But We Digress…. April 8, 2008
Posted by Jonathan Brennekce in Creation vs. Evolution, Philosophy of Science.Tags: AiG, Answers, Answers in Genesis, Christianity, Christians, Dr. Jason Lisle, Evolution, Genesis, Jason Lisle, Lisle, Pseudoscience
trackback
So I was doing some research on Answers In Genesis’ site, and ran across this article by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG’s resident astrophysicist. Don’t trouble yourself with the link, though, I’ll be quoting him enough that that shouldn’t be a problem. Oh, and it’s also featured in the most recent issue of their Answers Magazine, a serious-minded, layperson’s, scientific Christian journal; heaven knows it doesn’t belong there…
Anyhow, here’s the rub: Dr. Lisle temerariously entitles his article “Evolution – The Anti-Science”, as if AiG doesn’t get enough bad press already… Now, I’ll make it clear that I don’t believe in evolution, as far as the standard definition goes, but I’m willing to defend honest, if mistaken, scientists when I see them attacked as Lisle hastens to do. He says, “…it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist…” Fancy that; last time I looked 98% to 99% of scientists considered themselves evolutionists and were still making valuable discoveries in studies unrelated to evolutionary biology.
He continues to say that, “Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.” though he never points out one creationist principle that evolutionists hold to. Perhaps they do; I’m open to that option. But until something is distinctly shown to be wrong, you can’t call it anti-science without placing yourself in the position of the anti-scientist. Evolution might be wrong, but it is scientific, and based upon scientific arguments. This, sadly, is not. Yet, his rant continues, “In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it!” ….Wait, what? I don’t dig where this is going. Here I am on a reputable, christian science website, reading articles from their praiseworthy Answers magazine; the article is even listed as “semi-technical”, should their admittedly gullible readers really have to suffer through such a thunderstorm of duh?
What concerns me most is not this article, however, it’s a fact I’ve noticed over time: how creationists take offense so easily at athiests and their outre (I’ve always wanted to use that word, outre), but when athiests blast them back with a hailstorm of science and pseudo-science, the Christians are the first to call foul. Indeed, what happens all to often in the evolution/creation controversy is anti-science, but not as Dr. Lisle suggests. If we stray from truth and love, and lace our science with ranting expletives of our own kind, blaming the other side for the mangled worldviews caught in the middle of our debate, do we not digress from the aim of Christ?
Must say, while you’re slightly more rational than most creationists, you yourself are still guilty of the goddidit ideology that is opposed in your rules.
If you have no scientific ideas to back up your faith and still say that evolutionary theory is wrong (which, in fact, is more solid than the theories backing gravity), the discussion enters the realm of goddidit.
Of course, this is your right, being your blog and all, but I have the right to point it out when you break your own rules, right?
I’ve never seen a so-called atheist use pseudo-science. That falls within the realm of Christians like Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Lee Strobel, who have quite interesting previous atheist histories themselves.
Science works like this: evolution is a fact of nature. There is a scientific theory backing it. Since evolution is natural we can study every single part of evolution. Right now, we don’t have the common ancestor, this is completely true, but we’re most definitely working our way back, and this aspect is being studied.
Every known aspect of evolution is being studied, and new ones will be studied as they come in, such as genetics.
What makes something pseudo-science isn’t when something is wrong. It could be wrong and still be completely scientific. For example, the multi-verse idea. It, at present, has no scientific backing beyond the numbers… the gigantic amount of numbers… It has a few supporting theories, but these are untestable at present. This does not make it a pseudo-science by any leap of logic. It is scientific because people are actively studying it and trying to get as close as they can to the answer.
It, at present, is a non-scientific argument backed by scientific evidence and inferences.
But it’s still not pseudo-science.
Pseudo-science is something that were to make a very large assumption (for example, that an intelligent agency created life), and try to back it up with pre-existing evidence, but is not being studied or has completely untestable aspects.
While some day the multi-verse idea may be testable, intelligent design will not be testable until the next life.
Intelligent design says that an intelligent agent (i.e. god) created life because life was too complex to have arisen at random. This goes for any form of life in the cosmos, since life would all be evolving presumably by the same mechanics. Therefore the designer (aka god) would have to be supernatural.
If it’s supernatural, you can never study it. Whilst the multi-verse dwells within the natural realm and may some day be able to study, IDeism is not able to study because it relies on the supernatural.
That is pseudo-science.
Similar how to people claim to be able to talk to god, people claim to be able to heal others, people claim to be able to do this and that related to supernaturalism but can never prove it. Those aren’t scientific.
Creationism, while it may be true, is never science. It takes something being more than true, such as being in this reality, to be science.
You mistake my meaning. I am not at all a supporter of Intelligent Design as a “scientific theory”. I affirm that there is evidence for creation, certainly, but as far as a creator, that is vastly different. Far be it from me to say that God is a scientifically verifiable element of the universe, or assert any scientific reason for His existence. As Elihu says in the book of Job, “He does not give an accounting of any of His works to man.” Ultimately, the existence of God is purely a matter of belief; and yes, ID theory is exactly what you call it, pseudo-science.
“You yourself are still guilty of the goddidit ideology that is opposed in your rules. ”
Sometimes the use of “Goddidit” is the only sensible answer one can give. As you mention this, I have updated the rules to that effect. But please, if you have any objection to that rule, or any of the rules for that matter do not hesitate to comment.