The empirical scientific method enables us to test and to verify what we can know about the present. But whenever the attempt is made to begin to "scientifically" reconstruct the past, a person has left the realm of pure science.
Even Dr. Mayr of Harvard concedes that creating scientific stories of the past are at best probabilistic stories. A philosophical gap exists between reconstructing history and using the scientific method to learn about present phenomenon and functions because:
1) We can not go back in time to verify the story being told.2) Can we ever be sure that we will know ALL of the possible causes which could have created the present evidence?
3) Can we ever be sure that our suggested cause which created the present evidence is indeed the true cause?
Science reveals what can currently be known about the present through the scientific method.
Can We Ever Be Sure We Know Why?
Today you can see the canyon at Mt. Saint Helens which is about 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. What is the cause of this canyon? Did the stream which is running through it slowly create this canyon over millions of years which might be suggested by the current rate of erosion and the depth of the canyon? Or did a tremendous catastrophe create the canyon within the brief period of weeks?
Of course, since we were here and saw it we know that in the early 1980's this canyon was created shortly after Mt. Saint Helens erupted. But what story might have been told if we had not been here to witness its formation?
What caused the Grand Canyon? Did the Colorado river slowly form the canyon through erosion over millions of years or did a past major catastrophe carve it out in a short period of time?
Many cosmologists interpret the cause for the red phenomenon associated with stellar objects in our universe as being a "red shift" from a rapidly expanding universe resulting from a Big Bang. Others interpret this evidence as merely being a physical phenomenon associated with nearby stellar objects and claim that there was no Big Bang. Which interpretation of the evidence in the present is accurate? Are either of them accurate?
What is the cause for the wide spread results gleaned from the radioisotope dating of the Kaupelehu Flow from the Hualalai Volcano? The published dates from these specimens range from 140 million years to 2.96 billion years! Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14 July 1968, pp. 4601-4607.
We can know the present state of the evidence, but what caused this state of the current evidence? Did leeching remove some elements thus producing some samples with false "high" dates? Or has contamination occurred in some of the samples thus creating false "low" dates? How do you truly know what created the present state of the evidence?
Actually, because humans witnessed this eruption in 1800-1801 A.D. we happen to know that this is a relatively recent volcano even though the radioisotope method for acquiring dates would suggest that it is at least millions of years old. Without humanity having witnessed this eruption, what story would have been told based solely upon the findings of the radioisotope dating? Would it have been a true recounting of history?
We need to be sophisticated enough to realize that scientifically based stories about the past which rely upon assumptions and interpreting (limited?) evidence are categorically different from the authority of science which comes from the scientific method, although scientists may engage in both.
Another Thorny Problem: Loss of Objectivity
The problem of not knowing for sure the true cause which created the present state of the evidence is the Achilles heel of reconstructing history. Whenever a story is assumed to be true, what happens to the how the evidence is interpreted? The tendency is to lose one's objectivity and begin to interpret all of the evidence in such a way that it will fit the story which is believed to be true. This is Hoyle's charge against the supposed evidence for the Big Bang theory.
It is also a charge which creationists bring against evolutionists in the field of dating. Whenever the evidence suggests vastly different dates from what the story of evolution demands, the evolutionist explains away this difficulty by claiming that this cause or that cause affected the evidence thus producing the current result.
Consider the problem of the earth's decaying magnetic field. There have been worldwide measurements taken since 1829. Since that time, the strength of the earth's magnetic field has declined by 7%. It has been calculated that the half-life of magnetic strength is 1,400 years. Dr. Thomas Barnes, former professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Texas used this information and the assumption of utilitarian principles to calculate that life would not have been possible on earth 20,000 years ago. Obviously, this scientific evidence does not fit with an evolutionary story which demands millions of years.
If an atheistic scientist assumes that we are here on earth as a result of only naturalistic forces, he will create a "scientific story" about our origins which could even include interpreting evidence to support it. If he is going to depend upon naturalism as a worldview, he must attempt to do this in order to explain several very basic philosophical questions. His theory might even become popular. The scientific establishment might even herald it as "truth" and ridicule those who do not accept it. But, this does not prove that the story actually occurred.
Since the nature of "historical narratives" can not carry the same authority as testable and verifiable science, at best these narratives are probabilistic stories representing one scientifically based interpretation of what might have occurred. At worst, they are science fiction with a technical scientific veneer.
Barry Newton, Copyright © 2000