The Dawn Treader

Hi Jeff,
I am angry because I think creationists/ID-ists, either unwittingly or wittingly, are trying to destroy science, which has saved and improved countless lives and has helped reveal the breath-taking beauty of the natural universe, by interjecting non-falsifiable claims about God.

It is funny the sort of motives you ascribe to scientists (desperation, lack of hope), because these honestly are the same motives scientists tend to ascribe to ID-ists/creationists.

For example, the insistence of ID-ists on making non-falsifiable claims about God into a realm that is simply neutral on the subject. It smacks of desperation, a lack of hope. Is your faith so tenuous that you must try to find some way to psuedo-scientifically prove away your doubt?

Cheers,
-j

Carl,

Thanks for the xlant link!

J,

I have yet to meet a creationist who was on a mission to destroy science. All the creationists I know, and I know plenty, love science. The "destroy language" is over dramatic -- and it stems from anger, which I think goes back to a love of science and a fear that ID will stop science and stop knowledge and wipe out hope.

I love science too for many reasons. Studying creation is a wonderful way to learn about the Creator and appreciate and praise his handiwork. Technology and research are also part of our cultural mandate to use the resources of the earth for common grace.

If ya'll want to debate falsifiability etc etc, be my guest.

I am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees with my basic assertion that science = hope ... and when hope is threatened, bitter anger is a natural consequence.

Blessings.

Jay bases his comments on the "non-falsifiable" nature of God.

To be precise, I based my comments on the non-falsifiability of ID's claims about God, not God Himself. Not to pick nits, but there is a slight difference.

I'd like Jay to explain why he believes truth resides in the falsifiability of some phenomenon.

I do not believe truth resides in falsifiability of a theory (or a phenomenon for that matter). I do believe that the utility of science rests on the ability to disprove scientific theories.

I have yet to meet a creationist who was on a mission to destroy science. All the creationists I know, and I know plenty, love science.

You don't have to mean to destroy something to destroy it. (I once completely hosed the brake calipers on my '91 Ford when I was an impoverished grad student/DIY mechanic making $10,000/year, and the last thing I meant to do was waste money by destroying my brakes.) I agree that some advocates of ID love and are trying to help science, but this does not mean if they have their drothers that they will end up helping and not hurting.

I am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees with my basic assertion that science = hope ... and when hope is threatened, bitter anger is a natural consequence.

I agree Jeff's is a more interesting question than the falsifiability thing.

Jeff, I do disagree with your assertion. Again, my anger stems from my perception that advocates of ID are (wittingly or unwittingly) trying to destroy science by interjecting non-falsifiable claims. Honestly, these feeling do not arise out of fear that I will have to atone for my sins, or because all my hope in this world is rooted in science. I simply think that ID-ists/creationists are working toward robbing the world of the fruits of science (fewer deaths from disease, more effective agriculture, a more complete understanding of nature) because they cannot accept the neutrality of science toward the God that is so central to their lives. It just seems selfish and foolish to me, and it makes me mad.

Cheers,
-j

I think the anger comes in large part from the perception of what ID actually is. To some of us (myself and Phillip Johnson included) we see ID as a wedge whose purpose is to undermine naturalistic science, not to enhance or improve it in any way. On my side (as opposed to Johnson's), we see it as an obvious scam designed specifically to appeal to people not well versed in the detailed sciences it purports to supplant.

So when we see (what appear to us to be) obvious charlatans demanding -- and sometimes getting -- equal time for their charade, it tends to get us a wee bit worked up.

Recall, too, that while the most vocal and often most angry opponents of ID are non-Christian, the vast majority of ID opponents are themselves Christian, so religion seems not to have much to do with it for those who oppose it. On the other hand, religion seems to have everything to do with the motives of those who support it.

If ID evidence somehow materialized but pointed in a direction that ran counter to Christian philosophy, the vast majority of ID proponents would abandon it in a heartbeat. That's why so many of us see ID as a disingenuous "means to an end." Whether or not they admit it (and they do or don't in varying degrees), ID proponents want to steer the conversation not just toward theism over atheism, but toward Christianity. They only embrace ID to the extent that they believe it will further that goal.

As to the importance of falsifiability, that's a stickier question. Basically, it boils down to a question of how we know / verify anything. From a scientific standpoint, a statement that could not be disproved, at least in theory, is a non-scientific statement. It must be either presumed true in the absence of evidence, or discarded as nonsense. In neither case is the statement itself scientific.

So the falsifiability issue doesn't address so much whether or not a statement is true, but whether or not it's scientific. A non-falsifiable statement may well be true, but it falls outside the realm of science. The fact that ID is non-falsifiable doesn't make it untrue -- although I strongly suspect that it is -- it simply makes it unscientific. Hence the oft-repeated statement of fact that "ID is not science."

Jeff:I have yet to meet a creationist who was on a mission to destroy science.Have a look in the mirror. :) You may not think you want to destroy science, but in fact you do. You repeatedly rail against "methodological naturalism," but that is science. Calling it by another name doesn't detract from the fact that you would prefer to do away with it.

But again, most creationists won't really see it as wanting to "destroy" science. In fact, what they're interested in is watering it down and engaging in selective acceptance. They often embrace (and even trumpet!) scientific discoveries which they feel affirms their faith, and reject those discoveries which they believe contradicts their faith.

But science is what it is. We can't selectively accept parts and reject other parts, at least not while retaining intellectual honesty. If we're to believe in science as a useful tool, we must accept the answers it gives us, even if we're uncomfortable with what those answers are.

This isn't to say that scientists are never wrong. They often are. But we don't say they're wrong until someone demonstrates scientifically that they're wrong. We can't simply reject those conclusions we don't like, and pretend that this doesn't undermine the entire discipline.I am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees with my basic assertion that science = hopeI basically agree with this part of the assertion, but probably not in the way you mean it. Science, in one form or another, does give us our best chance at solving most of the problems we currently face. So indeed, science is our best hope.

So in that respect, you're right that science is very much like religion, in that people who believe strongly in it will object, often angrily, when that core belief is attacked. Just as you have occasionally become angry with me for my criticisms of your religion, and I've sometimes become angry with you for your attacks on science (err, "methodological naturalism").

Mike:

I'm not sure I agree with you. I certainly don't feel that way, anyway. Heck, when I see the crap that our president has pulled, the lives he's responsible for, and the burden he's saddled our children with, I often hope that there is a judgment day, which I suspect will not treat him anything like what he expects. :)

In a more general sense, what you describe is selfishness, and it exists in all humans, Christian and non-Christian alike. But we risk getting back into a "Christian threat of punishment" thread that David, Jeff, and I beat into the ground last month.

"If we're to believe in science as a useful tool, we must accept the answers it gives us, even if we're uncomfortable with what those answers are."

I agree with this. I think there has been some cherry picking on both sides of the debate.

In my opinion, testable models which make predications about future discoveries are the best way to solve this debate. However, given my belief that we are locked into our worldviews unless we have some compelling reason to abandon them, I think the testable models approach will only have limited success. People will continue to interpret results through their filters -- and see what they want to see.

Just to throw my hat in the ring...

My problem with ID is that, as I understand it, they want to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Personally, I think there should be a specific class devoted to evolutionary theory, the Big Bang theory, the Christian/Jewish/Moslem world-origin theory and hey, let's throw in the Buddhists and Hindus too. We can present a basic intro to the tenets of all the major world religions (atheism included), which is something people need to know in these days of increasing religious extremism.

I can hear the screaming now: "But my kid might decide to be a Buddhist!!" Yeah, well, that's his choice to make and maybe you should be asking yourself why he thinks that's a better choice than what you're doing. Or if he's just doing it to cheese you off, being a teenager and all.

David:I think you're right that today "science is naturalism." But why should we care what it is today if we're trying to figure out what it should be?Because if it works, don't fix it. And the only people for whom it doesn't seem to work are those who dislike its conclusions for decidedly unscientific reasons.

The reason science (the process) is useful to us at all is because it's predictable and it behaves. If I precisely replicate all of the conditions for test X and repeat it a zillion times, I'll get the same result each time. Delving into the world of quantum mechanics, where you can't control all of the variables, you can still accurately assign probabilities and make meaningful predictions.

But the limitation of this tool is that it requires such consistency; that is, it requires naturalistic behavior, and is powerless to talk meaningfully about the "supernatural," if any such thing exists. To divorce naturalism from science is to take away the very thing that makes science useful. And to try to use science to probe the supernatural is to try to force a square peg into a round hole.

So I guess my question to you is, why do you think science should be substantially different than it currently is? The only reason I can discern (and I hope this isn't it) is that science, in its present form, doesn't arrive at your preferred conclusions.

David:The "ID will send us back to the middle ages in medicine" sort of argument is a straw man, I think.Unless by "straw man" you mean nobody actually argues that ID will send us back to the middle ages of medicine, I don't think "straw man" is what you mean here. In any case, it's not so much that ID will itself do this; it's that teaching students that ID is just as legitimate a science as any other risks doing this, because it conflates something which, despite all the protestations of its proponents, is unscientific, and tries to pass it off as "science." You guys hate the "god of the gaps" allegation, but in this case, it fits, and it's precisely why ID is non-scientific.If there is a God who brought the universe into being, and our method of investigation excludes Him/Her, how can we say it's been "successful?"Well, it depends upon precisely what it is we've set out to do in the first place. If the existence of God is empirically verifiable, then science can indeed address the question, but then there's no place left for faith. If not, then the question of God's existence is outside the realm of science to answer.

But even if that latter is the case, we can still use science to determine the process God used to shape the universe over time. Whether God did it may be off-limits, but as Hawking repeatedly points out, how He did it is not. (Unless, of course, God intentionally masked His work or otherwise tried to deceive us, both of which seem un-God-like).If science defined as methodological naturalism is properly understood as constrained to a limited sphere of knowledge, it doesn't conflict with anything fundamental that I believe about God or creation.Except, of course, for that tiny little "evolution" thing. :)The problem as I see it is that many view the results science produces through a lense of logical positivism, which says that only the results produced by the scientific method count as real knowledge.Well, unfortunately, there's something to this. Because apart from those things that we can empirically verify, what other way do we have of knowing anything at all? This opens a huge epistemological can of worms, of course. With science, at least, once we've agreed upon the basic ground rules, we have ways of verifying results, comparing notes, confirming things, etc. With "revealed" knowledge (the typical Christina/religious alternative), how can we meaningfully differentiate between a genuine revelation and an imagined one? In my estimation, empirical knowledge is to be preferred over revealed knowledge because it historically has a much better track record.

It sounds to me like you're advocating for something along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould's "separate spheres" argument.

David:
Don't ask me for a completely coherent harmonization, though, because I'm not there yet.

If you do get there, write a book, because you'll be the first! :) A unified truth theory, hmm? Interesting concept.

The historical basis for the empirical program, after all, originally was grounded in an epistemology based on revealed knowledge.

I'm not so sure that's true. After all, if revealed knowledge is trustworthy, then there's no good reason to test it! I would think that empiricism is born of skepticism about (or at least frustration with the incompleteness of) revealed knowledge.

But that wasn't really what I was getting at. My point is that there are innumerable occasions throughout history of empirical discoveries supplanting "revealed" knowledge and making the latter obsolete (or diminishing its importance). I'm not aware of any instances of things working the other way around.

It also suggests empirical knowledge can give us true knowledge of God

It suggests no such thing, and I make explicit notes to the contrary.

But as I said, the larger issue here is that we're dealing with a difficult question of epistemology: how is it that we can gain knowledge? To date, science (or something like it) is the only tool I've found that works for me.

But I'm not sure why, even if "truth is truth," you'd reject Gould's spheres; it could be that science is a tool that's only good for learning about certain aspects of truth. That's no reason to discard that tool if its effective at what it does, and I see no reason why you should demand that there be only one tool for learning about the nature of Life, The Universe, and Everything.

One of my hopes is that we can move away from this "conflict" model of the relation between faith and science.

I wouldn't view Gould's model as a "conflict" model, but rather as more of a segregated model. A "conflict" in my estimation would be the belief that because science contradicts revelation, science must be wrong. That's not what Gould is saying. He's saying that science and revelation address mostly non-overlapping areas of truth.

That science is only good at telling us about things which are empirically testable/verifiable is not in dispute. Assuming we accept that science yields legitimate results in those areas, the only question left is whether or not there's anything else. And a follow-up: If so, how can we learn about that?

If divine revelation from an infallible God truly exists, then that would have to be the most reliable source of knowledge, by definition. But you're still left with the pickle of how you would differentiate between a true revalation and a false one, or between an actual revelation and an imagined one.

"My problem with ID is that, as I understand it, they want to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Personally, I think there should be a specific class devoted to evolutionary theory, the Big Bang theory, the Christian/Jewish/Moslem world-origin theory and hey, let's throw in the Buddhists and Hindus too."

That was tried in California. It was not a science class. It was a philosophy class. From what I understand, the ACLU sued and bullied the class into being shut down.

"You guys hate the "god of the gaps" allegation, but in this case, it fits, and it's precisely why ID is non-scientific."

It may fit for Behe. His approach is that the impossibility of natural explanation serves as an inference toward the supernatural. I don't see it fitting for Debmski's work tho, and I don't see it fitting for comsological ID.

"To divorce naturalism from science is to take away the very thing that makes science useful."

Science is more than pragmatism. Science is the study of natural things. Where that leads is in some measure, in the eye of the beholder. For Sagan, it inspired awe and wonder. As it does and did for Christians -- like Galileo, Newton and their modern day equivalents.

For you, apparently science is just a means to and end -- technology and cures. But I don't think that gives you a right to de-legitimze what the study of natural things means to others.

"Sort of like, if I run a boolean search "David Opderbeck % Tom Girsch," I can't conclude anything from the lack of any info about "Tom Girsch" in that search, because my search logic filtered you out."

Good analogy, David. Puts the cookies on the lowest shelf. Mind if I use it?

"After all, if revealed knowledge is trustworthy, then there's no good reason to test it! I would think that empiricism is born of skepticism about (or at least frustration with the incompleteness of) revealed knowledge."

Why must I believe that assertion?

Why must I accept that Christians are not to be skeptical of what they hear -- and test it against the revealed Word? Did not even Paul himself commend the Bereans for being skeptical of Paul's preaching and testing it against the revealed Word? Isn't Paul the one who wrote "test everything, and hold to that which is true?"

Once again, I don't see that your reasoning incorporates the reality of worldview filters. We don't pick up knowledge independent of our worldviews, as if we were walking along the sea shore picking up shells.

That is the nasty can of worms you opened.

You honestly expressed your own view : "To date, science (or something like it) is the only tool I've found that works for me."

At the end of the day, you fall back on pragmatism.

If you were to suddenly to wake up one day and realize that the religion prof in Wisconsin was wrong, that Christianity was actually true, and that you need to stop trusting in your own intellect and in technology and in scientific research, and start trusting in Christ alone for hope in this life and the next -- then you would find that knowledge gained through the Revealed Word, the Holy Spirit, the experience of new life in a community of authentic Christ followers, and the study of natural things would work nicely for you too.

Listen, we all have questions. No one has knowledge completely wrapped up and tied with a nice bow. Atheists don't. Christians don't either.

What you need to recognize, imho, is that knowledge comes in more than one form. Knowledge comes from justified true beliefs. But knowledge also comes in a first person, existential kind of way too.

There is an existential / experiential aspect to knowledge that comes from authentic worship in an authenic community of authentic Christ followers. I don't think you have experienced that yet, Tom -- I really don't. It includes the intellect, but it transcends mere reasoning. This is the piece that I have not read about in your testimony about being a Christian once.

BTW, how do you square multiple kinds of knowledge with only one kind of truth?

"Joking aside, the problem with such Christian communities is that they only really work for people who already share those beliefs, or at the very least are strongly inclined to share them. To someone who doesn't share the beliefs, it would be as foreign to them as a mosque (or a UK pep rally) might be to you."

Every person is a member of a community. Communities are the places we get our plausibility structures from. We can't really learn about anything apart from being in a community. You are a member of a community now -- and your beliefs are shaped by them.

That is why I think communities are so important in shaping how we believe things. It is part of the process.

You simply can't learn about things in isolation. You learn about them by being in a community of like minded people.

Kuhn had a good sense of this in his work on paradigm shifts. Newbiggin, who I am reading now, really captures the notion of the importance of community on shaping our beliefs well.

Like you said, we look at other communities whom we don't share beliefs and we reject their views. To adopt their views, we must go through a paradigm shift and enter into their community.

You simply won't learn about Christianity by reading about it. I won't really understand Islam (at least at a deep level) without entering into a community of Muslims either.

"Human nature seems to dictate that we're very reluctant to abandon a worldview, but that doesn't mean we never do so. At some point, we get to a place where our worldview doesn't work any more, or doesn't seem to make sense any more, and we alter our worldview. For some people, that bar is a lot higher than for others."

I agree. The interesting thing question is, what role does the Holy Spirit play in this process? Scripture seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit is the changer of worldviews -- at least as far as becoming a follower of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that ultimately brings conviction of the truth of Christ. Trusting / saving faith is always described in the New Testament as a gift -- not as an achievement.

Jeff:
You simply can't learn about things in isolation. You learn about them by being in a community of like minded people.

I contend that you learn far more from non-like-minded people, hence why I spend so much time here. Otherwise, what you describe is exceptionally succeptible to groupthink.

Go see how Christ answered them.

But that begs the question. How do we know that Christ really answered them in that way, or that it was really a valid answer? Your "answer" to my question presupposes faith in Christ! To someone who does not share that presupposition, the answer is meaningless.

The interesting thing question is, what role does the Holy Spirit play in this process?

Again, the question is only interesting to one who already believes in the Holy Spirit. I cannot convince you that evolution occurred, for example, if I talk in terms that only make sense to someone who already believes that evolution occurred.

In a broader sense, we can't test the validity of our beliefs without entertaining at least the possibility that they might be false. All of your tests of worldview seem to require that the worldview is correct, but that expressly avoids the question: How would you know if you were wrong? And the follow-up, What could convince you that you're wrong?

David:
The actual curriculum had a little bit of ID and a whole lot of flood geology. It really wasn't an ID curriculum at all, it was mostly a defense of flood geology. The DI distanced themselves from it immediately.

That's roughly what I expected. What this means is that the class was not, as Jeff suggested, the type of "comparative theory-of-origins" class that carlaviii suggested. It also means that the ACLU's gripe was probably legitimate in that case.

As to teaching ID in public high schools outside the science class, I'd conditionally accept such a proposal. The conditions are many: that it's presented in a philosophy class that also presents other, competing philosophies without playing favorites or giving disproportionate time; that it explicitly state that the designer need not be the Christian God, or, for that matter, even a single God, or, for that matter, a God at all (it could be a highly advanced race of extraterrestrials, for example). Something tells me that such a class wouldn't really appease ID proponents. But then, I'm highly cynical of the ID movement. I take Johnson at his word: ID is simply a wedge to get Christianity specifically into the public school classrooms. It's a disingenuous means to an end. I really hope I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I am.