Robert Todd Carroll
about the newsletter
SkepDic.com
SkepDic.com/refuge
|
Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter
Issue # 16
November 19, 2002
I don't use science to
prove my religion. I use the Bible to build my science. --Ken
Ham (executive director of
Answers in Genesis)
Subscribers 1,514
(Past issues posted at
http://skepdic.com/news/)
**********
Contents
1) New or revised entries
2) Sacramento Skeptics
and Intelligent Design in the Classroom
3) Responses to selected feedback
4) News
**********
1) New or revised entries in The Skeptic's Dictionary
& Skeptic's Refuge
Since the last newsletter,
-
I added some
comments on a
newspaper article that called a lecture on intelligent design (ID)
"scientific." I went to the lecture by Discovery Institute fellow Jed
Macosko and posted my comments.
-
I added an
article about the
SCI-FI channel's underwriting an archaeological hunt for Roswell alien
debris.
-
I revised the
incorruptible bodies entry
to include information about suppressed evidence regarding a sign of early
corruption in the body of Paramahansa Yogananda.
-
I posted a notice that the 3rd edition of
Ian Rowland's book
on cold reading is out.
-
I
reported that
psychic surgeon Alex Orbito was arrested in Italy.
-
I added a
link
to the pareidolia page about the Virgin Mary's latest appearance.
-
And I added some
comments on the
end of Robert Bigelow's support of a program to study the paranormal,
especially post-mortem survival, at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
**********
2) Sacramento Skeptics and
Intelligent Design in the Classroom
On Friday, November 15th, I had dinner with the Sacramento
Skeptics. After the meal, we adjourned for a discussion (led by yours
truly). There were about 20-25 in attendance and our topic was "Intelligent
Design in Our Classrooms." We spent some time discussing the American
Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) recent resolution urging
(among other things) "citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment
of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as
part of the science curricula of the public schools." I mentioned that I had
recently posted some comments on my
Mass Media Bunk
page where I wondered whether this tactic might backfire because it
might be perceived as dogmatic science trying to protect its turf and
unfairly exclude "disputed views" from having a fair hearing. The
intelligent design (ID) people have done a great job of convincing many
Americans that the basic issue of allowing ID into the science classroom is
one of fairness. They have persuaded many lay people that evolution is a
troubled theory that has many flaws which are known to the scientific
community. Opposing viewpoints should be heard so students can learn
to think critically about them. This approach sounds good and the ID people
know they are being deceptive, but when you're doing the Lord's work
anything goes, I guess. The issue isn't one of fairness, as I have argued
again and
again and
again and
again.
Dr. Paul Geisert suggested that the best way to deal with the ID people is
to take them to court. This is what was done with so-called
creation science and the
courts recognized it as religious propaganda and
ordered it out of the
science classroom. Dr. Geisert and Dr. Mynga Futrell are the co-founders
of the excellent Web site
Teaching About Religion ... with a view to diversity. Like me and
several others at the meeting, Drs. Geisert and Futrell would like to
see more philosophy and religion taught in public schools, as long as
diversity is respected. Their Web site is a gold mine for those looking for
resources for teaching diversity and tolerance of both religious and
nonreligious worldviews.
Some of the participants felt that the poor quality of science education in
the U.S.A. accounts for the difficulties we are now in with respect to ID.
Too much rote learning; not enough learning the process of science. Others
complained that our young people are not taught to think critically while
going through our public school systems.
I offered the suggestion that we need the help of religious people who don't
think there is a contradiction between believing in a Creator and accepting
that evolution is a fact best explained by theories like natural selection.
I wonder why Catholic leaders, for example, don't do battle with the ID
folks. Maybe it's because they have their own private
schools. Maybe they don't think it's that important. Maybe they see
natural selection as implying materialistic atheism as the ID folks do. I don't know, but I
think that ID is promoting bad theology because it is promoting
belief in a God who looks foolish, a God who reveals things that He knows
will be discovered to be false some day. They are also promoting the idea of
a God who is not all-powerful; they claim natural selection and design are
incompatible, which implies God does not have the power to create according
to natural selection.
I think we all agree with the AAAS goal, but I think more must be done than
just pass resolutions that declare ID to lack "scientific warrant." I also
think that these scientists need some help from philosophers when it comes
to wording their resolutions. For example, the resolution states that "to
date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to
support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted
theory of evolution; [and] the ID movement has not proposed a scientific
means of testing its claims." The problem with this wording is that it
suggests that it is possible to offer credible scientific evidence in
support of ID that might someday allow testing its claims. However,
ID is not a scientific theory and there will never be any way to test its
claims. It is a metaphysical theory and, as far as I can tell, is logically
coherent and viable. But then so is the contrary theory that claims the
universe is a vast mechanism without any design or purpose.
This problem of wording may represent a deeper problem that cuts through
much of the dialogue about the nature of science: the problem of
demarcation. This is the problem that Karl Popper struggled with and thought
he had solved
by his falsification theory: the line that separates scientific theories
from nonscientific theories is falsifiability. Many scientists and
philosophers of science find Popper's theory
faulty for various reasons. For example,
Henry Bauer, a chemist by training, defines falsifiability this way:
"when results contradict a theory, the theory is to be abandoned as false" (Fatal
Attractions - The Trouble with Science, p. 87). Bauer points out that
scientists don't abandon their theories when the evidence seems to
contradict them. Instead, they construct
ad hoc hypotheses or modify
their theories. In short, rather than give up their theories when
contradicted by the evidence, says Bauer, scientists find ways to
accommodate the "falsifying" data. True, but Bauer and many other critics of
Popper should not ignore another aspect of the falsifiability theory. The
theory may not be of much use in demarcating specific disciplines, such as
astronomy from astrology. But it seems spot on in demarcating science from
philosophy, mythology, or theology. However, the meaning of the theory in
its truly useful form is that some theories can never be falsified
because they can never be contradicted by results. Why? Because they are
consistent with any result whatsoever. Furthermore, such theories can be
completely coherent and plausible, while contrary theories can also be
completely coherent and plausible, yet there is no way in theory or practice
to ever determine which of the contrary theories is more plausible.
Scientific theories like the Big Bang theory and natural selection can in
principle be contradicted by results. (So can
astrology,
biorhythms,
dianetics, and many other
pseudosciences, by the way.)
Whether or not scientists construct ad hoc hypotheses or modify their
theories when such results are discovered is not the issue when comparing
such theories to theories like creation in six days by God as told in the
story of Genesis or the theory of intelligent design. These are
philosophical theories that cannot in principle be falsified by any
empirical data. By the same token, these philosophical theories cannot
become one bit more plausible by finding evidence that is consistent with
them. These teleological philosophical theories are not competitors with the
Big Bang theory or with the theory of evolution. They are competitors with
mechanistic metaphysical theories such as a
materialistic theory
that is atheistic and
deterministic. ID is
not false, nor could it ever be falsified. Genesis is not false, nor
could it ever be falsified. (Certainly, some interpretations of
Genesis are false, but there is no way in principle to determine whether
a document is of divine origin. Ultimately, all the evidence one can appeal
to, such as miracles, rests
upon faith.) Furthermore,
naturalism and
supernaturalism are not contrary theories. Naturalism is essentially an
epistemological theory, not an
ontological theory: it
defines the boundary of knowledge, not the boundary of being or existence.
Science as we know it is essentially naturalistic, and it leaves open the
question as to whether there is a God or free will or immortality. Those
issues transcend the boundaries of science and fall within the realm of
philosophy. The ID folks want to conflate science and philosophy by defining
science so broadly that it includes metaphysical speculations and, like it
or not, lots of other "disputed views," such as that of
Zecharia Sitchin or
L. Ron Hubbard.
Imagine trying to do a
controlled study if supernatural forces (or aliens or paranormal powers) were allowed as possible
explanations. It would be impossible to control for such forces and one
could never be sure that some unknown supernatural cause wasn't actually
producing whatever effects one observed. You could not even reasonably
conclude that fire burns if it were considered reasonable to assume that
supernatural forces might be causing our perceptions. I can't imagine what
science would be like if something like
occasionalism were
considered a legitimate scientific theory, rather than a metaphysical
theory. That doesn't mean that God isn't actually the direct cause of
every event and observation. It does mean that when doing science,
that hypothesis is out of order.
**********
3) Responses to selected feedback
I have received many letters over the years similar to this one:
I found it interesting that creationism
merited a listing on your site, while evolutionism did not. While
evolution is the prevailing thought among mainstream America, and taught
as fact in schools, it is still a theory which leaves many questions
unanswered, and those it attempts to answer only lead to more questions.
Not that questions are a bad thing. However, when so many elements of this
theory remain ambiguous at best, it would seem that some of the hoaxes of
evolution would warrant its being treated just as skeptically as
creationism.
Skeptically yours,
DB
reply: Thanks for your concern. I find it troubling that a few
scientists (and one lawyer) with a lot of religious zeal have been able to muddy the waters so
thoroughly that millions of people like yourself have come to believe that
evolution is a theory in trouble in the scientific community. It isn't, but
I doubt I can undo in a brief response what people like
Michael Behe,
William Dembski (and others at the Discovery Institute),
Phillip Johnson (the lawyer),
Duane Gish, (and other "creation scientists"), and
Robert Gentry have accomplished over many years time. But I am working
on it and one day I may have an entry on evolution that explains why it is
not a theory in trouble. The hoaxes and the ambiguities are not in
evolution, but permeate the work of these religious zealots.
***
DB's response is also typical of many I have received.
Your lack of skepticism on this issue is
interesting, to say the least, as is your quick response in light of your
disclaimer on the contact page. Evolution isn't science, it is religion,
plain and simple. Ask yourself this question: From where did the amino
acids, which are the origins of life, originate? And this question: Do
evolutionists use the scientific method in the study of origins? And this
question: At what point is a study of evolution nullified, when in
organizing the parameters of the test, the tester becomes the "creator?"
I am sure you are aware of the growing
interest in the scientific community regarding Intelligent Design. I am
sure that you are aware that the number of scientists currently
questioning prevailing wisdom, such as it is, regarding evolution is not
few and is growing. I am sure that you are aware that more questions are
being asked about evolutionary origins than are being answered. This
certainty leads me to believe that, in this case, you are not merely
posing a skeptic's view of creationism, but seeking to validate your own
world view. Hardly a skeptic's schema, no?
In any event, I have found many of your links
useful and enlightening and will continue to visit the site regularly. I
put it right up there with Snopes as a valuable debunker of some of the
more pernicious twaddle running rampant in American thought these days.
(Feel free to use that as a quote, so long as you include my comments
regarding your stance on creation vs. evolution *evil grin*.)
reply: The idea that evolution is a religion is humorous enough, but
coming from those who want to religionize all science the idea is off the
risibility meter. I suppose it is pointless, but I reiterate: Evolution and
creation are not competing theories.
**********
4) News
-
Most of you have probably already heard by now, but I
mention it anyway: NASA has dropped its plans to fund a book debunking the
Moon
Landing Hoax.*
For those interested in the details of this disturbing cultural phenomenon,
check out this site .
. . or
this one . . . or
BadAstronomy.com.
-
Those of you who get WGN-Chicago might enjoy the 9 pm news
show on November 21. Last month I mentioned that Larry Potash of WGN had
contacted me about James Van
Praagh. I didn't mention that Mr. Potash asked me if I knew any skeptics
in the Chicago area he might interview on the air. I didn't, but he found
one: science and medicine journalist
Andrew Skolnick.
If anyone sees the show, please let me know what it was like. I got the
impression from Mr. Potash that he was not of the gullible persuasion and
was likely to do a fair job of keeping Van Praagh on his toes.
|
|