.” –
Worldbook, Contributor: Ivan Soll, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy,
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Not
only was Popper’s “central concern” evaluating
“the nature of science,” but within that concern
Popper was chiefly focused on distinguishing between science
and non-science, between what was and was not scientifically
valid. And, according to Popper, the distinction between what
is science and what is not science is the criterion of falsifiability.
“Popper,
Sir Karl Raimund – (1902-1994), Austrian-born British
philosopher of science, known
for his theory of scientific method and for his criticism
of historical determinism...Popper's most significant contribution to
the philosophy of science was his characterization of the
scientific method. In The
Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934; trans. 1959), he
criticized the prevailing view that science is fundamentally
inductive in nature. Proposing
a criterion of testability, or falsifiability, for scientific
validity, Popper emphasized the hypothetico-deductive
character of science.” – "Popper, Sir Karl
Raimund," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Popper,
Karl Raimund – Popper
wanted to mark the boundary between scientific and nonscientific
accounts of the physical, psychological, and social world.
Nonscientific accounts include those offered by astrology, mythology,
and some forms of traditional philosophy and religion.
This approach connects Popper with two
overlapping philosophical movements, Logical Positivism and
Empiricism. Philosophers representing
these movements argue that meaningful scientific
accounts differ from nonscientific ones in that only the scientific
can be tested by experience.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Ivan Soll, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, University
of Wisconsin, Madison.
“Positivism,
Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism, The earlier Positivism
of Viennese heritage, The verifiability criterion of meaning
and its offshoots – It was in coming to this juncture
in his critique of Positivism that Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher
of science, in his Logik der Forschung (1935; The Logic of
Scientific Discovery, 1959), insisted
that the meaning criterion should be abandoned and replaced
by a criterion of demarcation between empirical (scientific)
and transempirical (nonscientific, metaphysical) questions
and answers—a criterion that, according to Popper, is to be testability, or, in
his own version, falsifiability; i.e., refutability. Popper
was impressed by how easy it is to supposedly verify all sorts
of assertions—those of psychoanalytic theories seemed
to him to be abhorrent examples. But the decisive feature, as Popper
saw it, should be whether
it is in principle conceivable that evidence could be cited
that would refute (or disconfirm) a given law, hypothesis,
or theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
“Empiricism,
Criticism and evaluation, Criticism and evaluation –
One important philosopher of science, Karl
Popper, has rejected the inductivism that views the growth
of empirical knowledge as the result of a mechanical routine
of generalization. To him it is falsifiability by experience
that makes a statement empirical.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
As
the quotes above attest, according to Popper, for a theory
to be considered scientific, it had to be possible for that
the theory to be disproved by empirical evidence. This did
not mean a theory had to be actually disproved, but merely
that it would be at least possible for evidence to exist,
which could disprove it. If it wasn’t at least theoretically
possible that a particular idea could be disproved by empirical
evidence, then that idea fell outside the realm of science
because such an idea was not grounded or bound by any form
of sensory experience or observation. Consequently, how could
it be tested? How could it be verified to be actually, objectively
true or not?
This
is a fair and reasonable criterion, not just for science,
but for decision-making in general. And, as covered previously,
it must be pointed out that such a criterion does not conflict
with the evidentiary approach to truth discovery that underlies
the Judeo-Christian tradition.
As
we turn out attention back to Popper’s assertions, we
can see that in order to be considered scientific, there has
to exist at least the theoretical possibility for it to be
falsified. As we mentioned above, empiricism is the approach
of most scientists today.
“Empiricism
– a philosophical
approach that views experience as the most important source
of knowledge. It is the philosophical outlook of most scientists.”
– Worldbook Encyclopedia, Contributor: W. W. Bartley,
III, Ph.D., Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution
on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University.
It
is also true the Popper’s criterion of “falsifiability”
is the view and methodology of “many working scientists
today.”
“Science,
philosophy of, Historical development, The 20th-century debate:
Positivists versus historians – Meanwhile, the qualified
Realism of Planck and Hertz was carried further by such men
as Norman Campbell, an English physicist known for his sharpening
of the distinction between laws and theories, and Karl
Popper, an Austro-English philosopher recognized for his theory
of falsifiability, both of whose views reflect the explicit
methodology of many working scientists today.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Furthermore,
in its article on “Science,” Worldbook Encyclopedia
actually incorporates into its definition of science Popper’s
distinction between science, as something which can be tested
for errors, from non-science, which cannot be tested for errors.
“Science
– A theory
developed by a scientist cannot
be accepted as part of scientific knowledge until it has been
verified by the studies of other researchers. In fact,
for any knowledge to
be truly scientific, it must be repeatedly tested experimentally
and found to be true. This
characteristic of science sets it apart from other branches
of knowledge. For example, the humanities, which include
religion, philosophy, and the arts, deal with ideas about
human nature and the meaning of life. Such ideas cannot be scientifically proved.
There is no test that tells whether a philosophical system
is "right." No one can determine scientifically
what feeling an artist tried to express in a painting. Nor
can anyone perform an experiment to check for an error in a poem or a symphony.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Joseph W. Dauben, Ph.D., Professor of History
and the History of Science, City University of New York.
Since
the criteria of falsifiability has been so popularly incorporated
into the scientific method, it is no surprise to find that
belief in God is often categorized as “unscientific”
on the grounds that God transcends (or exists beyond) the
universe and, therefore, is not subject to empirical verification
or falsification. Effectively, there is no way to even theoretically
disprove the existence of a transcendent God through empirical
means.
In
fact, in their article on “Athiesm,” Britannica
Encyclopedia provides an atheistic criticism that the existence
of God cannot be experimentally and empirically “confirmed
or disconfirmed.”
“Atheism,
Atheism and metaphysical beliefs – In coming to
understand what is meant by “God” in such discourses,
it must be understood that God, whatever else he is, is a
being that could not possibly be seen or be in any way else
observed. This, in effect, makes it a mistake to claim that the existence of God can rightly be treated
as a hypothesis and makes it a
mistake to claim that, by the use of the experimental method
or some other determinate empirical method, the existence
of God can be confirmed or disconfirmed as can the existence
of an empirical reality…God could not be a reality whose presence
is even faintly adumbrated in experience, for anything
that could even count as the
God of Judeo-Christianity must be transcendent to the world.
Anything that could
actually be encountered or experienced could not be God…But
then there is no way,
directly or indirectly, that even the probability that there
is a God could be empirically established.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
It
is worth noting that Britannica is here simply recording the
atheistic arguments, not making those arguments. Of course,
theists take issue with the atheistic line of reasoning presented
in this article by Britannica. But the point is that the language
in the quote reflects Britannica’s own description of
Popper’s criterion of falsifiability, which also used
the wording that, in order to be scientific, it has to at
least be possible for a theory to be “disconfirmed”
by evidence.
“Positivism,
Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism, The earlier Positivism
of Viennese heritage, The verifiability criterion of meaning
and its offshoots – But the decisive
feature, as Popper saw it, should be whether it is in
principle conceivable that evidence could be cited that would
refute (or disconfirm) a given law, hypothesis, or theory.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
Likewise,
in its article on the topic of “God,” Microsoft
Encarta also includes similar statements about how empiricism
rules out the ability to affirm or deny (confirm or disconfirm)
the existence of God, which consequently, would render the
idea of God to be “unscientific.”
“God,
V Grounds for Belief, A Varieties of Disbelief –
Arguments against belief in God are as numerous as arguments
for it. Atheists absolutely deny the existence of God…Positivists
believe that rational inquiry is restricted to questions of
empirical fact, so that it is meaningless either to affirm
or deny the existence of God (see Positivism).”
– "God," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Fundamentally,
the substance of this study is to take issue with assessment
found in Britannica’s article on “Atheism,”
which states that not “even a probability” of
God’s existence can be either “directly or indirectly”
established “empirically.” One of the purposes
of this study is to examine the empirical evidence and establish
the extent to which it does, at least indirectly, provide
a strong and reasonable probability, if not a necessity, for
the existence of God.
At
this point we should note that creationists agree that the general idea of God cannot be tested
or falsified. For example, in his presentation, “Scientific
Evidences for a Young Earth,” creationist Thomas Kindall
gives the following assessment.
“Science
cannot prove that there is no God. You’d have to have
universal knowledge, omniscience, to prove there is no God.
Thus, you would have the attributes of God. Thus, you would
be God. Thus, if you could prove there was no God, you’d
be God. God would, therefore, exist. It would be a self-refuting
logical argument…So, they can’t prove God doesn’t
exist. It could be. And science can’t pass judgment
on whether this is true or not because it’s limited.
It can’t test everything and it can’t test the
past. Because of this, it could be that there is a God and
He is the God of the Bible.” – “Scientific
Evidences for a Young Earth,” Thomas Kindall, Seattle
Creation Conference 2004, Copyright Northwest Creation Network,
nwcreation.net, 1 minute, 10 seconds
Ultimately
whether or not the general idea of God is directly falsifiable
is not really all that consequential to the debate for 2 reasons.
First, even if the general idea of God is deemed to be non-scientific
on the grounds that it is not “falsifiable” by
empirical means, creationism and evolution are on equal footing
because, whether the first cause is claimed to be a supernatural
being or an impersonal force or process of some kind, no matter
what form they take, first causes cannot be tested, repeated
in a lab, or falsified and so must be indirectly demonstrated
to be the most reasonable conclusion on the basis of the parts
of the theories that can be tested and falsified. This leads
directly to the next point.
Second,
even if the general idea of God is deemed to be non-scientific
on the grounds that it is not “falsifiable” by
empirical means, creationism is scientific. Here we need to
explain. Perhaps contrary to popular belief, creationism is
not simply the idea that a God exists. That is theism. While
creationism certainly asserts the existence of God and is
therefore a form of theism, creationism is more specific.
Creationism doesn’t merely assert that a God exists,
but instead creationism is specifically the assertion that
God is necessary as a Creator. It is certainly true that
if “God” is left simply as some undefined, transcendent
being beyond the universe, then truly such a vague concept
of God cannot be disproved. But, identifying God as Creator
takes the concept of God from merely a transcendent and undetectable
being and makes him detectable by means of his interaction
through his creative work in the universe.
As
indicated in a previous quote from Britannica, the reason
for this is the issue of transcendence. In contrast to pantheism,
in theism, including Judeo-Christian theism, God is viewed
as existing outside the material, created universe. Thus,
he is said to transcend it. If this is all that is included
in the definition of God, simply that he is outside the universe,
then how can God’s existence be tested for or falsified?
He exists outside the material world, so we won’t find
Him by looking at material things. A definition of God in
which God is solely defined as “beyond the universe”
leaves no traces of God’s existence in the material
universe. But, creationism doesn’t simply leave the
definition of God here, nor does the Judeo-Christian tradition
in which creationism is found.
From
its earliest statements, the Judeo-Christian tradition has
defined God as the necessary Creator of the universe. This
ties the definition of God directly to the characteristics
of the universe. In particular, this definition of God makes
the claim that the universe will have characteristics that
require foresight in order to exist as they do. While the
assertion, “God exists” cannot be falsified because
it provides no predictions or claims about evidence for God,
what about the much more defined hypothesis “The characteristics
of the universe necessitate a cause that has intelligent foresight”?
Is that hypothesis equally un-falsifiable? Certainly not.
A
definition of God as the necessary and purposeful Creator
of the universe is sufficiently well-defined to make predictions
and claims that can be compared to the evidence and, therefore,
potentially falsified. If the evidence (the observable characteristics
in the universe) are explainable in terms of automatic, routine
processes that proceed without foresight, then the necessity
of an intelligent, foresighted cause will be disproved and
falsified. And the converse is also true. If the characteristics
of the universe exist in such a way that their formation defies
automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight
or defies even the probability for such automatic, routine
causes, then the necessity of intelligent foresight will be
upheld as a property of the universe’s cause. Consequently,
the initial Judeo-Christian presentation of God as the necessary
creator of the universe is both falsifiable in principle and
potentially provable by the evidence.
So,
as might be said for all potential scientific theories, falsifiability
is a function of how well defined a theory is. A theory that
is so poorly defined that it makes no predictions or claims
that can be compared to actual evidence is un-falsifiable.
This is the case with the extremely undefined, simple statement
that “a God exists.” It is so vaguely asserted
that it doesn’t define any particular relationship to
the evidence. Therefore, this statement exists apart from
evidence. But defining God as the necessary intelligent purposeful
creator does make predictions and claims concerning the evidence,
placing it well within the realm of falsifiability. And Christians
and creationists should not be afraid to admit that objective
evidence could disprove the need for God as a Creator. If
that is the case, then we should not believe in something
for which there is no evidence. Furthermore, a God for whom
there is no evidence is not the God of the Bible anyway, since
as we have seen from start to finish the Bible clearly presents
God as a God whose existence is clearly manifest and evidenced
by the created world, objectively visible all around us, just
as the Apostle Paul argues in Romans 1. In short, if God is
not provable by objective evidence in the created world, then
the Biblical depiction of God is wrong anyway since it claims
repeatedly that he is. In which case, we are left with the
subjective form of God found in mysticism, whose reality is
a matter of only internal conviction, not external reality.
Effectively,
a theory becomes un-falsifiable when its claims become detached
from the evidence. This happens in one of 2 ways. First, when
a theory’s primary claims are defined in such a way
that they have no relationship to the observable evidence,
such as the general idea “a God exists who transcends
the universe.” Or second, when the theory itself is
accepted despite the fact that its primary claims have been
disproved by the evidence. When we consider whether or not
creationism is a theory that is detached from the evidence
in either of these ways, we find out that it clearly is not.
Regarding
the second scenario, in our previous section, we established
that the historical Judeo-Christian tradition including its
writings is a worldview, which asserts that all beliefs, including
belief in God the Creator, must be arrived at on the basis
of the evidence not without regard for the evidence. Consequently,
creationism (which is a part of the Judeo-Christian worldview)
is not a theory which asks to be accepted even when its primary
claims have been disproved by the observable evidence. But
more to the point, in order for a worldview to be un-falsifiable,
it would have to be shown that adherents to that worldview
admit that they hold to it no matter what the evidence says.
In other words, to prove that creationism is guilty of this
kind of un-falsifiability, you’d have to show quotes
from creationists affirming that the evidence doesn’t
fit with creationism’s central claims but asserting
that creationism is true anyway. This would certainly be the
case for members of religions that assert a basis in subjective,
mystical revelation, or of syncretistic Christianity which
has borrowed this pre-suppositional approach from mystical
relations. But it cannot be said for historical Judeo-Christianity,
which from its beginning is replete with an emphatic insistence
on the objective evidence demanding belief in its Creator
God. On this point, creationists dispute the suggestion that
any evidence has been found, which disproves the central creationist
claim that a Creator God is necessary for the universe to
exist as we observe it today. Consequently, since historical
creationism argues for how the evidence actually supports
the central claims of their view, it becomes impossible to
regard creationism as un-falsifiable on the grounds that its
adherents accept it regardless of what the evidence indicates
about it.
Regarding
the first scenario, the suggestion that creationism might
be un-falsifiable on the grounds that its claim have no relationship
to the observable evidence, we have already demonstrated that
this is not true since creationism’s defining element
is the assertion that the characteristics of the universe
demonstrate a need for foresight, and therefore, the need
for an intelligent cause. This general claim is testable.
But a few examples will further suffice to demonstrate the
falsifiability of creationist theory.
By
tracing the ancestry records in Genesis 5 and 11, and adding
those numbers to later Biblical statements about the duration
of major time periods, it is easy to calculate that according
to the Bible, the earth is only about six thousand years old.
In another example, verses 11-12, 20-22, and 24-25 of Genesis
1 state that all the plants and the animals multiply “after
their kind.” New kinds of plants and animals do not
emerge from previous kinds. The following 2 quotes attest
to the fact that the majority of creationists hold to these
notions that the universe was created in six days about six
thousand years ago and that each kind of animal reproduces
the same kind without evolving into new species.
“Creationism,
I INTRODUCTION – In the second half of the 20th
century, the most visible and politically active creationists
maintained that the
entire universe was created within the past 6000 to 10,000
years…II EARLY VIEWS ON CREATION – Despite
mounting evidence of the great antiquity of life on earth
(see Paleontology), many
Christians continued to accept the traditional biblical account
of a relatively recent six-day creation in the Garden
of Eden, culminating in the appearance of Adam and Eve.”
– "Creationism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Creationism,
Creationist beliefs – Strict creationists take the
Biblical story of the Creation literally. They
believe that God created the universe just thousands of years
ago, and that He created all life forms within six 24-hour
days…All creationists believe that each species
(type of life form) on earth has remained relatively unchanged
since the Creation, and that no species has evolved from any
other.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Raymond
A. Eve, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of Texas,
Arlington.
However,
the Biblical assertion of the age of the earth is said to
be disproved, among other things, by geologic evidences (such
as the geologic column and radiometric dating) and astronomical
considerations (such as the billions of years it takes starlight
to reach the earth). For instance, the quotes below establish
the modern evolutionary understanding that light not only
takes billions of years to reach the earth, but also that
the age of the universe can be calculated in billions of years
based upon this factor.
The
age of the universe is measured using the following line of
reasoning. First, there is a simple, physical phenomenon that
the wavelengths of sound or light become longer if the source
of the wave and the observer of that wave are moving away
from each other. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler Effect
and it is occurring with regard to the light from stars. As
observed from earth, the light from stars is longer in wavelength,
shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This shift toward
the longer, red wavelengths indicates that the star, the source
of the light, is moving away from the earth.
“Doppler
effect – the apparent difference between the frequency
at which sound or light waves leave a source and
that at which they reach
an observer, caused by relative
motion of the observer and the wave source…The following
is an example of the Doppler effect: as one approaches a blowing
horn, the perceived pitch is higher until the horn is reached
and then becomes lower as the horn is passed. Similarly,
the light from a star, observed from the Earth, shifts toward
the red end of the spectrum (lower frequency or longer
wavelength) if
the Earth and star are receding from each other and toward
the violet (higher frequency or shorter wavelength) if they
are approaching each other. The Doppler effect is used in studying the motion of stars and to
search for double stars and is
an integral part of modern theories of the
universe. See also
red shift.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
As
indicated by the quote above and the quote below, this manifestation
of the Doppler Effect with regard to the light from stars
is known as “red shift.”
“Red
shift – displacement of the spectrum of an astronomical
object toward longer (red) wavelengths. It is generally attributed
to the Doppler effect, a change in wavelength that results
when a given source
of waves (e.g., light or radio waves) and an observer are in rapid motion with respect to each other.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Taking
note of the red shift in starlight, an astronomer named Edwin
Hubble established that the Doppler Effect was occurring in
starlight because the stars, the source of the light waves,
are moving away from the earth, the place where the waves
are observed. Consequently, the fact that the stars are moving
away from the earth establishes that the universe is expanding.
Moreover, red shift is central to the Big Bang theory, which
is based upon the concept that the universe is expanding.
“Redshift
– In 1929, the
American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the farther
a galaxy is from Earth, the larger its redshift and thus the
faster it is moving away. Hubble's discovery indicated that
the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is
a key part of the big bang theory, the modern theory of
the beginning of the universe. According
to this theory, all space expanded from a hot, dense,
pointlike concentration called a
singularity.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Wendy
Freedman, Ph.D., Astronomer, Observatories of the Carnegie
Institution of Washington.
Furthermore,
based upon the measurement of the redshift in the light from
distant galaxies, scientists have been able to establish a
consistent relationship between the distance of galaxies and
their speed of movement. This relationship is known as Hubble’s
constant and it is designated by the letter “H.”
“Hubble's
constant – in cosmology, constant
of proportionality in the relation between the velocities
of remote galaxies and their distances. It
expresses the rate at which the universe is expanding.
It is denoted by the symbol H and named in honour of Edwin Hubble,
the American astronomer who attempted in 1929 to measure its
value.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
This
constant rate of expansion, which is based upon the phenomenon
of red shift, is then used to determine the age of the universe.
“Hubble
constant – Hubble constant is a
measure of the rate of expansion of the universe. Astronomers
use this number in estimating the age of the universe.”
– World Book 2005 (Deluxe)
The
quote below from Britannica Encyclopedia mentions the “reciprocal
of Hubble’s constant.” “Reciprocal”
simply means “inverse” or “opposite.”
It is derived from the verb “reciprocate,” which
in this sense means, “to move forward and backward alternately.”
“Reciprocal
– 1a: inversely
related: opposite.” – Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary
“Reciprocate
– intransitive senses 1:
to make a return for something 2:
to move forward and backward alternately.”
– Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
So,
since Hubble’s constant indicates how much the universe
moves apart as time moves forward, the reciprocal of Hubble’s
constant indicates how much closer together the parts of the
universe were in the past. And if we go far enough back into
the past, effectively, all the parts of the universe come
together around 10 to 20 billion years ago, depending upon
the exact figure that is used for Hubble’s constant.
“Hubble's
constant – The reciprocal of Hubble's constant lies
between 10 billion and 20 billion years, and
this cosmic time scale serves as an approximate measure of
the age of the universe.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Consequently,
the entire age of the universe is calculated according to
the phenomenon of red shift, which itself depends upon the
distance of stars and the speed at which their light travels
to the earth. We will discuss this means of dating the universe
in greater detail later on in our study. For now, our point
is merely this. The distance of stars and the speed at which
their light travels to the earth are understood to be evidence
disproving the Bible’s assertion that the earth and
the universe are only about six thousand years old.
Similarly,
the Biblical model that kinds only reproduce their own kind
is said to be disproved by such empirical evidences as the
fossil record and morphology (similar structure shared by
distinct organisms), which are asserted as proof of evolution’s
central theme that new species evolve from distinct, preceding
species. For instance, the quote below includes references
to empirical evidence from Paleontology, which contradicts
“relatively recent, six-day creation” described
in Genesis as well as references to “analogous physical
structures across many different species” as empirical
evidence that all species descended by evolutionary changes
from a single, common ancestor.
“Creationism,
II EARLY VIEWS ON CREATION – Before
English naturalist Charles Darwin published On the Origin
of Species in 1859, most people in the West-including
the great majority of scientists-accepted creationism in some
form, although they rarely used that term to describe their
views. Despite mounting
evidence of the great antiquity of life on earth (see
Paleontology), many Christians continued to accept the traditional
biblical account of a relatively recent six-day creation
in the Garden of Eden, culminating in the appearance of Adam
and Eve. Writing in 1852, American commentator William B.
Hayden estimated that one-half of the Christian public remained
loyal to the traditional view; the other half had adopted
one or the other of two popular reinterpretations of the creation
account in the biblical book of Genesis. These reinterpretations
permitted Christians to accept the accumulating paleontological
evidence without abandoning their faith…III DARWIN
AND EVOLUTION – Darwin nevertheless left room for an
initial act of creation: "I believe that animals have
descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and
plants from an equal or lesser number," he wrote at the
conclusion of his book. He added that the presence of analogous
physical structures across many different species implied
"that probably all the organic beings which have ever
lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial
form, into which life was first breathed" (see Adaptation).
Darwin later expressed
regret over this concession to creationism, and for the rest
of his life he ruled out any role for God in the origin
and development of living things.” –
"Creationism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
As
we can see, the quote above indicates that the creationist
claim about the static reproductive capacity of each kind
is said to have been falsified by physical evidence that “all
the organic beings…have descended from some one primordial
form.” Yet despite the fact that evolutionists regard
the creationist claim about kinds to be “falsified”
by the evidence, evolutionists also charge that the creationist
claim about kinds is “un-falsifiable.” Such a
criticism was explicitly advanced by evolutionary biologist
and geneticist Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University
of Detroit, Michigan in a debate with creationist Dr. Kent
Hovind. Concerning the assertions found in the Genesis account,
Dr. Moore criticizes the creationist view of Dr. Kent Hovind
of lacking “any room” for predictions that could
be compared to observation. (Later on in our next segment,
we will return to this quote from Dr. Moore concerning the
scientific criterion of making predictions.)
“There
has to be some aspect of your theory that leads to predictions.
We have to be able to do these computations that Feynman
alludes to. And I just don’t see it in Genesis. There’s
no room for computation.” – Dr. William Moore,
“The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate:
Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University
in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola,
FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video
Additional
examples besides the age of the universe and the reproduction
of kinds could also be cited. However, there is no need to
be exhaustive on this point. These few examples illustrate
the trend.
Not
only do evolutionists consider the various claims of the Biblical
account of creation to be falsifiable, but they consider the
very same claims to be, in fact, falsified by known empirical
data. Since the evolutionists regard the six day, six thousand
year creation model of the Bible to be disproved by empirical
evidence, they cannot regard these claims as “un-falsifiable”
or “unscientific.” One simply cannot say that
a theory’s claim has been empirically proven false while
at the same time asserting that the same claim is unscientific
because it is “un-falsifiable.” However, the creationist
theory simply cannot be classified as un-falsifiable on the
grounds that its claims have no testable relationship to the
observable evidence because, as we have seen, creationism’s
claims most certainly do have a testable and falsifiable relationship
to the observable evidence.
Therefore,
as stated earlier, the Biblical model of creation, which centers
on the necessity for intelligent foresight in the universe’s
cause, should be regarded as fit for scientific consideration.
It cannot be dismissed as unscientific. The rest of this article
will continue to evaluate to what extent the available empirical
evidence confirms or disconfirms the Biblical model, and subsequently,
to what extent that evidence indirectly confirms the necessity
of an intelligent, personal Creator.
But
this is not the only relevance that falsifiability has to
this study. Falsifiability is an important issue. So, we’re
not just going to leave it behind as we move forward. Instead,
we will continue to keep an eye on the status of “falsifiability”
as we examine the competing origins theories.
Premature
Dismissal in the Origins Debate: Is Faith Unscientific? (Part
3)
A
vital part of the scientific process is the ability to make
predictions. Worldbook’s Encyclopedia article on the
“Inductive Method” describes the role of induction
and prediction in science.
“Inductive
method – To
make discoveries, scientists first obtain general theories
by using induction. From these general theories, they then
deduce new, particular predictions. These predictions are
tested by observation and experiment. The test results
may be used in a new inductive step to obtain a better general
theory.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Morton L. Schagrin,
Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, State University of New York,
Fredonia.
Given
the role of predictions in the scientific method, evolutionists
critique creationism theory as unscientific on the grounds
that it does not involve predictions or even that predictions
are not even possible from the Biblical descriptions. Such
a criticism was explicitly advanced by evolutionary biologists
and geneticist Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University
of Detroit, Michigan in a debate with creationist Dr. Kent
Hovind. Early on in the debate, Dr. Moore asserted the necessity
of being able to make predictions, inferences, and computations
from any particular theory. To support this necessity, Dr.
Moore quoted Dr. Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel-prize winner
for physics, and explained Feynman’s description of
the scientific method.
“This
is one scientist’s statement as to what scientific method
is. He says, ‘In general, we look for a new law
by the following process. First, we guess…Don’t
laugh. It’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see if this law
that we guessed is right, what
it should imply. Then we compare those computation results
with nature, with say, to experiment or experience. We compare
it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees
with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement
is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how smart you,
who made the guess, or what his or her name is. If it disagrees
with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there
is to it.’ This short, whimsical even facetious statement
is actually a fairly concise and complete statement for the
scientific method, as simple as it is. One of the most
interesting phrases in Feynman’s
description…” – Dr. William Moore, “The
History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate:
Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University
in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola,
FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video
Later
on in the debate, Dr. Moore returns to this statement from
Feynman and applies it directly as a criticism of creationism,
asserting that the creationist model and approach cannot make
predictions, and therefore, are not scientific. Criticizing
the creationist premise that organisms were created and reproduce
in groups called “kinds,” not necessarily in the
narrower groups that modern scientists refer to as “species,”
Dr. Moore states the following.
Regardless
of how many kinds there were, maybe we could figure that out
if we could determine what distinguishes one kind from another
in a genetic sense. What is the barrier? When would we
know that we’ve crossed from one kind to another?...In
order to begin to do that sort of research, which actually
I do…but first before I could write a sensible proposal,
you’d have to tell me what a kind is so I could begin
to figure out what it is that I’m looking for that distinguishes
them. There has to be some aspect of your theory
that leads to predictions. We have to be able to do these
computations that Feynman
alludes to. And I just don’t see it in Genesis. There’s
no room for computation.” – Dr. William Moore,
“The History of
Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind
vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit,
Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com,
Windows Media Video
These
charges lead to a central question. Does creationist theory
involve predictions, just like all other branches and areas
of science? Or, are predictions not possible and not a part
of creationist theory, thereby rendering creationism as outside
the normal scientific process?
In
considering this point, we might start with the very example
discussed by Dr. Moore. Consider Dr. Moore’s assertion
that the scientific process starts with a guess and “Then
we compute the consequences of the guess to see if this law
that we guessed is right, what it should imply. Then we compare
those computation results with nature, with say, to experiment
or experience. We compare it directly with observation to
see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s
wrong.”
Let’s
take the creationist “guess” or “theorization”
that animals only reproduce after their kinds. Specifically,
Dr. Moore criticized that the text of the Genesis account
itself simply did not allow for predictions, particularly
concerning “kinds.”
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree
yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is
in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth
brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it
was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the
third day…20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that
may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21
And God created great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them,
saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in
the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening
and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let
the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon
the earth after his kind: and God saw that it
was good.
The
text of the account states concerning the various kinds of
plants, the various kinds of water animals, the various kinds
of birds, and the various kinds of land organisms that they
all bring only forth after their kind. They will only reproduce
the same kinds that they are. One kind will never produce
something other than its own kind. Cows only produce cows.
Spiders only produce spiders. Frogs only produce frogs. Fern
trees will only produce fern trees. Cows will never produce
non-cows. Spiders will never produce non-spiders. Frogs will
never produce non-frogs. And fern trees will never produce
non-fern trees. The predictive nature of these statements,
even as found in the Genesis text, is readily apparent in
the statements themselves. These statements are inherently
making assertions about what we will see and what we won’t
see from reproduction in the future.
Furthermore,
those predictions are just as readily comparable with observation
and experimentation. If these assertions from Genesis are
true, they have implications for what we should see in the
world around us. They imply that each kind of animal will
only reproduce its own kind, never another kind. Can we compare
these implications to observation and experimentation? Yes,
we can observe cows to see if they produce non-cows. We can
observe spiders to see if they produce non-spiders. We experiment
to see if we can ever get a non-frog to come from a frog.
And we can experiment to see if we can use simulated natural
processes to get a fern-tree to reproduce something other
than a fern tree. Not only that, but we can do very comparable
computations. Moreover, the computations are extremely testable
and falsifiable because they require 100 percent compliance,
not complicated fractions of percentages based upon a number
of variables. Kinds should always and only produce their own
kind. That kind of computation is certainly comparable and
testable with observations in nature and experiments. Just
one instance of an organism producing something other than
its own kind will falsify this prediction. The entire concept
is inherently and simply in line with the scientific method
on these points.
The
creation theory that organisms only reproduce after their
kinds is both predictive and those predictions are able to
be compared with both observation and experimentation. It’s
virtually impossible to see how Dr. Moore could assert that
this wasn’t the case.
But
besides the issue of kinds, what about other aspects of the
creationist theory? Are they also predictive and comparable
to observation? Let’s consider the just a few prominent
examples. The flood account in Genesis 7:10-8:14 implies and
predicts that predominantly geological features form from
catastrophe. During the table of evidence section at the of
this article series, we will examine the evidence to see how
this prediction compares with the observed evidence, including
evidences observed as a result of the Mount St. Helen’s
volcanic eruption. For now, the point is that the theory that
geologic features form by catastrophe is both predictive and
it can be compared and tested against observable evidence.
What
about other statements in the Biblical description of the
world? Are they predictive and able to be compared with observation?
Numerous times the Bible declares that the heavens where the
stars reside were stretched out.
Psalms
104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment:
who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.
Isaiah
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that
stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth
them out as a tent to dwell in.
Isaiah
42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created
the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth
the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth
breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk
therein.
Isaiah
44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and
he that formed thee from the womb, I
am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth
the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by
myself.
Isaiah
45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it:
I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their
host have I commanded.
Isaiah
51:13 And forgettest the
LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens,
and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually
every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were
ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?
Jeremiah
10:12 He hath made the earth by his power,
he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Jeremiah
51:15 He hath made the earth by his power,
he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Zechariah
12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith
the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation
of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
The
writing of these passages date back to before the time of
Jesus Christ, which makes them well-over 2,000 years old.
Yet, the expansion of the universe was not discovered until
after the turn of the 19th century A.D.
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure
of the Universe – In
1929 Hubble had measured enough spectra of galaxies to realize
that the galaxies' light, except for that of the few nearest
galaxies, was shifted toward the red end of the visible spectrum.
This shift increased the more distant the galaxies were. Cosmologists
soon interpreted these red shifts as Doppler shifts, which
showed that the galaxies were moving away from the earth.
The Doppler shift, and therefore the speed of the galaxy,
was greater for more distant galaxies. Galaxies in different
directions at equivalent distances from the earth, however,
had equivalent Doppler shifts. This
constant relationship between distance and speed led cosmologists
to believe that the universe is expanding uniformly.”
– "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Red
Shift – The
American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble, in 1929, linked the
red shift observed in spectra of galaxies to the expansion
of the universe.” – "Red Shift,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
The
Biblical texts not only predicted this expansion, but the
observable evidence confirmed the prediction to be valid.
Now,
it is true that at least one component of the creationist
model remains beyond direct observation and cannot be tested
or repeated through experiment. Specifically, this refers
to the creationist component that God created the universe
and all that it in it, including all the organisms. While
a great majority of the other aspects of creationist theory
can be compared to observation of those phenomena in nature
or through experimentation, there is no place on earth today
where you can observe God creating parts of the universe or
organisms. Here, however, the creationist model is on equal
footing with the evolutionary model. The evolutionary model
is unable to directly observe or experimentally repeat the
initial mechanisms and events that began the universe in its
model either. The big bang itself is beyond such observation
and cannot even be modeled.
“Cosmology,
III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory – Current methods of particle physics allow the universe to be traced
back to earlier than one second after the big bang explosion
initiated the expansion of the universe. Cosmologists believe
that they can model the universe back to 1 x [10 to the negative
43 power] seconds after the big bang; before that point, they
would need a theory that merges the theory of gravity and
the theory of general relativity to explain the behavior of
the universe. Scientists do not actually study the big bang
itself, but infer its existence from the universe's expansion.”
– "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Like
the creationist model, only the after affects can be tested.
If God created all kinds and they produce after themselves,
then we can test the reproductive inference from this statement.
Similarly, if the universe did originate from a big bang,
then we can create models of how the structures of the universe,
such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies did form and
continue to form, even though the original event and its details
are unavailable.
Furthermore,
even as stated by evolutionary biologist Dr. Moore, the creationist
and evolutionist models are on equal footing when it comes
to any metaphysical assumptions at the foundation of each
model. According to Dr. Moore, uniformitarian geologic principles
must be assumed and supposed and cannot be defended, deduced,
or proved. In Dr. Moore’s words “We can’t
really defend these assumptions…We can’t prove
it to be true. We can simply make it a part of our philosophical
system and see how successful that system is in leading us
to new discoveries.” The exact same can be said concerning
the creationist model. Although the idea of actually observing
God creating the universe is beyond what is available to us,
we can build a model including this suggested concept and
see how successful that model or system is in fitting with
what we do discover in the world around us.
In
conclusion, when it comes to the criticisms that creationism
is unscientific because it is based upon presupposition or
blind faith, is un-falsifiable or un-testable, or does not
and cannot make predictions, all of these criticisms are shown
to be false. Creationism, historically and originally is part
of an objective and evidentiary, not pre-suppositional or
subjective, approach to truth. The possibility of falsifying
creationism’s claims can be seen in the fact that evolutionists
consider the biblical model to, in fact, have been falsified
on particular points, including creationism’s claims
about the age of the universe and the reproductive origin
of organisms. And creationism’s claims are inherently
predictive and available for testing against the observable
and experimental data. This is most clearly seen in creationism’s
prediction that organisms will always reproduce their own
kind, never a new or different kind.
In
these categories, creationism is on equal footing with evolution
as a scientific theory or model. And creationism is also on
equal footing with evolution concerning the fact that the
original events in both models are not available for scientific
observation, including the elements of God creating the universe
and the big bang explosion itself. Likewise, although certain
key points, like these or like uniformitarianism, cannot be
proven, the models and systems that they are built into can
be tested and compared to discoveries and observations. Ultimately,
it is simply impossible to dismiss creationism as unscientific
on any of these grounds.