This one goes out to all the people who think evolution is a scientific fact. Here it comes: It is impossible to prove ANY theory of origin using the scientific method. It simply cannot be done.There are four basic stages to the scientific method:
1. Hypothesis: Thinking up a question
2. Experimentation: Testing the question with procedures
3. Observation and Data Collection: Getting a clear picture of the Results
4. Conclusions: Coming up findings that in turn lead back to more hypothesis.
Now I am more of a philosopher and theologian but that also means I test ideas to see exactly what use they have. Philosophy has been coupled with many fields now to test the validity of ideas and that is what I am going to do.
Hypothesis: Philosophically there is no problem with asking questions: Where did the universe come from? How did man come to be? How old is the earth anyway? Nothing wrong here with any of these questions, the question is are they ultimately answerable using science and the scientific method.
Experimentation: This is where the real problem comes in for the scientific method -- how do you conduct a present experiment or come up with one that will give data you can use to answer these questions? The fact remains, even if you do conduct an experiment, it is done on something in the present day with present assumptions.
The Big Bang theorist is left looking at stars and extrapolating backwards with the assumption that there has been no external factors that have changed the course of those stars in the eons of their existence, not to mention that the whole universe would have to be mapped out before you could get a real picture of what is going on even now.
The anthropologist looks at old bones and put them together based on assumptions that were created by looking at present day skeletons of humans. How does one know that things decay or result in the same manner?
My favorite is the dating methods, all of which are based on theoretical half-life stuff, but no one will ever live long enough to verify the half life of any atom. There is also the assumption of steady rate of decay of these atoms, which has not been proven. It is assumed that nothing acts as either a catalyst or inhibitor to this decay -- we do not know this for sure.
Observation: This too is problematic -- even if you get a decent experiment the results you get are in the present day not in the past. You are not observing the past but the present.
We also have to prove that the experimenters are not prejudiced in reading the results and to be blunt the moment you assume that your particular theory of the universe is true and look at your data through that lens, your results are compromised.
Anthropologists often speak of the need for 'Imagination' to interpret the results you are trying to find. Imagination? Really? Additionally, if modern day coroners cannot fix a time of death to the exact second, why do we think fixing the date of some fossilized record would also not be prone to major variance.
In the case of the Big Bang, there is simply no way to collect all the data that would be needed to draw a conclusion.
The real problem is that to know what actually happened we would have to have been there to see it and that is impossible. "How do you know. were you there?" is a valid rebuttal for anyone who proposes any origin theory. No matter what we do there is either simply no way to gather the data needed or there is simply the fact we have no hope of getting accurate data.
Conclusions: Well if the experiments are questionable and the data questionable, guess what happens to the conclusions? Questionable at best.
Now this does not stop everyone from trying, but the truth is any statement that says things for certain in the field of origins of both the universe and life should be met with a large amount of skepticism. In the end: "Evolution is a fact" or "God created the heavens and the earth" are both statements of faith.
The scientific method has its limits, it really cannot work on things that do not currently exist and the origin of the universe is in the past and no longer exists. We can hypothesize all we want but we cannot experiment or observe the origin of the universe and so we are left to theory and guesswork in our conclusions.
It is impossible to prove ANY theory of origin using the scientific method.
...What does the Big Bang have to do with Evolution?
ReplyDeleteAnd how do explain the fact that Evolution is simply defined as 'is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms' which is something that can be tested empirically? What about the fact that we can look at gene mutations in environments, and manipulate which traits are naturally selected over time?
Also, how do you explain that Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are not even close to the same thing?
Father, I encourage you to do just a bit more research before trying to formulate opinions. Pro-tip: Even if your conclusions were valid (which they're not), it still doesn't give any credence to the Bible. And, if you were ever going to claim that it does, that is an argument from ignorance.
I hope you endeavor to do a bit more research. Good luck.
First, I want to thank you for being the first comment on this post. Given all the traffic it gets, I am suprised it wasn't sooner and I am glad to see both 'likes' and 'dislikes'. Proves people are actually reading it.
ReplyDeleteI think you have completely missed the point of this post. Your 'Pro-tip' indicates this, as no where in this post did I say so or make an effort to prove that this gives credence to the Bible. In fact, I did state very clearly that to say 'God created the heavens and the earth' is indeed a statement of faith. You are right that to say otherwise would be a statement and argument made in ignorance, but my point is also the 'evolution is a fact' is also a statement of faith for the same reasons. You could say 'Odin created the world from a ball of ice" and it would also be subect to the same ignorance challenge.
My use of evolution, big bang theory and anthropology are intended for examples of how the scientific method is applied to various areas in origin theory. The big bang deals with the origin of the universe, evolution deals with the origin of man and species (as an aside: there are actually 6 definitions of this word accrding to Webster and we are not using the same one, I am using: the one found here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution - definition 4b) Both are concerned with the origin of some aspect of what we see around us and that is their connection. I also never really made a direct connection between them just using them as various example to point out that the scientific method is ultimately not very applicable to any of them, because we cannot truly obseve or experiment on either in the past. While you do point out that evolution can be empirically observed now, and that is true. The time we have been observing it is small in the grand scheme of things. Also no empirical observation of 'evolution' has shown a transformation from one species to another (say reptiles to birds), they have be theorized by evolution but not truly observed and certainly we cannot go bact to use either experiment or observation to look at the one's that have been theorized. The best we can say is modern observation has proven tht an existing speicies can ADAPT but it has yet to be shown at all that a species can actually TRANSFORM. So is what being observed now actual evolution or adaptation? Truth is you and I will never live long enough to find out.
"Father"? - well I don't know what that indicates but if you are refering to my office, it is not father but pastor - I am a Protestant minister. Thank for the respect but it is misplaced. Also, I have researched this topic more times than I can count. I still stand behind the conclusions, because having taken many philosophy and logic courses I know the argument is sound. You may be having trouble accepting the truth of premises of the argument and thus the conclusion as well and that is understandable, but the argument itself is solid.
One final word, it was not the purpose of this post to prove anything but the main point. The assumption of my blog is that God exists. If you do not share that belief I understand, but my purpose is show differnt ways that if you share that belief of how it applies to life. Much is indeed my opinion and I give you the freedom to disagree. I do dabble in apologetics - defending the faith - but ultimately I am a theologian and philosopher, not an apologist.
Thanks for stopping by.
What do you mean by "fact"?
ReplyDeleteAlso it would be helpful to understand what you mean by "proof" and "scientific theory".
ReplyDeleteFrancis,
ReplyDeleteFair enough,
Fact - something that has actual existence and objective reality.
Proof - to prove something it must be established both as valid and actual trough evidence and reasoning.
Scientific Theory - Defining scientific theory is difficult because it involves so many diciplines, but for our discussion here even scientific theory introduces the concepts relativity, abstractions, contingency, etc. In short, even the scientific theory acknowledges that some things are based on information that is less than proven or relative. This means even the scientist is taking some things on faith. It is after all a BIG HUGE universe and our knowledge comprises a grain of sand worth of informatio compaired to all the information that is out there.
Had to post my comment this way because right now blogger is having major problems with comment posting.
Specifically how and by whom is this” actual existence” verified?
ReplyDeleteThere’s a problem with your definition of hypothesis. It isn’t just “thinking up a question”. IT IS a very simple, specific and TESTABLE proposition based upon OBSERVATION. Questions like “Where did the universe come from?” and “How did man come to be” are NOT hypotheses.
ReplyDeleteWe humans have almost universal agreement upon existance of many many things...for instance....the sun. How do we do that?
ReplyDeleteFrancis,
ReplyDeleteUltmately though all hypothesis starts with questions. It is true that a hypothesis starts with trying to find a question that is testable and has observable results, but you still make my ultimate point. Is any hypothesis of origin truly testable or observable? No, on both counts.
Universal agreement is a far cry from what I am talking about, but it still comes down to what we observe that can be verified by others. Even with your sun analogy, there may be a universal agreement aout there that there is a ball out there that shines brightly, what it is may have different views.
Francis,
ReplyDeleteActually all I really did is simplify things. While a question is technically not the same as hypothesis, it is however the basis for hypothesis. No hypothesis gets put forth without a question. But let us let you have that one and change the definition to what you have proposed. The conclusion still stands because the center piece of this argument is not the definition of hypothesis or conclusions. You keep attacking here but it makes no difference because the conclusion hinges on whether any origin of the universe is both observable and testable. The answer to both from my perspective is no.
In short, you have made the argument stronger because now I can also point out that any hypothesis has to be both testable and observable, can such a quesiton be proposed at all? Very difficult at best.
The big straw dog of your argument is that I have confused 'theory' and 'hypothesis' which I have not and I challenge you to give me a line from from my original post that shows this equation.
Not offended, but I do ask you: what evidence you have for saying I don't know what I am talking about? The fact you disagree with my conclusion does not count. This accusation does show me one thing, you can't handle my whole argument so you have to accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about. In the philosophical discipline of Logic this is called the fallicy of ad hominim attack. Attacking the person instead of their argument. It is usually a sign that the person using it is losing the argument.
The mechanism that makes it possible for all of us to agree on the existience of the sun is this -- it is still here and we can see it now. That is not true for the origin of the universe. It also involves common consent, but when it comes to the origin of the universe - there is no common consent.
Correct - there is always some 'faith' involved. Simple stated --we were not there, nor were any witensses there to verify anything theorized. Trust me, I am hitting ALL origin theories. I am a creationsit but I fully recognize that when I theroize I am theorizing and it can't ultimately be verified through scientific means. Science simply connot observe nor test the origin of the universe.
ReplyDeleteOk…just wanted to be clear on that.
ReplyDeleteI never disagreed with your conclusion but only some of the elements of your “whole argument”. You wrote many things in your opening post, some true, some false, some misleading. I would like to discuss more of them if you’re willing.
The understanding of science and every other technical discipline is only as good as the precision of its definitions and procedures. You disregard this very important principle. When I see you writing about the Scientific Method in such vague and incorrect ways, your conclusion becomes less important than the other elements of your argument. A correct conclusion supported with incorrect elements does less to support knowledge and understanding than it does to support ignorance, overall.
” It is impossible to prove ANY theory of origin using the scientific method.”
Of course that’s true but ONLY because the Scientific Method is NOT for the purpose of proving whole Theories,.. only the testable elements of which they’re composed. The Scientific Method has, however, destroyed theories piece by piece and continues to be used to create theories and support existing ones. That’s no mystery to someone who understands scientific inquiry.
There is no such thing as absolute knowledge in science, only greater or lesser statistical likelihood. Data extracted via the Scientific Method will either support or discredit theories; it can also be neutral. Because of that some Origin Theories are statistically more likely than others.
It’s not necessary to be present at any origin in order to read the trail of evidence that has accumulated over time. Real phenomenon leaves real trails of evidence. All origin theories are corroborated in a multitude of different ways; they are built, supported, or discredited by real, observable, reproducible data. …and mountains of it.
The tone of your opening post suggests that origin theories are just some bonehead’s opinion.
The "faith" involved in science is this:
ReplyDelete1. Faith that we and the universe exists.
2. Fatih that our senses (and the instraments we create to extend them) are somewhat reliable measuring tools.
3. Faith, that with perserverance, we can understand the universe.
In short, it's faith in ourselves.