Science Defended, Science Defined
This labor day weekend was a good one. I got some chores done, though of course not as many as I'd hoped. I hung out with a variety of friends, did a lot of running, and had some very thought provoking conversations. I've debated posting on some of these conversations...in theory I'd love to, but in practice LJ doesn't typically end up being the best forum for thoughtful debate, and on top of that I don't typically have time...so what's a girl to do? I hauled my ass out to BWH this morning to finally complete my volunteer registration, however, and that gave me some time to organize and write down some of my thoughts on at least one of the topics - "creation-science".
How it all happened:
My learning curve is very shallow, apparently. While at a party hosted by the ever-fabulous what_do_we_know and motospeedfreek, I made the same mistake I've made about one thousand times before. Blue, Blue, Blue...when will you take to heart the axiom that politics and religion are never discussed in polite company?! In my defense, however, I never intended to be sparking a discussion about religion - my intention was to, if anything, spark a discussion about how to structure thought, and avoid fallible thinking, because I mentioned the book I've been reading on that very topic and how I was enjoying learning from it, Why People Believe Weird Things - Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. I listed a few of the "weird things" that the book discusses, including Holocaust denial and creation-science. Well, as soon as I said the words "creation-science" I realized that I'd made a mistake. I felt bad initially because I remembered that there were persons present, who I quite like and wouldn't want to offend, who are fairly religious, so I immediately apologized to that person, and tried to back up by explaining the function of the book, and what the book specifically means by "creation-science".
Before I could, however, another person, who I didn't know prior to the party, jumped down my throat. He was clearly prepared to get pretty agitated about it, and was very emotionally involved, so I tried to clarify what the book seemed to me to be saying, but he continued to attack the author (I said, hey, don't attack the author, I'm the one talking to you, and I don't claim to represent his ideas the same way he would), make very illogical statements (though superficially logical, see the senses comment below), and then I was roundly accused of trying to get the last word in when I said "let's drop it, I just want to say one thing" (which is, I suppose, in fact asking for the last word, but I was hoping it would be a placating word as I didn't want to leave things on such a disagreeable note)...and that one thing I wanted to say was that the author isn't anti-religion, but he makes a distinction between a belief based on faith and a belief based on science. To that, the person said "then science is a religion, it's just a belief"...and went down the road of "how can you believe your senses, science is just based on feedback from your senses, and for example how do you know I exist, there's no proof"...sigh. And of course an argument like that requires far more discussion than I really wanted to get into* and it was also clear that there would be nothing I could say that wouldn't further incite this individual. Later in the party it became pretty clear that he had strong Asperger's tendencies, so it was a hopeless situation from the start, and I'm glad I didn't pursue it for the comfort of everyone there.
What I would have said, given the chance:
First of all, nothing I will be saying here can really fully explain/support the anti-creation-science argument - there isn't enough room, I don't have enough time, and I am not an expert in the field. I would recommend reading the book, if the topic interests you, but as I said, the book is on a range of topics and is more directed towards pointing out flaws in thinking than presenting hard evidence for or against a given theory...the book does give a variety of references for further reading though. Second of all, let me explain that the following discussion is taking the term "creation-science" to be founded on two principles (perhaps more, but certainly these two stand out) - firstly that the Bible describes scientific and historical facts. Secondly, as a result of the first assumption, that evolution as a theory is false. There are various shades of creationism, some in better harmony with science than others. Finally, I've said it before, including at the party, the book is not anti-religion. Faith is a separate ball of wax, and one which the author (and I) respect in its own right. The objection is purely on the grounds of applying religious faith to contradict science and make claims about the natural world, and furthermore package the religious faith as "science". The book states outright that science has no solid explanation for how exactly the universe began (cosmology is a new field, and even the experts/founders of cosmology, such as Gould, acknowledge their currently huge limitations), nor does science purport to show that no higher power exists. Science is a methodology, not a belief, and therein lies the rub.
To illustrate the prime difference between science and religion, we can look at a recent court case. In 1986, the case of Edwards v. Aguillard was sparked by a law in Louisiana passed at the urging of anti-evolutionists who wanted creationism taught in the public schools as a valid scientific theory alongside evolution.
Summarized: Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Why is creation-science in fact not science? Well, the essential characteristics of science as defined by scientists are (you can find a reference for this in the book) "(1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative...; and (5) It is falsible" Even excepting parts 1 & 2, parts 3, 4, & 5 clearly exclude any theory which is based on faith and religion. For example, if the bible is the word of god, and taken to be infallible, that violates 4 & 5.
Members of the Creation Research Society (a sponsor of much of the anti-evolution legislation) must subscribe to a statement of belief: The Bible is the written Word of God...all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs....This means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. (2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. (3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. (4) Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as out Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation fo Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only thru accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
This statement, and others in the creationist literature (for example from the Institute for Creation Research), preclude the ability to refine the creationism dogma based on further evidence (an essential tenet of the scientific method).
Pivotal in the 1986 case was an amicus curiae (brief submitted by persons otherwise uninvolved in the case) which was contributed to by 72 nobel laureates. Among other things, the brief indicated just how far ranging of an attack on science and knowledge creationism truly is. Of course creationism attacks evolutionary biology, but if creationism were correct, it also repudiates much of physics, archeology, paleontology, botany, astronomy, cosmology, paleontological anthropology, and geology. Hmm....so many branches of science to cut-off, so much evidence to throw out, all in order to support a faith based assumption, and to boot it doesn't even fit the basic description of science.
So, there's that. Aside from the more abstract logic/thought/debate vs. truth discussion, the book has a section which superficially addresses 25 of the arguments creationists typically make.
As for the immovable mover and my own thoughts...well, I am much more of an agnostic than an atheist...I don't have faith, but I certainly understand and may even lean towards credo consolans - "I believe because it is consoling." I don't think religion is inherently in conflict with science...but fundamentalist religion surely is.
*Actually, this person was demonstrating one of the prime debate tactics that creation-scientists typically use. Since the evidence currently available doesn't support creationism, they attack perceived weaknesses in science and try to use those as an ipso de facto proof of the veracity or creationism. Rather than stating the positives of creationism, they focus on "holes" in science...and regardless of the validity of those claims, what they don't understand about that method of thinking is that disproving the validity of science doesn't prove the validity of creationism, so it's a wasted argument, it isn't an either/or scenario. A theory must stand on its own two feet, not just be proven by the failure of another theory (incidentally, just to ensure that I've pissed-off everyone on my friend's list, atheists, who believe a lack of evidence for a higher power(s) is evidence that no such power exists, are making the same sort of logical mistake).
So that was part of my weekend. I have another conversation (well, set of conversations) that I'd like to post about at some point, but we'll see when I've got time. The other point of interest from the weekend is that my aerobic training is paying off. I ran 13 miles, and a) I didn't hurt until the 12th, and b) my pace has dropped 2 minutes/mile since I started a month ago, while maintaining the new lower heartrate. I actually am enjoying running for a change, and since I'm running for longer I'm getting the runner's high. Whoo hoo! Highly recommend it maaaaaaaaaan, it's some dope shit.
How it all happened:
My learning curve is very shallow, apparently. While at a party hosted by the ever-fabulous what_do_we_know and motospeedfreek, I made the same mistake I've made about one thousand times before. Blue, Blue, Blue...when will you take to heart the axiom that politics and religion are never discussed in polite company?! In my defense, however, I never intended to be sparking a discussion about religion - my intention was to, if anything, spark a discussion about how to structure thought, and avoid fallible thinking, because I mentioned the book I've been reading on that very topic and how I was enjoying learning from it, Why People Believe Weird Things - Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. I listed a few of the "weird things" that the book discusses, including Holocaust denial and creation-science. Well, as soon as I said the words "creation-science" I realized that I'd made a mistake. I felt bad initially because I remembered that there were persons present, who I quite like and wouldn't want to offend, who are fairly religious, so I immediately apologized to that person, and tried to back up by explaining the function of the book, and what the book specifically means by "creation-science".
Before I could, however, another person, who I didn't know prior to the party, jumped down my throat. He was clearly prepared to get pretty agitated about it, and was very emotionally involved, so I tried to clarify what the book seemed to me to be saying, but he continued to attack the author (I said, hey, don't attack the author, I'm the one talking to you, and I don't claim to represent his ideas the same way he would), make very illogical statements (though superficially logical, see the senses comment below), and then I was roundly accused of trying to get the last word in when I said "let's drop it, I just want to say one thing" (which is, I suppose, in fact asking for the last word, but I was hoping it would be a placating word as I didn't want to leave things on such a disagreeable note)...and that one thing I wanted to say was that the author isn't anti-religion, but he makes a distinction between a belief based on faith and a belief based on science. To that, the person said "then science is a religion, it's just a belief"...and went down the road of "how can you believe your senses, science is just based on feedback from your senses, and for example how do you know I exist, there's no proof"...sigh. And of course an argument like that requires far more discussion than I really wanted to get into* and it was also clear that there would be nothing I could say that wouldn't further incite this individual. Later in the party it became pretty clear that he had strong Asperger's tendencies, so it was a hopeless situation from the start, and I'm glad I didn't pursue it for the comfort of everyone there.
What I would have said, given the chance:
First of all, nothing I will be saying here can really fully explain/support the anti-creation-science argument - there isn't enough room, I don't have enough time, and I am not an expert in the field. I would recommend reading the book, if the topic interests you, but as I said, the book is on a range of topics and is more directed towards pointing out flaws in thinking than presenting hard evidence for or against a given theory...the book does give a variety of references for further reading though. Second of all, let me explain that the following discussion is taking the term "creation-science" to be founded on two principles (perhaps more, but certainly these two stand out) - firstly that the Bible describes scientific and historical facts. Secondly, as a result of the first assumption, that evolution as a theory is false. There are various shades of creationism, some in better harmony with science than others. Finally, I've said it before, including at the party, the book is not anti-religion. Faith is a separate ball of wax, and one which the author (and I) respect in its own right. The objection is purely on the grounds of applying religious faith to contradict science and make claims about the natural world, and furthermore package the religious faith as "science". The book states outright that science has no solid explanation for how exactly the universe began (cosmology is a new field, and even the experts/founders of cosmology, such as Gould, acknowledge their currently huge limitations), nor does science purport to show that no higher power exists. Science is a methodology, not a belief, and therein lies the rub.
To illustrate the prime difference between science and religion, we can look at a recent court case. In 1986, the case of Edwards v. Aguillard was sparked by a law in Louisiana passed at the urging of anti-evolutionists who wanted creationism taught in the public schools as a valid scientific theory alongside evolution.
Summarized: Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Why is creation-science in fact not science? Well, the essential characteristics of science as defined by scientists are (you can find a reference for this in the book) "(1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative...; and (5) It is falsible" Even excepting parts 1 & 2, parts 3, 4, & 5 clearly exclude any theory which is based on faith and religion. For example, if the bible is the word of god, and taken to be infallible, that violates 4 & 5.
Members of the Creation Research Society (a sponsor of much of the anti-evolution legislation) must subscribe to a statement of belief: The Bible is the written Word of God...all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs....This means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. (2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. (3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. (4) Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as out Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation fo Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only thru accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
This statement, and others in the creationist literature (for example from the Institute for Creation Research), preclude the ability to refine the creationism dogma based on further evidence (an essential tenet of the scientific method).
Pivotal in the 1986 case was an amicus curiae (brief submitted by persons otherwise uninvolved in the case) which was contributed to by 72 nobel laureates. Among other things, the brief indicated just how far ranging of an attack on science and knowledge creationism truly is. Of course creationism attacks evolutionary biology, but if creationism were correct, it also repudiates much of physics, archeology, paleontology, botany, astronomy, cosmology, paleontological anthropology, and geology. Hmm....so many branches of science to cut-off, so much evidence to throw out, all in order to support a faith based assumption, and to boot it doesn't even fit the basic description of science.
So, there's that. Aside from the more abstract logic/thought/debate vs. truth discussion, the book has a section which superficially addresses 25 of the arguments creationists typically make.
As for the immovable mover and my own thoughts...well, I am much more of an agnostic than an atheist...I don't have faith, but I certainly understand and may even lean towards credo consolans - "I believe because it is consoling." I don't think religion is inherently in conflict with science...but fundamentalist religion surely is.
*Actually, this person was demonstrating one of the prime debate tactics that creation-scientists typically use. Since the evidence currently available doesn't support creationism, they attack perceived weaknesses in science and try to use those as an ipso de facto proof of the veracity or creationism. Rather than stating the positives of creationism, they focus on "holes" in science...and regardless of the validity of those claims, what they don't understand about that method of thinking is that disproving the validity of science doesn't prove the validity of creationism, so it's a wasted argument, it isn't an either/or scenario. A theory must stand on its own two feet, not just be proven by the failure of another theory (incidentally, just to ensure that I've pissed-off everyone on my friend's list, atheists, who believe a lack of evidence for a higher power(s) is evidence that no such power exists, are making the same sort of logical mistake).
So that was part of my weekend. I have another conversation (well, set of conversations) that I'd like to post about at some point, but we'll see when I've got time. The other point of interest from the weekend is that my aerobic training is paying off. I ran 13 miles, and a) I didn't hurt until the 12th, and b) my pace has dropped 2 minutes/mile since I started a month ago, while maintaining the new lower heartrate. I actually am enjoying running for a change, and since I'm running for longer I'm getting the runner's high. Whoo hoo! Highly recommend it maaaaaaaaaan, it's some dope shit.