According to the recently published tract from the NAS, entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the “materialism of the gaps” approach is apparently the new scientific method:
Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists’ claims. There may be alternative explanations. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that because there is no evidence that it is raining outside, it must be sunny. Other explanations also might be possible.
The NAS apparently sees an evil monster out there that must be killed at all costs. It doesn’t seem to matter that the major proponents of Intelligent Design (who, once again, don’t all consider themselves “Creationists”) and other Darwin-doubters are not proposing that ID is a scientific theory or that it be taught in schools as science. They are merely suggesting that science be taught as science, and let people draw whatever philosophical conclusions are appropriate. However, apparently the skepticism which is so important to science has its limits:
In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.
“Scientists no longer question …;” therefore, this implies, those who question the assumptions made by Darwinists are not scientists. And, presumably, neither was Copernicus, who dared question the consensus belief of his day in the “fact” of Ptolemy’s cosmology.
So, why is the NAS so nervous? As I’m sure I’ve said before, if the science behind Darwinism is as solid as they insist, why do they have to work so hard to deflect any criticism (skepticism)? As my friend Mike commented yesterday,
It takes so much effort to believe that we will grasp at any straw we can. Nobody in science claims that there are any absolutes, that all is a matter of probability.
Mike was referring to religious belief, but it seems that the NAS finds itself in a similar position. Perhaps the probabilities are not quite as strong as the NAS would like to think? Perhaps they should consider that in literature and movies, it is the preservationist “old guard” who always comes off looking foolish.
Anthony Bloom sees the issue of belief to be similar for both theology and science. He writes in God & Man in the chapter entitled Doubt and the Christian Life (p. 36):
At the root of the scientist’s activity there is the certainty that what he is doubting is the model he has invented … But what he is also absolutely certain of is that the reality which is beyond his model is in no danger if his model collapses. The reality is stable, it is there; the model is an inadequate expression if it, but the reality doesn’t alter because the model shakes.
If, then, we are truly seeking truth, we should have no strangle hold on the model; we know, after all, that it is imperfect and it is our job to doubt the model. The alternative – in the theological realm, anyway – is nothing less than idolatry. In the field of science, it simply becomes something other than science, which brings me back to the NAS’ pre-Copernican mentality. Note that I’m not dealing with the specifics of any scientific or non-scientific argument; to drop into a Darwin v Creation argument here is missing the larger point.
Actually, this is all really an introduction to the nature of belief and faith, which is something I’ll write about in the days to come. The NAS’ little tract seemed a good non-theological introduction to the topic.
“They are merely suggesting that science be taught as science, and let people draw whatever philosophical conclusions are appropriate.”
Nope. They passed a creationist law in Louisiana and it’s clear they wish to put their philosophical conclusion – god did it – into the high school curriculum as a “scientific alternative”.
“any serious – and respectful”
Nope.
onein6billion’s comments have become increasingly oblique. I’m now moderating them… If he comes back with any serious – and respectful – comments, I’ll let them through.
I’m not sure I understand your response; actually, I’m fairly certain I don’t. It must be a form of text messaging logic. Sorry, I don’t speak that.
“obligation to test any theory”
Wait, you used the word “theory”.
“proposed creator intelligence”
Then you spoiled it with this phrase. And the “theory” is: “some creator intelligence did something in some way and some time for some purpose”? And the high-energy physics test (or any test at all) for this is what?
“The philosophical presumptions”
Your analysis of this situation is so bad I can’t even think of a suitable adjective or two.
But there is an article in the latest Science News about “Life from Scratch – Learning to make synthetic cells”. “Scientists are on the verge of creating living cells by piecing together small molecules that are themselves not alive.” There seem to be some different approaches to this problem described in the article. I wonder what we will be able to do in another hundred years.
In the current issue of Scientific American is an article titled The Coming Revolutions in Particle Physics. Written by Chris Quigg, a senior scientist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and head of the theoretical physics department, the article discusses the “work in progress” that is the Standard Model of particle physics. The article is interesting, but one paragraph in particular caught my attention, and especially the last three sentences which I have emphasized:
Encouraged by a string of promising observations in the 1970s, theorists began to take the Standard Model seriously enough to begin to probe its limits. Toward the end of 1976 Benjamin W. Lee of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., Harry B. Thacker, now at the University of Virginia, and I devised a thought experiment to investigate how the electroweak forces would behave at very high energies. We imagined collisions among pairs of W, Z and Higgs bosons. The exercise might seem slightly fanciful because, at the time of our work, not one of these particles had been observed. But physicists have an obligation to test any theory by considering its implications as if all its elements were real.
For “real” scientists—as Mike has often insisted—this “obligation to test any theory by considering its implications as if all its elements were real” apparently does not apply to a proposed creator intelligence, which, like our W, Z, and Higgs bosons, has not been observed by scientific instruments. Apparently, stabilizing an incomplete scientific model by inventing unobserved particles is “valid” whereas proposing an unobserved intelligent force is rot. The philosophical presumptions that lead to such a glaring bias are disingenuous and/or fatally flawed.
In spite of the astonishingly self-righteous condescension of many of the “hard” scientists toward an unseen “god particle,” it is not by us lowly theists they will be found wanting. They will fail on their own terms. As that laughable Jew with the Christ-complex once said, “By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Are you listening to yourself, Mr. Quigg?
Giving the NAS the benefit of doubt, I would have to say that they certainly don’t seem to, as they have misrepresented the nature of ID and the substance of their position. The alternative is that they are intentionally misrepresenting Intelligent Design.
I would have to agree with this, as the NAS seems more concerned with protecting Naturalism (which has taken on the characteristics of a religion) then science. And, it seems that they are promoting this little tract of theirs with evangelistic zeal.
The NAS will learn that misrepresenting the facts (and their opponents) only fans the flames of the issue. If they’d start dealing with the issues as scientists instead of fundamentalists, I think we’d actually see a great advancement of science.
fyi, here’s another review of the little NAS pamphlet, Science, Evolution and Creationism:
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/?p=1209
Here, at least, we would seem to agree. However, I would expand the challenge to also be clear about what we can believe from science, and what we can learn through faith.
Hey! Don’t knock Bozo. He’s the best case for evolution you’ve got.
I think it is time to really be clear about the difference between what we can learn from science and what we can believe through faith. You are playing semantic games with the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
The people at NAS have a very clear understanding of the difference between biblical literalist creationists, the theological evolutionists and the intelligent design people. The main difference is that the ID’ists mask their creationism in the trappings of sciency language but their final appeal is to an unknown level of complexity.
Their problem is that they misstate the problems of science in order to make their point. At least the literalists are honest about their positions, as are the theological evolutionists.
The literalists use their faith gained through bibliolatry to try to backfit facts. Theological evolutionists are straight up about their acceptance of how evolution works, while their faith informs them that the ways of God are not testable. “If God used evolution and cosmology to make the universe the way it is,” they say,”we owe it to the curiosity that God gave us to discover its wonders.”
The intelligent design people hide their position, but not all that well by talking about the intelligent designer, and want science to accept their philosophical position of defaulting as being valid as any other type of science. William Dembski goes on record to say he has no doubt that the designer. Behe has been shown to be completely incorrect in trying to draw the default position.
What the NAS is saying is that if people want to keep their faith, that is fine and okey-dokey, but they shouldn’t be misusing science to make their position. It is the misuse of the scientific method that keeps ID out of science, it is not oppression.
To draw an imperfect analogy, how would the NFL respond if the Miami Dolphins tried to use the courts to get into the playoffs this year? After all, they went undefeated in 1974.
Take it forward to 1997 when astronomers were absolutely puzzled about the accelerating expansion of the Universe. It didn’t make sense because the energy released in the Big Bang should have diminished according the currently understood laws of physics and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So, they could have concluded that since it was “wrong” and the motion was “too complex” that the Designer had to be responsible for it. The discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy finally explained it, and even with that it is not well understood. But that knowledge that there is more to learn is what drives science, the fact that dark matter is only known by its effects and Einstein rings drive exploration. It drives few into despair and disarray.
In movies the old guard looks foolish. In Disney kid movies the grownups are always wrong. The “old guard” is not science, it is religion. It was religion which resisted Copernicus, not science. It was religion which resisted Bruno, not science. It was religion which resisted Galileo, not science.
They laughed at Galileo, and they were proven wrong. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.