I find that persons advocating a Bible-based, often literal, creation story misunderstand science to the extent that it undermines their argument. "Because evolutionists assume millions of years, they believe... [fill in the blank usually with evolution]" is a creationist mantra commonly provided in rebuttal to science-based arguments. Typically, this assertion is followed by a list of evidence that either demonstrate things happen rapidly (fossils of animals giving birth, burial of coal, fossilized pliers, hats, flour sacks, and others), or that things shouldn't be as they are if the Earth were as old as evolutionists claim (oceans should be saltier or filled with sediment, the Cliffs of Dover shouldn't be cliffs or the continents should have eroded flat, and others). In actuality, these pieces of evidence are misinterpreted by creationists based on the mistaken assumption that "evolutionists assume millions of years." They (we) don't.
In this context, evolutionists are sedimentologists, stratigraphers, and paleontologists; I'll refer to practicioners of these disciplines as geologists. I have indicated in previous posts (Principles of Geology and Fossils and Circular Reasoning) that geology is founded on a set of simple guidelines: the principles of superposition, original horizontality, and lateral continuity. Superposition and original horizontality are based on the assumption that gravity works (in the Newtonian sense, Einstein's refinements don't significantly affect the actions of these geologic processes). Lateral continuity is a logical extension of superposition and original horizontality. These concepts are in the geologist's toolbox along with cross-cutting relationships, unconformities, uniformitarianism, and faunal succession1.
One refinement I have yet to mention is the concept of facies: aspects and characteristics of a rock layer that change laterally (horizontally) are often repeated vertically. This concept is known as Walther's Law and is an observation as close to a "law" as geology is going to get. See for example wikipedia and Depositional Systems and Environments.
At no point in this toolbox, has a geologist assumed "millions of years." Rather, by observing the rocks and applying these basic principles, geologists have made two monumentally important observations which have been repeatedly demonstrated and tested. Each rock layer tells a different story about the processes that created it. Rock layers can be placed in order. In a continuous vertical sequence of rocks the order is obvious. The application of superposition, lateral continuity, and faunal succession is especially useful for ordering rock sequences separated geographically.
Even before the geologic record2 was established in its current form, the concept of uniformitarianism suggested the Earth had to be more than a few thousand years old. If a succession of rocks provides evidence of being formed as the result of differing processes, there must be sufficient time not only to form each layer in the deposit, but time must also pass to allow for observed changes in the depositional settings. Just as sediments deposited by tides reflect daily cycles, the time required to form a succession of sandstone, shale, and coal must include not only the time to make the layers, but also the time needed to transition from oceanic to swamp settings. It can't be a single setting; trees and ferns don't grow at the bottom of the ocean. It requires even more time when like sequences comprising multiple transitions from ocean to swamp are stacked one upon another (for example: cyclothems in the Carboniferous). Another of my favorite cyclic rock sequences is the Castile Formation.
There was an early, but failed, effort to determine the age of the Earth based on sedimentology and stratigraphy. Uniformitarianism suggested the rate of sedimentation occurring in a depositional setting can be measured based on the rate of observable processess. If the rate at which a rock type is formed and its thickness is known, elapsed time can be estimated. Then, just add up all the elapsed times for all the layers and the Earth is that old. An obvious problem to this proposal is the presence of unconformities (gaps in the record representing a period of time of no deposition or erosion). Other problems include the same rock type can form at different rates and arriving at an exact count of the number of layers. This exercise, however inaccurate, demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Earth was certainly older than 6,000 years and on the order of millions of years.
The bottom line is that rather than assuming millions of years as is asserted by creationists, the multi-million-year age of the Earth is the logical implication of applying a uniform set of simple guidelines to place Earth's rock record in order to facilitate their systematic study. It was not until the invention of radiometric age dating techniques that it was discovered just how many millions of years (4,500 million plus or minus a few million).
1In this context, faunal succession neither assumes nor demonstrates evolution. The term simply means what William "Strata" Smith intended: the collection (assemblage) of fossils that occur within a rock unit are characteristic of that unit. And, this doesn't refer only to vertebrate macrofossils, it includes microfossils (plant and animal), invertebrates, and trace fossils.
2I am speaking here of the rock record, that is, the observable order of rocks resulting from the application of basic geologic principles. Once the framework of the order of rocks was determined, the order (succession) of fossils in that rock record, the "fossil" record, began to take shape. As more fossil data accumulated, the utility of those fossils to resolve detailed rock order (stratigraphic) questions became obvious enabling the correlation and ordering of rock units that weren't laterally contiguous or directly stacked. When viewed as a whole, the rock and fossil records comprise the relative time scale. The Geologic Time Scale is that relative time scale with age dates derived from radiometric analyses. The succession of fossils in the rock record provide powerful support for the Theory of Evolution and absolute (radiometric) age dating demonstrates the process took much longer than 6,000 years.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Origin of Life
The Answers in Genesis (AIG) newsletter of June 13, 2003 asks, "How can scientists investigate life's origin when it supposedly occurred so long ago?" Their answer concludes science is not up to the task:
"It's a big problem. Think about this--in 1995 there was a murder trial involving a famous athlete that went on for many months. If lawyers and the forensic scientists had such a hard time trying to reconstruct an event that occurred just months earlier, how can scientists ever reconstruct what happened supposedly millions or billions of years ago? Do creationists and evolutionists argue about photosynthesis, how a computer works, or how to put up a space shuttle? No, they don't disagree about those things. But do they argue about origins? Most definitely! So what's the difference? Current technology deals with what we can observe in the present. But, when it comes to origins and the past, this is outside real science because we don't have the past with us! In Genesis, though, we have a record of a witness Who has been there in the past. This is the basis for TRUE science."
The AIG contends that without a witness science is stuck "because we don't have the past with us." The work of lawyers and forensic scientists is admittedly hard. Because that work is hard, it doesn't mean that crimes are not worth investigating or will necessarily remain unsolved, however. A knowledgeable and persistent detective can often find just the clues they need for a solution and conviction. Sometimes, all it takes is a showman lawyer whose rhyme and charges of racial bias causes the jury to disregard all of the (admittedly complicated) DNA evidence.
The AIG question is actually two questions: What is the origin of life? And, how do scientists investigate the past? The origin of life question remains unanswered. In fact, evolution, including Darwin's work, is concerned with the origin of the observed diversity of life (the origin of species) and not the origin of life. Experiments have shown how chemicals characteristic of living things could have been made from components of Earth's early atmosphere. Or, life may have begun as complex chemical interactions in the vicinity of hot, metallic, sulfur-rich springs at the bottom of dark oceans. There is also evidence that clay may have acted as a catalyst that hosted self-reproducing chemicals. It may be that life originated somewhere else in the universe and made its way to Earth on comets or meteorites. As yet, there is no clear winner in this debate. Until we reach other planets and star systems and have other examples of life, this question will likely remain unanswered, but that doesn't mean the question is unanswerable. It simply means that for now, the only way we have available to directly investigate origins relies on fossils and the chemical reactions that were the precursors to life didn't leave traces ("fossils") that we know how to detect. It is sufficient (but not scientifically satisfying) that sequences of chemical reactions that produce those precursor chemicals of life can be demonstrated.
We do have the past with us; the rock record is around and underneath us. Using the basic principles of geology, the rocks around us can be ordered, oldest to youngest. Once placed in that context, methods for studying the past go far beyond just identifying fossils. To list a few techniques, rocks are photographed, classified, tasted, hammered, blasted, cut and polished into micro-thin wafers, examined with microscopes, dyed, crushed, sieved, dissolved in acid, x-rayed, CT-scanned, and tested with Geiger counters. Structures in the rocks (mud cracks, worm burrows, roots, soils, crossbedding, and others) are described, counted, and measured. The relationships of a rock unit to those above it, below it, and laterally equivalent are studied.
All of this information is compared to processes and rocks we can see forming today. Was rock formed by the action of a volcano, water, wind, ice, earthquake, storm, or landslide? Was it formed in a lake, beach, river, swamp, forest, flood, or desert? Did water flow back and forth, like tides, or in just one direction, like rivers? Was water deep or shallow, fast, slow, or still, or fresh or salty? Current technology allows geologists to make observations and conduct experiments that lead to answers to all these questions. This detective work combined with the relative geologic time scale and radiometric age dating enables us to answer more questions. When was this area a lake? Where were the rivers and mountains when that soil formed? How old is the Atlantic Ocean?
Some of the investigations are as detailed and painstaking as any murder investigation. In Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution, Richard Fortey describes one researcher who spent a lifetime examining the trilobite fossils in a single rock unit. After examining thousands of specimens, the paleontologist showed that rather than many species of distinctly differing sizes and number of body segments his trilobite fossils represented different life stages of the same species from larva to adult.
Geologists and paleontologists are the detectives of the Earth's past. Wherever there are rocks on the surface or deep within the Earth, scientists are looking at them. Understanding this past is essential to our future. For example, to better know the effect of greenhouse gases on Earth's climate, we need to know how Earth's climate has changed in the past, what caused those changes, and how those changes affected living organisms. These are the types of problems "real" and "true" scientists can investigate by interrogating our witnesses, the rocks.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Fossils and Circular Reasoning
Ken Ham's organization, Answers in Genesis, publishes a weekly newsletter in which he poses a series of questions that are supposedly impossible for scientists to answer in an acceptable fashion. He then provides an answer, eponymosly derived from Genesis, that is authoritatively supposed to trump science. I don't know if AIG maintains an archive of these newsletters at their web site, but I do. I need to post more regularly here and so, I'll begin answering Ken Ham's questions.
The AIG newsletter of March 3, 2003 asks, "How do evolutionary scientists date fossils to get such OLD dates?" Their answer posits that science gets it wrong.
"It’s hard to believe, but the fossils date the rocks that they’re in, and the rocks date the fossils they’re in! The main evidence for evolution is the fossil record. Supposedly, this is a record of the evolution of life, with the oldest and simplest creatures at the bottom and the younger and more complex forms at the top.
"But the fossil sequences are actually based on a belief that the Earth is millions of years old. And the geologic ages of millions of years have been built upon the basis that the idea of evolution occurring over millions of years is true. Isn’t this circular reasoning? It certainly is. In fact, evolutionary thinking is full of that kind of circular reasoning.
"Biology professors tell you the geologists have the evidence for evolution; geology professors tell you the biologists have the evidence for evolution. In reality, the evidence doesn’t fit with evolution, but it DOES fit with what the Bible records in Genesis."
The AIG answer misrepresents both geology and biology. The geological and biological branches of science both have separate lines of evidence supporting evolution. And, yes, geologists and biologists both cite literature from the other field. I am and a geologist and will answer Ken Ham geologically.
How do geologists use fossils and how are dates determined? Each branch of science is based on some fundamental principles. The periodic table in chemistry and conservation of matter and energy in physics are examples. The founding principles of geology are:
(Nicholas Steno, 1638-1686) Superposition. In an undisturbed sequence, a rock layer is younger than the layer upon which it rests and older than the unit that rests on it.
(Steno) Original horizontality. Sedimentary rocks were originally deposited in nearly flat layers.
(Steno) Lateral continuity. Within the limits of a particular environment, you can match similar sequences of rocks from one area to another, across a valley, underground, and even between continents.
(James Hutton, 1726-1797) Cross-cutting relations. A fold, fault, or volcanic rock is younger than the rock units it effects.
(Hutton) Unconformities. Some boundaries between rock units represent significant time during which either no rocks were formed or pre-existing rocks were removed by erosion.
(Hutton) Uniformitarianism. The “present is the key to the past” idea. Environments and processes we see shaping the Earth around us today can be used as models for what happened in the past.
(William "Strata" Smith, 1769-1839) Faunal succession. The fossils in a rock unit are unique to that unit. This modern name implies change through time, but succession is a more recent idea than the original concept. Charles Darwin didn't publish Origin of the Species until 20 years after Smith died.
Careful application of these ideas led to the development of the relative geologic time scale, a "Table of Contents" for past Earth history. With the scale in hand, geologists could say, “this rock is older than that one.” Geologists and paleontologists could observe the change of fossils from one unit to the next. For example, fossils of trilobites [oldest], dinosaurs, and humans [youngest] do not occur in the same rock layers.
To answer the question of how much time, scientists had to wait until the discovery of radioactivity and the development of radiometric age dating. Some rocks and minerals preserve traces of radioactive elements and their decay products. These elements can be used as a clock. The amazing thing is that radiometric age dating confirmed the order of rock units established by the relative geologic time scale.
Fossil sequences are not based on the "belief that the Earth is millions of years old." Rather, rock units were ordered according to the Relative Geologic Time Scale. AIG says, "fossils date the rocks that they’re in." No, the fossils in a rock unit are used to help place it in the context of the relative geologic time scale. For example, if you are looking for dinosaur fossils and you find a rock with trilobites, you know you need to look somewhere else. AIG also says, "the rocks date the fossils they’re in." Radiometric age dating establishes absolute ages of certain rock units. In an undisturbed sequence of rocks, the absolute age represents the youngest possible age for all rocks it rests on and the oldest possible age for all units that rest on it.
The claim of circular reasoning in AIG's first paragraph is invalidated by the manner in which the geologic time scale and absolute age dating techniques are used. Geologic principles and the beginnings of the relative time scale were developed before Darwin and are not based on the assumption of millions of years. As the relative time scale was developed, geologists realized it certainly took much longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years for the rock sequences to develop, but they had no good idea how long until radiometric age dating techniques were developed. Finally the claim that geological citation of biological lines of evidence and biologists citing geologists is a straw man argument fabricated simply to discredit both branches of science.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Guppies
AIG recently posted a newsletter item (21-July-2007) that asked "Can speciation occur quickly?" Not surprisingly the answer is yes and the basic evidence is that all of the species we see today are descended from the "kinds" (a term not in the newsletter) that were on the Ark. Evolutionists, because of their insistence that speciation occurs over geologic time (millions to billions of years), must be wrong.
AIG has often been accused of the sin of "quote mining," accurately quoting some authority out of context in such a way that the cited text represents a position completely opposed to the thesis of that authority. This newsletter item exhibits a mined quote of a different sort. As presented by AIG:
What nonsense. No reference to the report or article is provided; it could be a letter to the editor written by AIG staff. Nothing is known about what the examples might be or what is meant by "very quickly." To an evolutionist (in this case, a geologist or paleontologist), very quickly can mean any time period from less than a second to a couple of million years; the quote provides no context for establishing the time scale.
Worse still, AIG has conflated quick change with speciation. This becomes pretty obvious when you visit the page on speedy speciation linked in the AIG newsletter. Here we meet the AIG version of a guppy story. Guppies in Trinidad were transplanted into a pool (previously without guppies) above a waterfall. These guppies matured later, became bigger, and had fewer offspring than those in the predator-filled pool below the falls. Again, "quickly" remains undefined by AIG; time should be in terms of the number of generations of guppies it took for these adaptations to occur. (Maybe the original article in "Science" has this information, but AIG won't tell you.) A more pressing problem is the question: were the observed adaptations sufficient to give rise to truly separate species?
Or, were the adaptations simply a response to an environment with fewer predators and plenty of food? In the United States, there are many environmental factors that have changed over the last 200 years or so (an extremely quick blink of the eye in geologic and evolutionary time) that are giving rise to the same sorts of changes. High quality food items are available in many varieties. Our healthcare system is widespread and generally accessible. Sanitation, clean air, and clean water are priorities. A visit to the museums in Jamestown or Williamsburg, cities founded by early European settlers, will reveal adult shoes that are almost unimaginably tiny compared to our modern feet. Men and women exceeding 6 feet in stature are no longer uncommon. American humans are changing relatively rapidly within a favorable environment. However, there is no Homo norte-americansis; no separate species. Given enough time and the political will to enforce isolationist political policies (i.e., geographic isolation in evolutionary terms), those adaptations might lead to the evolution of a separate species.
Has AIG made a case for rapid speciation? No. Given the failure to define the time periods involved, the failure to adequately reference any of their statements, and the invalid assumption of the equivalence of adaptation with speciation, it is fair to say they have again only slain their own straw man.
12/6/2007: In reading this post, I note that I made an error in logic. It can be concluded that I conflated rapid speciation as being somehow inconsistent with evolution. It isn't. There are plenty of relatively rapid speciation events, including some that are happening on laboratory time scales well within the span of a human lifetime that are cited at many sites, for example search for "rapid speciation" at TalkOrigins.
AIG has often been accused of the sin of "quote mining," accurately quoting some authority out of context in such a way that the cited text represents a position completely opposed to the thesis of that authority. This newsletter item exhibits a mined quote of a different sort. As presented by AIG:
But in the journal Science, a report stated:
“These examples say that natural selection can cause a population to change very quickly and hint that speciation could [occur] very quickly …”This statement is followed by the conclusion "true operational science confirms Biblical history."
What nonsense. No reference to the report or article is provided; it could be a letter to the editor written by AIG staff. Nothing is known about what the examples might be or what is meant by "very quickly." To an evolutionist (in this case, a geologist or paleontologist), very quickly can mean any time period from less than a second to a couple of million years; the quote provides no context for establishing the time scale.
Worse still, AIG has conflated quick change with speciation. This becomes pretty obvious when you visit the page on speedy speciation linked in the AIG newsletter. Here we meet the AIG version of a guppy story. Guppies in Trinidad were transplanted into a pool (previously without guppies) above a waterfall. These guppies matured later, became bigger, and had fewer offspring than those in the predator-filled pool below the falls. Again, "quickly" remains undefined by AIG; time should be in terms of the number of generations of guppies it took for these adaptations to occur. (Maybe the original article in "Science" has this information, but AIG won't tell you.) A more pressing problem is the question: were the observed adaptations sufficient to give rise to truly separate species?
Or, were the adaptations simply a response to an environment with fewer predators and plenty of food? In the United States, there are many environmental factors that have changed over the last 200 years or so (an extremely quick blink of the eye in geologic and evolutionary time) that are giving rise to the same sorts of changes. High quality food items are available in many varieties. Our healthcare system is widespread and generally accessible. Sanitation, clean air, and clean water are priorities. A visit to the museums in Jamestown or Williamsburg, cities founded by early European settlers, will reveal adult shoes that are almost unimaginably tiny compared to our modern feet. Men and women exceeding 6 feet in stature are no longer uncommon. American humans are changing relatively rapidly within a favorable environment. However, there is no Homo norte-americansis; no separate species. Given enough time and the political will to enforce isolationist political policies (i.e., geographic isolation in evolutionary terms), those adaptations might lead to the evolution of a separate species.
Has AIG made a case for rapid speciation? No. Given the failure to define the time periods involved, the failure to adequately reference any of their statements, and the invalid assumption of the equivalence of adaptation with speciation, it is fair to say they have again only slain their own straw man.
12/6/2007: In reading this post, I note that I made an error in logic. It can be concluded that I conflated rapid speciation as being somehow inconsistent with evolution. It isn't. There are plenty of relatively rapid speciation events, including some that are happening on laboratory time scales well within the span of a human lifetime that are cited at many sites, for example search for "rapid speciation" at TalkOrigins.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Foundations of Science
When addressing the questions invoked by debate between scientific and religious viewpoints, it is appropriate to look at their underpinnings to arrive at a how and why science is successful in doing what it does. Unfortunately, such an examination must delve into topics for which only philosophical discourse exists and not answers. I'm not a philosopher and will likely mangle any number of subjects, but they are worth thinking and discussing on the way to understanding.
The natures of consciousness and reality are problematic to say the least. We have to start somewhere (nihilists not withstanding) and so I'll start with consciousness. Consciousness seems to be a confluence or interaction between thought, emotion, and self-awareness. Many belief systems, especially the Abrahamic traditions (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam) will readily identify consciousness with the soul. It is that which makes humanity unique, that is saved or lost, and that perseveres forever in heavenly bliss or eternal damnation. Modern neurochemists feel they are on the verge of determining the biological nature of this aspect of humanity. Whether consciousness is a quality bestowed upon us or it arises from biochemical activity, it is what makes each of us a "self."
That self interacts with our surroundings by the senses at our command. Taste and touch act in our immediate vicinity. Smell and sound are a bit more far reaching. Sight, however, can operate over vast distances. Everything our selves perceive are filtered through the narrow windows of these senses and then processed by the conscious mind. What is it that we perceive? It is nothing less than the "reality" in which we are immersed. There are two possibilities for the nature of reality: objective or subjective. In an objective reality, we and the universe in which we exist operate according to specific principles (laws) that exist completely apart from whether we understand those principles. Subjective realities, on the other hand, open up the possibility that the universe may operate in the manner we believe it does. Subjective universes allow that if sufficient numbers of people believe in ghosts, then they exist. This is an "it's true for me" viewpoint.
Dr. Susan Blackmore argues that because of the nature and limitations of our senses, objective realities don't exist; each of us live in the reality of our own making. However, she continues, unless we pretend there is an objective reality then existence is without meaning. (I heard an interview with her on the Guardian Unlimited Science Podcast of April 23, 2007. This is difficult philosophy and I may have made mistakes summarizing Dr. Blackmore's thesis.)
So, then, where does this get science and religion? Basically, each of us, a collective of conscious entities, perceive a reality for which there is a consensus about the way that reality works. It is at this point that science and religion diverge. Religion takes the tact that those things revealed in a sacred text and affirmed by itself to be true are, in fact, true statements about the nature of reality. An omnipotent and omniscient God created the universe 6,000 (+/-) years ago. That God tossed humanity out of Eden because the first woman ate an apple and thus condemned all the generations of Man to existing in sin which can only be forgiven if a person accepts the death and resurrection of a man/god/part of a 3-for-1. Faith and belief (existing without and often in spite of evidence) are the basis of this reality.
In science, reality has rules. There is a way the universe works that isn't capricious and that humanity can (eventually) understand. In a very fundamental sense, science is about building a consensus on how a reality works. Science makes the assumption that reality is objective. Once that assumption is accepted, it becomes possible to accumulate a consistent body of evidence-based knowledge that is consistent with and demonstrates particular claims about the nature of reality: the Earth orbits the Sun, the surface of the Earth is comprised of plates that move respect to each other, life evolved. In science, if someone proposes a weird idea, they must be ready to present their evidence and methods for testing and verification by others. In some cases, ideas languish for lack of evidence (continental drift), are dismissed as self-delusion (N-rays), or are revealed as frauds and hoaxes (Piltdown man).
When science makes claims about the nature of reality, those supporting the claims are obligated to present evidence. If that evidence is found to be insufficient to support the claim, it must either be abandoned or revised. Science readily does this and is often criticized as so fluid as to be meaningless. (Whatever happened to the Brontosaurus?) It is this progressive change that differentiates science from religion and is the basis of the success of science.
The natures of consciousness and reality are problematic to say the least. We have to start somewhere (nihilists not withstanding) and so I'll start with consciousness. Consciousness seems to be a confluence or interaction between thought, emotion, and self-awareness. Many belief systems, especially the Abrahamic traditions (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam) will readily identify consciousness with the soul. It is that which makes humanity unique, that is saved or lost, and that perseveres forever in heavenly bliss or eternal damnation. Modern neurochemists feel they are on the verge of determining the biological nature of this aspect of humanity. Whether consciousness is a quality bestowed upon us or it arises from biochemical activity, it is what makes each of us a "self."
That self interacts with our surroundings by the senses at our command. Taste and touch act in our immediate vicinity. Smell and sound are a bit more far reaching. Sight, however, can operate over vast distances. Everything our selves perceive are filtered through the narrow windows of these senses and then processed by the conscious mind. What is it that we perceive? It is nothing less than the "reality" in which we are immersed. There are two possibilities for the nature of reality: objective or subjective. In an objective reality, we and the universe in which we exist operate according to specific principles (laws) that exist completely apart from whether we understand those principles. Subjective realities, on the other hand, open up the possibility that the universe may operate in the manner we believe it does. Subjective universes allow that if sufficient numbers of people believe in ghosts, then they exist. This is an "it's true for me" viewpoint.
Dr. Susan Blackmore argues that because of the nature and limitations of our senses, objective realities don't exist; each of us live in the reality of our own making. However, she continues, unless we pretend there is an objective reality then existence is without meaning. (I heard an interview with her on the Guardian Unlimited Science Podcast of April 23, 2007. This is difficult philosophy and I may have made mistakes summarizing Dr. Blackmore's thesis.)
So, then, where does this get science and religion? Basically, each of us, a collective of conscious entities, perceive a reality for which there is a consensus about the way that reality works. It is at this point that science and religion diverge. Religion takes the tact that those things revealed in a sacred text and affirmed by itself to be true are, in fact, true statements about the nature of reality. An omnipotent and omniscient God created the universe 6,000 (+/-) years ago. That God tossed humanity out of Eden because the first woman ate an apple and thus condemned all the generations of Man to existing in sin which can only be forgiven if a person accepts the death and resurrection of a man/god/part of a 3-for-1. Faith and belief (existing without and often in spite of evidence) are the basis of this reality.
In science, reality has rules. There is a way the universe works that isn't capricious and that humanity can (eventually) understand. In a very fundamental sense, science is about building a consensus on how a reality works. Science makes the assumption that reality is objective. Once that assumption is accepted, it becomes possible to accumulate a consistent body of evidence-based knowledge that is consistent with and demonstrates particular claims about the nature of reality: the Earth orbits the Sun, the surface of the Earth is comprised of plates that move respect to each other, life evolved. In science, if someone proposes a weird idea, they must be ready to present their evidence and methods for testing and verification by others. In some cases, ideas languish for lack of evidence (continental drift), are dismissed as self-delusion (N-rays), or are revealed as frauds and hoaxes (Piltdown man).
When science makes claims about the nature of reality, those supporting the claims are obligated to present evidence. If that evidence is found to be insufficient to support the claim, it must either be abandoned or revised. Science readily does this and is often criticized as so fluid as to be meaningless. (Whatever happened to the Brontosaurus?) It is this progressive change that differentiates science from religion and is the basis of the success of science.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Starting points and viewpoints
Creationists challenge those who do not hold their opinions to be open minded and they criticize scientists for being closed minded for failing to consider the creationist position. Creationists also state that they are scientists doing scientific things, it is just that they have a different starting point than evolutionists. All of these assertions make an appeal a reasonable fair person, why then is the creationist position so rejected by the scientific community?
One of the main points where the scientific and creationist viewpoints diverge is that "starting point," the age of the Earth. On the authority of Genesis, creationists assert that Bishop Ussher's 6,000 year (+/-) estimate of the age of the Earth is true. The bulk of the arguments presented in support of their hypothesis consist of attempting to demonstrate that various processes occur very quickly (rapid burial of coal, fossilization of creatures giving birth, etc) or that the Earth would be a very different place "if it were as old as evolutionists say" (all continents eroded to sea level, seas filled with sediment, seas saltier, 14C at equilibrium, etc.).
Scientists started with the same viewpoint as did creationists. There was a time when the age of the Earth, on Biblical authority, seemed to be young, and Bishop Ussher, using genealogy and other text clues set the date of creation to about 4004 BCE. However, as people began looking at the world around them, this date was not consistent with physical evidence. The layered rocks weren't formed as the result of a single event; they weren't even formed by one single process. Rather, the layered rocks were formed by many different processes. From this point, scientific and creationist views diverged; scientists realized that on human terms, Earth is unimaginably old. From this viewpoint, scientists say, yes, some coal was buried quickly, but there are many different coal layers. Formation of coal and burial occurred not once, but thousands of times. Rapid burial is a condition necessary for preserving fossils; without rapid burial, scavengers and decomposers scatter and break down the body and bones so that no remains are left.
Are scientists open-minded? There are scientists who have developed a cherished idea and have force fit all observations and evidence into that framework. That is the weakness of an individual. Science, however, has a requirement that an idea be reproducible and verifiable by others. A scientist starts with evidence and comes to conclusions. OK, I will concede at this point that scientists operate within a framework of the evidence and ideas of their predecessors. Scientists, don't automatically assume their predecessors are correct. What real scientists do not do, is pledge that no matter what they do, it will always and invariantly be in compliance with a preconceived notion revealed in a sacred text.
Creationists do not appear particularly scientific or open minded. If one chooses data on the basis of whether it demonstrates a preconceived idea and rejects contrary information, if one repeats the same arguments and holds to the same idea in the light of new information, these are the hallmarks of someone who is not doing science.
One of the main points where the scientific and creationist viewpoints diverge is that "starting point," the age of the Earth. On the authority of Genesis, creationists assert that Bishop Ussher's 6,000 year (+/-) estimate of the age of the Earth is true. The bulk of the arguments presented in support of their hypothesis consist of attempting to demonstrate that various processes occur very quickly (rapid burial of coal, fossilization of creatures giving birth, etc) or that the Earth would be a very different place "if it were as old as evolutionists say" (all continents eroded to sea level, seas filled with sediment, seas saltier, 14C at equilibrium, etc.).
Scientists started with the same viewpoint as did creationists. There was a time when the age of the Earth, on Biblical authority, seemed to be young, and Bishop Ussher, using genealogy and other text clues set the date of creation to about 4004 BCE. However, as people began looking at the world around them, this date was not consistent with physical evidence. The layered rocks weren't formed as the result of a single event; they weren't even formed by one single process. Rather, the layered rocks were formed by many different processes. From this point, scientific and creationist views diverged; scientists realized that on human terms, Earth is unimaginably old. From this viewpoint, scientists say, yes, some coal was buried quickly, but there are many different coal layers. Formation of coal and burial occurred not once, but thousands of times. Rapid burial is a condition necessary for preserving fossils; without rapid burial, scavengers and decomposers scatter and break down the body and bones so that no remains are left.
Are scientists open-minded? There are scientists who have developed a cherished idea and have force fit all observations and evidence into that framework. That is the weakness of an individual. Science, however, has a requirement that an idea be reproducible and verifiable by others. A scientist starts with evidence and comes to conclusions. OK, I will concede at this point that scientists operate within a framework of the evidence and ideas of their predecessors. Scientists, don't automatically assume their predecessors are correct. What real scientists do not do, is pledge that no matter what they do, it will always and invariantly be in compliance with a preconceived notion revealed in a sacred text.
Creationists do not appear particularly scientific or open minded. If one chooses data on the basis of whether it demonstrates a preconceived idea and rejects contrary information, if one repeats the same arguments and holds to the same idea in the light of new information, these are the hallmarks of someone who is not doing science.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Science and Religion
On the question of religion and science, faith-based ideologies have not fared very well in judging the validity of science-based propositions especially when science is in apparent conflict with revealed knowledge as set forth in sacred texts. Galileo demonstrated that Copernicus was right about the structure of the Solar System, but it took the Catholic Church centuries (1737 to 1992) to express regret over the supression of his work. Evolution is another idea that stands in opposition to sacred teachings. Stephen J. Gould sought a way around direct conflict by suggesting that religion and science were "non-overlapping magisteria." Science and religion exist in parallel but don't come into conflict because they answer different types of questions: religion examines who and why, whereas science examines how and when.
Richard Dawkins rejects Gould's ideas as soft peddling to vocal religious minorities. Dawkins and Victor Stenger posit that religion makes certain claims about the way the world (or universe) works and have the chutzpah to say those propositions can be investigated scientifically (the reason Dawkins rejects Gould's NOMA idea). Sam Harris rejects faith in general as a very dangerous and divisive idea. Eugenie Scott sees a continuum of belief systems from literal flat-earth fundamentalists to atheism. Eugenie Scott and E.O. Wilson feel that religious moderates who accept scientific propositions can be enlisted in the campaign to increase scientific literacy.
The majority of folks, when they consider the question at all, are somewhere in the middle: accepting of religion and sacred texts, but also accepting of science and its findings. Often the debate makes them uncomfortable. When questioned, the controversy seems to require them to make a definitive decision one way or the other with no middle ground. For a politician, accepting a concrete position is establishing them as a target whereas waffling offends the fewest number of potential voters. Personally, I think taking this middle ground is why most of the opinion polls show a high percentage of persons who reject evolution. The poll questions are often phrased so the respondent either has to reject God or choose among faith-based answers. Most will choose an answer that is flavored by their faith.
It turns out that the vast majority of religious persons are religious and accepting of particular traditions for no better reason than that their parents were religious and passed those traditions to them. As thinking and educated adults, no one I know of has embarked upon a comparative study of religion to determine which is the most satisfying (or "truth full" if you will). Most people are simply indoctrinated as children. [I know this is simplistic and cynical, but psychologically and developmentally it is true. Why is someone Baptist instead of Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic, or Muslim?]
The point I am getting to is that religious persons who endorse scientific propositions have accepted a fundamental proposition: the sacred text on which their faith is based (Bible, Koran, or other) is not literally true in all its aspects and was not transcribed without error from direct communication with a creator. In other words, they have chosen to disregard outdated or inconsistent parts of their particular sacred text. The canonical works become a guide to morality and ethics, a source of hope and inspiration. This redacted framework then does not come into conflict with the fact that today we simply know more about the way the world works than was known thousands of years ago.
It has been stated by Dawkins and others that there is only one group of persons who are not electable. We have politicians at local, state, and federal levels who are Jewish, female, Muslim, African-American, bi-racial, Puerto Rican, Irish, Italian, Baptist, Catholic, and all other denominations. But of all the diverse groups, no candidate has ever run on an Atheist platform or stated before an election that that was their position. Maybe, a Secular Humanist could be elected because many voters wouldn't know what that was. But, if you run a Baptist against a Secular Humanist, my bet is the Baptist would be a shoe-in.
Richard Dawkins rejects Gould's ideas as soft peddling to vocal religious minorities. Dawkins and Victor Stenger posit that religion makes certain claims about the way the world (or universe) works and have the chutzpah to say those propositions can be investigated scientifically (the reason Dawkins rejects Gould's NOMA idea). Sam Harris rejects faith in general as a very dangerous and divisive idea. Eugenie Scott sees a continuum of belief systems from literal flat-earth fundamentalists to atheism. Eugenie Scott and E.O. Wilson feel that religious moderates who accept scientific propositions can be enlisted in the campaign to increase scientific literacy.
The majority of folks, when they consider the question at all, are somewhere in the middle: accepting of religion and sacred texts, but also accepting of science and its findings. Often the debate makes them uncomfortable. When questioned, the controversy seems to require them to make a definitive decision one way or the other with no middle ground. For a politician, accepting a concrete position is establishing them as a target whereas waffling offends the fewest number of potential voters. Personally, I think taking this middle ground is why most of the opinion polls show a high percentage of persons who reject evolution. The poll questions are often phrased so the respondent either has to reject God or choose among faith-based answers. Most will choose an answer that is flavored by their faith.
It turns out that the vast majority of religious persons are religious and accepting of particular traditions for no better reason than that their parents were religious and passed those traditions to them. As thinking and educated adults, no one I know of has embarked upon a comparative study of religion to determine which is the most satisfying (or "truth full" if you will). Most people are simply indoctrinated as children. [I know this is simplistic and cynical, but psychologically and developmentally it is true. Why is someone Baptist instead of Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic, or Muslim?]
The point I am getting to is that religious persons who endorse scientific propositions have accepted a fundamental proposition: the sacred text on which their faith is based (Bible, Koran, or other) is not literally true in all its aspects and was not transcribed without error from direct communication with a creator. In other words, they have chosen to disregard outdated or inconsistent parts of their particular sacred text. The canonical works become a guide to morality and ethics, a source of hope and inspiration. This redacted framework then does not come into conflict with the fact that today we simply know more about the way the world works than was known thousands of years ago.
It has been stated by Dawkins and others that there is only one group of persons who are not electable. We have politicians at local, state, and federal levels who are Jewish, female, Muslim, African-American, bi-racial, Puerto Rican, Irish, Italian, Baptist, Catholic, and all other denominations. But of all the diverse groups, no candidate has ever run on an Atheist platform or stated before an election that that was their position. Maybe, a Secular Humanist could be elected because many voters wouldn't know what that was. But, if you run a Baptist against a Secular Humanist, my bet is the Baptist would be a shoe-in.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
