Why Creation Science is Pseudoscience With No Ifs Ands or Buts About It
I had previously argued that science assumes there is a natural explanation for everything it investigates precisely because this is the only way it can work. If natural explanations for events were not possible because God regularly intervened in the world, then science would not be possible at all. To be more precise, I argued that to the degree God intervenes in the universe then to that same degree science is not possible. But given the massive amount of knowledge acquired by science it's crystal clear God doesn't intervene at all. The very basis of science is predicated on a non-miraculous world order. So we must choose between God or science. We cannot have both. Undeterred, Vincent Torley at Uncommon Descent has written a couple of rebuttals to my continued defense of this. Since I usually try to keep my posts to a minimum I won't be responding to everything he wrote. But I do want to respond with what I consider to be a tour de force argument that should end this whole debate. Think I'm kidding? I'm not.
As far as I can tell Torley doesn't dispute my claim that to the degree God intervenes in the universe then to that same degree science is not possible. That's a very important agreement between us. The unresolved question is how much his God intervenes and the kind of interventions required of his God-hypothesis. He argues that the quantity and quality of divine interventions required for the universe to produce all creatures great and small do not render science impossible.
Oh, but to the contrary, it would. Given the assumption that God has intervened to create all creatures great and small then creation science would not be possible as a science. Remember, science assumes there is a natural explanation for everything it investigates precisely because this is the only way it can work. In other words, the very basis of science is predicated on a non-miraculous world order. And guess what, the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that if God has intervened the number of times required then creation science is not possible as a science.
Comprendo?
So admit it. Creation science is pseudoscience plain and simple, no ifs ands or buts about it. It's not science. It may be something else, and God may have indeed intervened to create all creatures great and small, but don't go around saying what you're doing is scientific. It cannot be. What you are doing is denying science. In order to maintain your faith you must be a science denier. You must argue that science doesn't tell the whole story. You must argue there is a different method for knowing the truth about the universe that is not based on science itself. And your God has knowingly placed you in this position since he presumably knew about the rise of modern science when creating the universe. So he also knew you would constantly have to deny science in order to believe.
Why? Because real science concludes exactly as Jerry Coyne has said:
I had previously argued that real science is not sectarian, that is, science cannot be placed into the service of a given religious sect if it's to be considered real science. I also argued that sectarian science is easy to spot, since only members of a particular religious sect agree with the so-called science. That's probably the clearest indicator of pseudoscience and Torley knows it. I could give multiple examples of this kind of religious pseudoscience. Since that is obviously the case there is a clear implication for creation pseudoscience. Is creationism sectarian science? Yes, most emphatically, because only creationists agree with that so-called science. Most all Catholics, liberal Protestants and even a growing number of evangelicals like Bruce Waltke, Peter Enns, Kenton Sparks, Randal Rauser, and Victor Reppert do not agree with it. So creationist science is sectarian science. Whether or not Christian believers accept creation science depends on if they are fundamentalist Christians.
But wait, there's more!
Adnan Oktar is a Muslim scholar who has put out a number of books on behalf of creationism. I'm sure Torley would probably agree with everything related to science in those books. But Oktar thinks this leads to the conclusion that Islam is true, not Christianity. This is also a mark of sectarian science, for sectarian science is used on behalf of one's own particular sect, even a different religion. Orthodox Jews would also agree.
What religious people believe about evolutionary science is therefore sect specific. That makes creationism pseudoscientific for only fundamentalist believers reject real science.
Q.E.D.
As far as I can tell Torley doesn't dispute my claim that to the degree God intervenes in the universe then to that same degree science is not possible. That's a very important agreement between us. The unresolved question is how much his God intervenes and the kind of interventions required of his God-hypothesis. He argues that the quantity and quality of divine interventions required for the universe to produce all creatures great and small do not render science impossible.
Oh, but to the contrary, it would. Given the assumption that God has intervened to create all creatures great and small then creation science would not be possible as a science. Remember, science assumes there is a natural explanation for everything it investigates precisely because this is the only way it can work. In other words, the very basis of science is predicated on a non-miraculous world order. And guess what, the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that if God has intervened the number of times required then creation science is not possible as a science.
Comprendo?
So admit it. Creation science is pseudoscience plain and simple, no ifs ands or buts about it. It's not science. It may be something else, and God may have indeed intervened to create all creatures great and small, but don't go around saying what you're doing is scientific. It cannot be. What you are doing is denying science. In order to maintain your faith you must be a science denier. You must argue that science doesn't tell the whole story. You must argue there is a different method for knowing the truth about the universe that is not based on science itself. And your God has knowingly placed you in this position since he presumably knew about the rise of modern science when creating the universe. So he also knew you would constantly have to deny science in order to believe.
Why? Because real science concludes exactly as Jerry Coyne has said:
Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about the details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. - Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is TrueSo what else is going on here with Torley? It's his faith. And what is the basis of his faith? It's not science, that's for sure, since he must constantly deny it. It's based on believing a set of sacred texts he considers to be authoritative that pre-date modern science. But when we place historical evidence in the same scales opposite to science, real science, there is no comparison at all. Faith has no method. Ordinary historical studies are fraught with so many problems a few philosophers of history have even thrown up their hands as knowing much of anything about the distant past. How much more is this the case when considering extraordinary claims of miracles that supposedly took place in the ancient superstitious past.
I had previously argued that real science is not sectarian, that is, science cannot be placed into the service of a given religious sect if it's to be considered real science. I also argued that sectarian science is easy to spot, since only members of a particular religious sect agree with the so-called science. That's probably the clearest indicator of pseudoscience and Torley knows it. I could give multiple examples of this kind of religious pseudoscience. Since that is obviously the case there is a clear implication for creation pseudoscience. Is creationism sectarian science? Yes, most emphatically, because only creationists agree with that so-called science. Most all Catholics, liberal Protestants and even a growing number of evangelicals like Bruce Waltke, Peter Enns, Kenton Sparks, Randal Rauser, and Victor Reppert do not agree with it. So creationist science is sectarian science. Whether or not Christian believers accept creation science depends on if they are fundamentalist Christians.
But wait, there's more!
Adnan Oktar is a Muslim scholar who has put out a number of books on behalf of creationism. I'm sure Torley would probably agree with everything related to science in those books. But Oktar thinks this leads to the conclusion that Islam is true, not Christianity. This is also a mark of sectarian science, for sectarian science is used on behalf of one's own particular sect, even a different religion. Orthodox Jews would also agree.
What religious people believe about evolutionary science is therefore sect specific. That makes creationism pseudoscientific for only fundamentalist believers reject real science.
Q.E.D.
0 comments:
Post a Comment