May 1, 2006
-
soft tissue!
Here's an excerpt of the part that especially caught my eye:
"...Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”"
First, it's interesting to note her a priori philosophical bias, which is certainly "methodological naturalism" and probably steps over the boundary of "philosophical naturalism" too... Her view is that God absolutely CANNOT work in time and space in scientifically detectable ways... in other words, God could be good, and loving, and kind, and powerful, and whatever else, but He most certainly CANNOT interact with the world He has created in ways that could be detected by humans - God absolutely CANNOT do miracles. If He could (so reasons the phobia), then people might actually believe in God based on evidence rather than blind faith. (Oh! Horrors!)
According to Schweitzer, "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."
Oh, well excuse me. Forgive me for asking, but who makes up these "rules" again? Shame on Newton, Kepler, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Stokes, Pasteur, and Kelvin for indulging in such flagrant scientific naughtiness.
Schweitzer is not alone in her complaint, of course. Michael Ruse writes: "Even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a 'scientific' explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law." (Darwinism Defended, p. 182).
Similarly Richard Lewontin writes: "Either the world of phenomena is a consequence of the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects, operating roughly along the lines of known physical law, or else at every instant all physical regularities may be ruptured and a totally unforeseeable set of events may occur.... We can not live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit." (Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: Norton, 1983, p. 26)
...and also...
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."Unnerving indeed, in all honesty. It is non-trivial and (potentially life-altering) to find (paraphrasing C.S.Lewis) "a real, live God in our midst".
Now granted, methodological naturalism can be useful, in finding out "the way things usually work" (also called "nomological" investigation - the study of how things generally proceed, based on the "laws" (Greek 'nomos') that govern the universe). But as soon as it morphs into an 'Absolute Principle', the openminded curiosity which is the chief treasure of the scientific endeavor is discarded. As soon as I state that "I've never observed a miracle in my laboratory, therefore God has never done (and can never do) a miracle" or even worse, "I refuse to believe in miracles because that might allow [Lewontin's proverbial] Divine foot in the door", I have unjustifiably closed and locked my mind. In agreement with William James, and contra W.K.Clifford, "unlimited skepticism" can sometimes be a hindrance to finding the truth...
Schweitzer is almost technically correct when she disparages "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena", in the sense of invoking the "miraculous" hand of God in suspending the laws that He has ordained that generally govern the physical world. But she neglects to mention that the whole controversy is about exactly that point - what phenomena are natural and what are not? ...and is it possible that some phenomena truly CANNOT be explained naturalistically? (the origin of matter, the origin of DNA, Christ walking on water, Christ's Resurrection)?
When I throw a basketball up in the air and it falls back to the ground, there is no need to infer a "miracle" - there is not necessarily any suspension of the normal processes of gravity that God has established. But must we assume that God is bound by these laws that He created? That He can never suspend them if He so chooses?
In my humble opinion, we ought not to make such "metaphysically gratuitous" assumptions. As Steven Meyer writes (with my insertion), "Of course intelligent design [and creationism] is not wholly naturalistic, but why does that make it unscientific? What noncircular reason can be given for this assertion? What independent criterion of method demonstrates the inferior scientific status of a nonnaturalistic explanation?"
By contrast, the Kansas folks got it right:
Older 2001 Definition: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world
around us."Revised 2005 Definition: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses
observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument
and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural
phenomena."
"More adequate", "more accurate", "closer to the truth about the way the world works"... This is the true and noble goal of science... the aim of that worthy perennial nomological enterprise... that "glory of kings."
Comments (9)
that reminds me of the chronicles of narnia logic that susan uses: assuming that some things are just not possible, before really exploring their truth.
I found that article about a week ago, on a Christian blog I check regularly. They're pretty acidic against us Young-earthers, aren't they? I like the way they describe how "Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists.
Now that is what I call unbiased, objective writing. I wonder what Dr. Arlton C. Murray and Dr. Gary E. Parker would have to say about that last statement!
(I first emailed this to Tim for the sole reason that I don't have xanga access at school! He asked me to post, so here ya be...)
Tim,
I read that article as well, actually at an old-earth creationist meeting. They had some videos from Hugh Ross that were rather interesting -- talking about, among other things, comparisons of neanderthal DNA that seemed to definitively show it was not human, and couldn't have evolved into human in the time allowed by the evolutionary theory. Which they said supported the conclusion that man was a special direct creation of God (along with all the other species).
That was an interesting meeting, because I'd never heard that side of the issue. Seems to resolve a lot of obvious problems, like starlight and radio-isotope dating. I mean, sure there could be a crazy monkey wrench thrown in the works to make it not work, but the science seems pretty straight-forward to me. If it's rooted pretty closely in basic atomic theory, which is pre-eminently testable and repeatable, seems pretty reliable to me. What could make it yield the results it does? Or why would God make stars and rocks appear so old if they really aren't? Of course, considering God's motives only gets us so far, because they are beyond us. Anyhoo, I've read Starlight and Time, by Dr. Humphreys, but that doesn't explain everything, and I've heard (from a math major) that the math didn't really work out. (synopsis: maybe the universe started in a white hole, with earth at center -- event horizon causes "fast" aging of the universe)
As for our friend Schweitzer, I'd resist the assertion that she believes "God absolutely CANNOT work in time and space in scientifically detectable ways." First, I think she was referring to methodology in not invoking God. Second, although methodology is closely tied to philosophy, I don't think that "scientifically detectable ways" could be incontravertable. At least, not in the aftermath. So, God smites Sodom, for instance. Anyone watching, on the ground or, even better, in orbit, would probably be pretty convinced they'd seen something supernatural. They could conclude that: 1) God did it. 2) some supernatural force or being did it, dependent on their beliefs. 3) a new scientific discovery is just around the corner, because there must have been a natural cause. 4) we'd better ignore it so as not to get a methodological headache. Probably just looked strange to me, or maybe I need to get my eyes/instruments checked.
To me, it seems most reasonable to conclude #1, based on my strong belief that God is sovereign. Although it could be just a natural phenomenon, this seems to be ruled out because it is so within our realm of understanding (we're pretty familiar with the earth, we've never seen anything like this, and our orbital view ruled out anything from space. At the least I'd have to conclude it was some super-advanced aliens bombing Sodom.
So, perhaps the initial observation is pretty easy to interpret, but what about the aftermath? I go take samples from the destruction, not having seen what happened, and basically I find a lot of fire and burning buildings. What will be obvious to me as "the fingerprint of God" in the rubble? I would suggest that at best there would be unclarity as to what happened. Over time, the clarity of the initial event degrades.
And that's what I think she's talking about when Schweitzer says, "I think he kind of designed it so that we'd never be able to prove his existence. And I think that's really cool."
Not that there is absolutely no evidence, just that we don't have incontravertable proof. I suppose she thinks God designed evolution, and holds to an old-earth view. And if she's convinced of those things, then finding something she didn't expect probably just means amending the general understanding of how long proteins can survive, which may seem more uncertain to her than the premises of radio-isotope dating. And I think we would agree that we can't "invoke God" every time there occurs an event we don't understand.
I do think the "faith and science are different perspectives" is overplayed to the point where it seems like they could say completely contradictory things and still be fine. I liked the quote of the amended definition of science. Quest for knowledge about the natural world, good.
Well, that was a rambling sort of response... I guess I am most interested in your take on old-earth creationism. Obviously has its own problems, such as why did things die before we were around? And if they did die, how could humans be expected to live indefinitely in the same environment?
I appreciate your posts and comments... as iron sharpens iron... =)
Huster
I can e-mail a few things I learned from the PCA ordination process.....but I don't have an address for you. You should be able to get mine through my xanga site.
This has nothing to do with your post...I wanted to say that the link you left on my site to the forward by John Piper was excellent. I think it best for the single men and women to pursue God first and foremost. Then somewhere along the line, if God sees fit, He can surprise us with a spouse. Every good and perfect gift is from above; His blessings abound...so why so often do we hunt for and demand and make lists of what we want for Christmas? Don't we trust God to give the best and only to best to His children?
Thanks for the tip! I've never had voice lessons, so it's kind of hard to know where to begin.
Thanks for your thoughts, Brian! Here are some thoughts in reply... (your quotes are in italic)
>That was an interesting meeting, because I'd never heard that side of the issue. Seems to resolve a lot of obvious problems, like starlight and radio-isotope dating. I mean, sure there could be a crazy monkey wrench thrown in the works to make it not work, but the science seems pretty straight-forward to me. If it's rooted pretty closely in basic atomic theory, which is pre-eminently testable and repeatable, seems pretty reliable to me. What could make it yield the results it does?
I agree with you that starlight, radioactive dating, and geological "layer" features are the three main scientific arguments for an old earth. YEC's have reasonably solid answers for the "layers" (the Flood could have made similar layers) and some relatively recent information providing an alternative explanation for the radioisotope dating (accelerated decay - see the RATE project), which also happens to clear up some anomalies like squished radiohalos and the existence of C14 in diamonds. On the starlight, as I've been keeping up on the astronomical happenings to some degree, it seems that really no one has firm/supported astronomical theories about these things that fit all the evidence (i.e. neither young earth creationists, old earth creationists, or evolutionists/naturalists). For example, the Big Bangers have problems explaining the huge (300million light-year diameter) fully-formed galaxies that exist at the very edge of the visible universe, like the Francis Filament, and the uniform cosmic background radiation (thus they propose sudden "inflations" of the universe near the beginning).
And in the past few years, deep physical questions have been popping up regularly. You've heard of dark matter and dark energy, I presume. Dark matter is proposed to exist because many galaxies seem to be spinning so fast that they would have fallen apart by now if they're.... as old as OEC's suggest. So we postulate dark matter to provide 90% more gravity, to hold them together. We haven't yet observed it, though. http://www.physorg.com/news65804980.html
Dark energy is postulated because the universe seems to be accelerating its expansion, meaning that the stars far away seem to be moving away from us faster than the stars nearby. But how do we know this? By the redshift of the starlight. But other things can cause redshift too... expansion of space, circular motion, gravitational dilation, etc. Dark energy is our current explanation, though. http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2006/05/01/University/5.Million.Grant.To.Help.Identify.Dark.Energy-1896922.shtml
The speed of light is assumed to be constant nowadays (not proven, but assumed). It would be interesting if more evidence would be shed on this in the future... For example if it were observed that the speed of light very far away seemed faster than it is here. Anyway, I doubt that this will be able to be observed.
>Anyhoo, I've read Starlight and Time, by Dr. Humphreys, but that doesn't explain everything, and I've heard (from a math major) that the math didn't really work out. (synopsis: maybe the universe started in a white hole, with earth at center -- event horizon causes "fast" aging of the universe)
Has your friend been following both sides of the discussion (i.e. not just the original 1994 book)? I'm not an expert either, but the discussion has definitely continued and I don't think it would be fair to say that his theory has ever been fully refuted. I could be mistaken, though. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp
>Or why would God make stars and rocks appear so old if they really aren't? Of course, considering God's motives only gets us so far, because they are beyond us.
I agree with your second statement. Also, you could apply your first question to many things immediately after the Creation Week, such as every rock and tree in sight.
>As for our friend Schweitzer, I'd resist the assertion that she believes "God absolutely CANNOT work in time and space in scientifically detectable ways." First, I think she was referring to methodology in not invoking God.
Oh, I completely agree with you that she was referring to that! Indeed however, as I understand her, she believes that it is methodologically NEVER correct to invoke God.
>Second, although methodology is closely tied to philosophy, I don't think that "scientifically detectable ways" could be incontravertable. At least, not in the aftermath. So, God smites Sodom, for instance. Anyone watching, on the ground or, even better, in orbit, would probably be pretty convinced they'd seen something supernatural. They could conclude that: 1) God did it. 2) some supernatural force or being did it, dependent on their beliefs. 3) a new scientific discovery is just around the corner, because there must have been a natural cause. 4) we'd better ignore it so as not to get a methodological headache. Probably just looked strange to me, or maybe I need to get my eyes/instruments checked.
Good example. I agree that those are the options. I think that Schweitzer would choose (3), because if she were to choose (1), that would immediately provide "scientific" evidence for God, which is extremely distasteful for her. She believes (as a matter of aesthetics, to my understanding) that it is inappropriate to ever ascribe visible, measurable, scientific, real-world effects to "God". Belief in "God," to her, is EXCLUSIVELY "faith-based", and as soon as the "faith" becomes based on something visible/empirical/testable, that "faith" becomes cheap and inappropriate.
Of course, I disagree with her... 1 Corinthians 15:1-8... etc...
>Over time, the clarity of the initial event degrades.
Agreed. Yet Jesus said to Thomas (referring to His Resurrection, to which there is admittedly MUCH more evidence than Sodom's incineration), "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." ...
>And that's what I think she's talking about when Schweitzer says, "I think he kind of designed it so that we'd never be able to prove his existence. And I think that's really cool."
Not that there is absolutely no evidence, just that we don't have incontravertable proof.
Actually, I think she believes something slightly different. You postulated (1) "there is absolutely no evidence", and (3) "we don't have incontravertable proof". I assume you hold to (3), with the corollary that (3.1) there certainly exists "strong, convincing" evidence for God (along multiple lines, not only scientific lines)... I would agree with you.
But I think Schweitzer would say (2) we OUGHT NOT EVEN TO SEEK evidential proof for God and to ground our faith (EVER), because seeking evidence "demeans" our faith in God.
I strongly disagree with her. Recall Romans 1 -
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..."
Thus there is clearly (according to the Bible) a certain "knowledge of God" that comes THROUGH CREATION - through the visible evidence of what has been made by God. (Included in this, I would think, are the more sophisticated variants, such as the cosmological and teleological arguments, Intelligent Design theory, "scientific creationism"/YEC, etc... but even the uneducated folks can grasp this, according to Rom.1... "they are without excuse.")
>I suppose she thinks God designed evolution, and holds to an old-earth view. And if she's convinced of those things, then finding something she didn't expect probably just means amending the general understanding of how long proteins can survive, which may seem more uncertain to her than the premises of radio-isotope dating. And I think we would agree that we can't "invoke God" every time there occurs an event we don't understand.
Agreed, and agreed. The question is whether we can EVER "invoke God." To explain a real-world, empirical, event... aka "a miracle."
>I guess I am most interested in your take on old-earth creationism. Obviously has its own problems, such as why did things die before we were around? And if they did die, how could humans be expected to live indefinitely in the same environment?
To be quite honest, I used to be hard-core YEC and couldn't understand how the OEC's could "live with themselves."
Now I have lots of OEC friends (and still quite a few YEC friends). I understand the OEC's better, though I'm still pretty YEC myself. (ha ha I am using YEC and OEC as nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc... 
My 'take' is quite simple - in my understanding the OEC position is supported slightly more strongly by science than YEC (although there are lots of 'unexplainable' anomalies on BOTH sides). However, the YEC position is supported by the Biblical evidence EXTREMELY more strongly (I know, bad grammar!
than the OEC position. For me (as a scientist/engineer, and as a Christian), the choice is whether I believe that (1) the Bible is true, and (2) I am correctly understanding the Bible, enough to state that (3) although there is some (not 100% conclusive,though) "historical-scientific" evidence in favor of old earth, I reject that historical hypothesis because of the Biblical account.
I have concluded that (for now) that is indeed the case - the Bible is true, and it's account trumps the OEC's hypothesis. I remain open to further evidence and scriptural hermeutics... I am not "set in stone" on the issue, but I have some pretty strong reasons to believe what I currently believe. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on OEC/YEC too...
I wrote up some more metaphysical ramblings about this at: http://www.xanga.com/tim223/450074582/item.html I'd love to hear your thoughts on that post, and on what I wrote here.
I appreciate your thoughtful dialog, Brian!
With esteem, Tim
thanx for the feedback, Tim... I think your point about "dark matter" and uncertainties of that sort is particularly relevant. Even given accurate atomic/gravitational/quantum theory, basic things like how galaxies, stars, planets, and solar systems form and hold together are still unanswered. Haha, I've actually always found it humorous how seriously people refer to dark matter. I mean, talk about non-empiricism! It has defied every effort to demonstrate its existence; perhaps a different explanation should be sought? And it is also somewhat mind-boggling to me how mystical physicists can get; in that book I mentioned, "Dreams of a Final Theory," Weinberg basically said he believes every thing can be explained by some fundamental -- final -- theory of everything. How the universe formed, why it has to be this way, why I have brown hair, why chickens lay eggs. He doesn't even suggest that we will for sure figure it out -- just that he thinks it exists, or that it is worthwhile to act on that working assumption. Science has figured alot out, but there's still a lot of uncertainty, even in highly empirical fields like particle physics.
And about Schweitzer, I don't think one could deduce from the article her particular beliefs with exact clarity. I would want to resist attributing beliefs to her, just because some people hold them. She is obviously somewhat unorthodox, if only for believing that maybe there really was preserved organic matter in those fossils. Of course, I fully expect that some people do hold the views you attributed to her, and it isn't implausible to think she holds those views as well. Just not necessary, and I think my interpretation of her views -- from the limited information in the article -- is equally valid.
Good points, Brian.
Comments are closed.