www.paulnixon.org

Hooray for science

Added by Paul 16 February 2009 20:19

Again, another full blown post in response to Kev's comments.

It is interesting to discuss the 'realm of science' or, rather, the subjects on which the scientific method can be brought to bear. To a lot of people 'science' is white, western, middle-class men arrogantly and illiberally enforcing a reductionist, imperialist and irrelevant or dangerous view on an innocent public. In fairness to the average man on the street, the way that the popular media reports science is genuinely shocking and might lead the ill-informed to arrive at such a conclusion.

For me, somewhat ideallistically, I view science an honest and noble search for the best possible explanation for all of the evidence that we have available to us. That does not mean that 'science' is always right, or that it doesn't contain errors due to very human biases, and certainly not that it is complete. But it is merely the best way for us to explain the natural world.

If new evidence comes to light that disproves a scientific theory, then that theory must change. Or be discarded. Or replaced with something better.

In respect of the idea that science can't prove any claim wrong (our hypothetical purple monsters) I agree. But I also think that the burden of proof does not lie with those to seek to disprove. Anyone that believes in something with a complete absence of theoretical and evidential rigour is, of course, welcome to hold that belief. But I certainly do not have to take that viewpoint seriously or give it any respect. All arbitrarily held beliefs are equal in my eyes.

I agree with you about the 'straw man' argument, but, in fairness, a modern, right-thinking christian is a pretty slippery character. Not for them the god of the old testament that is clearly absurd. God is no longer the soft target of the chap made in our image, but with a longer beard. The problem is that science has moved on since the bronze age, the bible can't and therefore the interpretation becomes increasing strained.

So, if you don't like straw men boldly state your beliefs, and I'll try and deal with you straight. Here's an easy one for you - how old is the earth?

steve on 18 February 2009 16:46

... headslapping?

Willow on 19 February 2009 08:45

have you seen the South Park episode where Cartman gets thawed out in the future? There is no god only science but they are still at war over whose science is correct. very clever

Kev on 19 February 2009 18:24

Hooray indeed. Seems we agree regarding science.

I'm not sure that this applies to you, but many evolutionists are in the habit of labelling evolution (by which I mean the neo-darwinian theory of descent) as science. Then they dismiss any opposing views on origins as unscientific. Obviously evolution is a belief system about the past like any other (I use the term belief system only to indicate that it was not observed, not to try and make evolution sound religious). The fitness of evolution (pun alert) is judged, like all other belief systems, on how well it explains observed data.

I have to disagree with your view of the burden of proof. Whoever makes the assertion shoulders the burden of proof. If you wanted to state that there *definitely* is no purple monster then it would fall to you to support that claim. I agree that in this case you would not be required to take it seriously or respect it. Not so with the creationist view though, they have public scientific arguments for intelligent design, instantaneous creation, young earth, global flood, blah, blah...

I was previously only commenting on how people debate. I wasn't looking to debate my own views with anyone. I normally don't like to broadcast my own beliefs in the arena of this debate, not least because the only types of arguments requiring knowledge of what I personally believe are ad hominems. I'll give you the credit I think you deserve and assume that you have already guessed. It is the biblical creationist age of 6k - 10k years. Sounds crazy I know in a world where evolution has monopolised an education system which teaches it as unquestioned fact (every bit as insidiously as your Sunday school brainwashing). Ultimately the data should decide.

In my experience this type of exchange tends to run quite long. I personally never get tired of such debate, but don't feel obliged to debate me on your blog. I understand that you are having fun in your posts at the expense of Christians and don't have to provide a comprehensive and boring justification for everything you say. Humour has no bounds as far as I am concerned. Myself, I like to laugh at cripples.

So we can leave it here or not. Your blog, your call.

Paul on 19 February 2009 21:24

Kev, man. Not creationism!

As the book I'm reading at the moment says "creationism... whose claims deny not only evolutionary biology but most of cosmology, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, not to mention much of the early human history".

That's a whole world of disparate clever shit stacked up against Genesis with it's talking snakes and women fashioned out of spare ribs! There weren't even Chinese takeaways around then for a start.

Kev on 24 February 2009 12:38

The events of the unobserved past don't spring automatically from the data. All theories about the past are necessarily formed on the basis of some starting assumptions. The strength of such theories is determined by how consistent that theory is with the data which can be observed and operated on in the present. This is the nature of historical science. It's the scientific way to examine the unknown past.

So when evolutionists (as in hydrogen and helium all the way up to man evolution) say that cosmology, physics, paleontology, geology, biology, etc. is denied by creation, that is dishonest. Those things are operational sciences that belong to all sides. And all sides can and do use them to make their scientific case.

What evolutionists usually mean is that creation isn't compatible with their own theory, based on their own assumptions, which they believe is very consistent with the data. Nobody disagrees with this. The two viewpoints are obviously mutually exclusive in most ways. Good arguments demonstrate consistency/inconsistency between a theory on its own terms (i.e. starting assumptions) and the data/operational sciences.

Good arguments don't just present a list of various branches of science and state that creation denies them. What observation from those sciences contradicts the creartionist's theory on its own terms? That would be a good argument and then debate could begin. Unfortunately this type of debate usually requires a level of scientific understanding beyond that of the average man on the street, but unfortunately this is where the debate must take place.

Paul on 24 February 2009 21:44

Kev, nice one.

Where do you start when someone believes that the earth is flat? I'm reminded of the tactics used by tobacco companies 20 and 30 years ago. Sowing plausible doubt to complicate an argument that is too complex for most to understand.

I think we can see the power of scientific ideas all around us. It could be the foundations of almost all of our beliefs are incorrect and that the humble bible is actually correct after all, but the balance of probability is very clearly not on the bible's side.

Kev on 25 February 2009 17:51

I hope you can believe that I have no intention of overcomplicating the issue to obscure anything. That would be terrible, and precisely the kind of dirty debating tactic that I complain about. I was actually attempting (and failing, clearly) to simplify the issue, to explain how the issue can be debated coherently by way of the scientific method. Basically... make a scientific case on the correct terms and from the observed data for the assertions that you make (if you want to be taken seriously). I don't think this is too much to ask. I'm not saying you have to have a genetics PhD to enter the debate but to make a decent scientific argument unavoidably requires A) some knowledge of the relevant science and B) knowledge of your opponents position. For the most part nothing beyond the layman with a reasonably serious interest in the subject.

We do see the power of scientific ideas all around us. Those things have nothing to do with any atheistic theory of origins. If all atheistic theories of origins were thoroughly refuted, then those things would still stand. Neither are these things incompatible with creation. If the creationist view was proved utterly true, then those things would still stand. They are not a foundation of belief. The foundations of belief are the theories of origin by all natural mechanisms. Those theories are not the same as the theories of operational sciences that have given us the transistor, space flight and genetic engineering, they are theories about the unobserved past. The debate is not Science vs. Creation, it's Evolution vs. Creation. Science should settle the issue. Atheism is not a criterion of science and never has been.

Paul on 27 February 2009 08:01

Kev, I'm not sure that it's quite as simple as Evolution -v- Creationism though, as Nature magazine racily asked a couple of years ago "Was Darwin wrong?". The subtitle was, "no, the evidence is overwhelming".

Evolutionary theory sits, not in conflict with the rest of our scientific understanding, but rather neatly dovetails with it. Creation 'theory', er, goes pretty much against everything that we 'know' to be true. The evidence for evolution is no less strong than that for a spherical earth. If evolution was not in conflict with the biblical explanation of our creation it would not be in question today. And there would not be lots of clever, but deluded and misguided, people trying desperately to find non-existent flaws in a beautiful and elegant theory that fits the mountain of evidence that supports it.

Science is very clear that the age of the earth and universe is several orders of magnitude greater than your belief. Can you tell me where you think they have got it wrong?

Back to paulnixon.org home