Naturalism in Science
Curtis L. Brickley, a Baptist minister in Darby, Montana, wrote for Montana Forum:
[A] local paper quoted Fred Allendorf, University of Montana Professor of Biological Sciences, to say, “As soon as you posit a supernatural creator...you move outside the realm of science". This statement is clearly not based in science but rather in philosophy. Mr. Allendorf is basing his definition of what is or is not science, not on observable data, objectively interpreted, but on a metaphysical assumption that cannot be falsified, tested or observed.
Brickley doesn't know what he is talking about. The focus on natural causes for events around us isn't a metaphysical presupposition picked out of hat. It is, instead, a conclusion developed over a long period of time during which science developed. People learned that if you make predictions, test those predictions, refine your hypotheses, and test them some more, you learn how to predict and control the world around you with a great deal of reliability and accuracy. Prediction and repeatability, however, only work in a natural context - supernatural creators cannot be predicted and cannot be tested in the manner in which science works.
Thus, supernatural creators are excluded from science because scientists have learned that the world simply doesn't work as though a supernatural creator was running around doing things. All the data we have about the world is consistent with a system that operates on fully naturalistic principles - and that's quite enough to keep working as though the world is, indeed, naturalistic.
Take wildfires for example. Our state can give witness to fires started from both natural causes (i.e. lightning strikes or unintentional) and other than natural causes (i.e. design or intentional). If any responsible arson investigator began his search for the “true” cause of the fire with the working assumption that there are no causes other than natural, he would inevitably conclude that the fire must have started from “natural” causes and not an intentional act of arson. No rational person, except possibly the arsonist, would conclude that this investigation was reliable because the investigator’s version of “truth” was established before the investigation even began.
It was very kind of Brickley to offer this example because it works so well as a means for showing just how absurd his position is. That isn't apparent at first because he cleverly avoids that fact that he has redefined "natural" causes to suit his agenda. When discussing evolution, he contrasts "natural" with "supernatural" - where "supernatural" is whatever is done by his god and "natural" is everything else, i.e. the regular world of natural cause and effect we all know.
In his arson example, however, he contrasts "natural" with "intentional acts caused by human hands," two classes which are both included in the "natural" category when discussing evolution. Convenient, isn't it? We should set things straight by using the proper categories for an accurate parallel - I'll rewrite Brickley's paragraph about arson so that it better reflects his position on evolution:
Take wildfires for example. Our state can give witness to fires started from both natural causes (i.e. lightning strikes or arson) and other than natural causes (i.e. caused by God, angels, demons, etc.). If any responsible arson investigator began his search for the “true” cause of the fire with the working assumption that there are no causes other than natural, he would inevitably conclude that the fire must have started from “natural” causes and not from God or demons. No rational person, except possibly the demons, would conclude that this investigation was reliable because the investigator’s version of “truth” was established before the investigation even began.
According to Bickley, it is absurd for scientists to investigate things like the origin of life without allowing for the possibility that life was started by something supernatural, such as God. He attempts to make this easier to see by using a context that people are more familiar with: arson. After all, isn't it absurd for arson investigators to seek out the causes of a fire without allowing for the possibility that the fire was started by something supernatural, such as God or a demon? Don't arson investigators regularly test for whether God or demons may have started fires?
Wait a minute... no, they don't do that, do they? As a matter of fact, I feel rather confident that if an arson investigator ever did tell his superiors or the press that he was actively working on the possibility that God came down and started a church fire, he's be put on leave and possibly dismissed for incompetence. Why? Because it's not rational. Even if we allow for the theoretical possibility that a god could start a fire, there would be no way to tell - that's just not something you can test for.
Arson investigations and scientific investigations mirror one another reasonably well. What is irrational and asinine in arson investigations would be irrational and asinine in scientific investigations as well - and that's why real scientists look for natural causes for the origins of life, not supernatural causes. Arson investigators who look for supernatural causes for fires are incompetent. Why, then, is Bickley arguing that biologists should look for supernatural causes to biological processes?
One of the methods used to promote creationism is to get people to think that the debate between creationism and evolution is simply a matter of opinion - and Brickley is no exception:
[T]he writer is simply offering “his” opinion regarding the subject of biological evolution. The fact is, opinions vary, and many scientists disagree with Mr. Cluff. So what do we teach our children? Just one side or do we, like Paul Harvey, teach “the rest of the story.”
Unfortunately for Brickley, this isn't simply a question of different opinions, all equally valid. It's a matter of science. People who reject evolution don't simply disagree, they are wrong. Brian Leiter writes: "As Ezra Pound said, "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." Everything for the ignorant appears to be a matter of mere "disagreement"--on a par, I suppose, with "I'd prefer Italian tonight, but you'd really rather have Chinese"--and not of "truth" and "falsity" or "reality" and "fiction." You think the earth is flat, I think it is round. That's a disagreement. God forbid I should call you an "ignorant yahoo.""
Well, Brickley is an "ignorant yahoo" - no better or worse than "ignorant yahoos" who believe in a flat earth or astrology. Brickley may feel that he has good reasons for rejecting evolution, but that doesn't make him any less ignorant than the people who think they have good reasons for rejecting the idea of a round earth.
According to Henry Schaffer, Ph.D., five time Nobel nominee and author of more than 1000 scientific publications, the most visible problem with Darwinism, once clear of its philosophic smoke and mirrors, is that “there remains no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life.”
Funny, but I can't find anything about a "Henry Schaffer" who has written any such thing - does this person really exist? If he does and if he is being quoted accurately and fairly, then he's as ignorant as Brickley here. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origins of life; therefore, whether there are "plausible scientific mechanisms for the origin of life" or not has no bearing on the strength of evolutionary theory.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment