What is science? What is the nature of evolution? Is evolution scientific fact, scientific theory or might it even be something else? These are the types of questions with which we want to deal.
Since it is beyond the scope of this article to interact with the entire body of literature dealing with this subject, the approach adopted here is to use one master from the evolutionary field as a springboard into this discussion. Dr. Ernst Mayr, Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard, has written This is Biology: The Science of the Living World which the Belknap press of Harvard published in 1997.
What is Science?
Chapter 2 of Mayr's book is entitled, "What is Science?" Perhaps much to the average person's surprise, within the opening paragraphs of this chapter Mayr reveals that even among scientists there actually is a fair amount of confusion about what science really is. Both the popular press as well as the enormous volume of professional literature reveal that there are many different definitions and understandings of what constitutes science. Following Mayr's leading, let's take a closer look at the nature of science.
Assumptions
Whether a scientist is a creationist or an evolutionist, he or she has assumptions. No one can escape from having assumptions. Mayr lists two common assumptions which most scientists accept as being true. First, a real world exists separate from and independent of human perceptions. In contrast to the assumption some might have that reality is simply an illusion of the mind, Mayr terms this assumption that reality exists objectively independent of the observer as "the principle of objectivity." Philosophically speaking, in essence this is what is known as common sense realism.(1)
A second common axiom most scientists assume to be true is that our universe is predictable and not chaotic. That is, it contains a structure which the tools of scientific inquiry are able to discover.(2) As Mayr has worded it, this assumption contains two parts. First, he points out that most scientists will assume that our world is predictable, as opposed to being chaotic. For example, the scientist assumes that if soap and water will clean your hands today, tomorrow it should function in the same manner instead of exploding like dynamite. There is a definite and predictable structure which orders how things operate. A creationist can also agree with this assumption.
The second part of this assumption represents the belief that the universe in which we live is subject to empirical testing. A creationist can also agree with this second axiom providing that the universe is understood as referring to "physical reality" not "total reality." If someone assumes that total reality is available to scientific investigation, then for himself, he has conceptually "eliminated" the possibility of God's existence based upon his own philosophical assumptions. Assuming that something exists or does not exist does not make it so.
The Scientific Method is the Inductive Approach to Knowledge
As Mayr notes, "the essential scientific method today is basically inductive."(3) But what is induction? Induction can be described as collecting the individual bits of verifiable information that exist around us and then trying to arrive at general "truths." These individual pieces of information are called particulars. Sometimes the world in which we live has been described as "a sea of particulars." Whether one interprets these particulars as accidental and random or determined reveals much about a person's philosophy.
In the following charts, each short vertical black line represents one particular, that is, one thing that exists or happens. Induction involves gathering these bits of information and trying to infer a general principle or "truth" from them. Induction is represented by the arrows pointing upward.
Regarding the nature of the inductive method, Mayr accurately has noted that testing constitutes the primary tool in all scientific activity.
"Every new fact and every new explanation must be tested again and again, preferably by different investigators using different methods. Every confirmation strengthens the probability of the 'truth' of a fact or explanation, and every falsification or refutation strengthens the probability that an opposing theory is correct." (4)
(Unless otherwise noted, emphasis by underlining and placing words in bold type represents my own emphasis)
Mayr is being intellectually honest when he admits that the scientific method yields probabilities, not absolute principles or truths. Notice that he put "truth" in quotes. As Vincent Barry has written, "All scientific statements ... express probability, not certainty."(5) From even a common sense viewpoint with our own experiences with science, we realize that science can not tell us what is absolutely true because what is today's scientific fact is so often tomorrow's discarded theory. For example, through the inductive method we "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Some might have even called this a scientific fact. But all such "facts" that come from induction are probabilities not absolutes. Once again Barry writes, "scientific statements ... are never unamendable. They are always open to revision based on new evidence or a new interpretation of existing evidence."(6) And so, centuries ago when scientists began claiming that new evidence (new particulars) had surfaced suggesting the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun, the previous theories ("facts") were called into question. Similarly, some astrophysicists have suggested that new evidence and new interpretations of the evidence discredits the validity of the Big Bang model of origins.
A second and very important observation Mayr makes is that the probability of a theory is strengthened when testing yields confirmatory results. But someone might ask, "doesn't confirmation from a test 'prove' that the theory is true?" No. For example, although one might perform the test of "looking at the moon" and observing that it "looks arid" this confirmatory result does not prove that there is no water on the moon. Even after other tests have "confirmed" the absence of water at various locations, it is still possible that new data will eventually surface refuting this theory.
Versions of the Scientific Method
The Baconian Scientific Method (Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
In the above chart the short verticle black lines represent "particulars" that agree with a "truth." Particulars are pieces of evidence such as the results of experiments. Some experiments have provided results in the past while the future will provide new evidence. The red lines represent evidence which contradicts a particular "truth."
According to the Baconian philosophy of science, the task of the scientist is to record, measure, and describe his observations. From these individual pieces of information and without having any preconceived expectations or prior hypotheses, the scientist then formulates his theories.
It did not take long for this model of the inductive method to be criticized as being incapable of yielding new knowledge. "Liebig (1863) was one of the first prominent scientists to repudiate Baconian induction. ... Induction by itself cannot generate new theories."(7) The reason this method fails to provide new knowledge is because one simply ends up being a "stamp collector" without any guidelines for interpreting the relationship between the particulars and what meaning they might have.
For example, one can collect bits of information about the moon. "The moon is yellow." "The moon as viewed from earth regularly changes shape." But these bits of information lack any explanatory power; they fail to suggest a theory which makes this information meaningful. What was needed was some way to create knowledge, at least tentative knowledge, through the inductive method.
Hypothetico-Deductive (H-D) Method
You will notice that the hypothetico-deductive method introduces us to another word, namely "deductive." Deduction occurs when our reasoning starts with a general principle which is then applied to a particular. Deduction is represented in the above chart by arrows going down.
With this form of the inductive method someone proposes a theory. The theory may be suggested by current evidence, but this is not necessary in order to propose a theory. Then predictions are made about what should occur during testing if the theory is valid. If the results of the tests confirm the predictions, then the probability of the theory's validity increases. In Mayr's own words,
"If testing confirms a theory, they would say that the theory has been verified. Verification greatly strengthens theories and sometimes leads to constructive modification. One must not assume, however, that verification 'proves' unambiguously that a given theory is true. These methods have sometimes led to a verification of what ultimately turned out to be a wrong theory."(8)
How can it be that wrong theories have actually been verified? To demonstrate how this can happen, take for example the ludicrous idea that the moon is made of cheese. If the moon actually were made of cheese, we would predict that the moon would be some shade of white to yellow. The first test we might perform is to look at the color of the moon. If we see a yellow moon, then there is one piece of evidence that supports and appears to confirm the theory the moon is made of cheese. Additional testing will either add more supporting evidence or could refute the theory.
A Case Study of How Further Testing Can Invalidate a Theory Assumed to be True: The Early Earth Had a Reductive AtmosphereWe can also see this principle has been at work in modifying the "knowledge" regarding the early stages of the theory of evolution. After Stanley Miller completed some experiments in the 1950's demonstrating the possibility of creating a few amino acids from non-organic chemical compounds, some evolutionists felt confident that science had finally validated the theory that life could have arisen naturalistically on earth. Since it was generally assumed that we are the products of evolution and since scientific testing had established that amino acid synthesis required a non-oxygen atmosphere, therefore it was assumed that the early earth must have had a non-oxygen atmosphere.
"There is therefore no longer any doubt that the first stage of the formation of life can occur under the influence of entirely 'natural' conditions such as may well have existed early in the earth's history." (9)"complex organic molecules such as amino acids, ... Their synthesis requires special conditions, notably the absence of oxygen."(10)
"Some four billion years ago the Earth's atmosphere consisted mainly of water vapor, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun bombarded the seas, forming complex organic molecules that eventually acquired the ability to reproduce themselves."(11)
However, after further testing it has been found that the proposed model not only contradicts the physical geologic evidence, but it has also been shown to be impotent in providing the proposed pre-biotic amino acid soup. As a result, today's informed evolutionist simply asserts his or her belief that something like this must have happened.
Did the atmosphere contain any oxygen, so necessary for life on Earth today? The answer is unclear. Many scientists believe that there was little or no oxygen in the early atmosphere. But recent evidence indicates such theories may have to be adjusted; the early atmosphere may have contained oxygen." (12)"Today we know that the gases Miller placed in the flask do not match the atmosphere of early Earth. So we cannot say that life began in a manner similar to Miller's experiment. ... The exact process that would have made this possible is another question scientists have not yet answered." (13)
"How did that process [of life] occur? Again, there are no clear answers - only theories .... At this time, however, no one can say whether any one theory is right or wrong. What can be said is that somehow, through some process, the chemicals that make up living things did group together and form the first cells." (14)
This final statement is a confession of belief. It is not a scientific statement.
The Influence and Observations of Popper
In recounting the history of the philosophy of science, Mayr mentions Sir Karl Popper, who is perhaps the greatest philosopher of science. Among many other things, Popper analyzed the nature and limitations of inductive science. To quote Mayr:
"Popper agreed with the logical positivists that a theory will be 'regarded the more satisfactory the greater the severity of the independent tests it has survived,' but he insisted that falsification was the only way to finally eliminate an invalid theory. If the theory fails a test, it has been falsified." (15)
We can now begin to understand the nature of the "knowledge" which the inductive method yields. What can be known for certain is "what is not true." Whereas what is believed to be true is limited to being probable, contingent upon future evidence not invalidating it. But, Mayr admits that the hypothetico-deductive method is not suited to addressing the concerns of evolution.
"It is particularly ill-suited for the testing of probabilistic theories, which include most theories in biology. The occurrence of exceptions to a probabilistic theory does not necessarily constitute falsification. And in fields such as evolutionary biology, in which historical narratives must be constructed to explain certain observations, it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to decisively falsify an invalid theory. The categorical statement that a single falsification requires the abandonment of a theory might be true for theories based on the universal laws of the physical sciences, but is often not true for theories in evolutionary biology." (16)
This quote highlights several items which should not be overlooked. Mayr acknowledges that evolutionary biology involves constructing stories (historical narratives). He also accurately and honestly admits that the nature of evolution makes it ill-suited to the testing indicative of the scientific method. I would suggest that this is because stories (whether creationistic or evolutionistic) are not science - although it may be possible to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that the evidence appears to support such a story. You can not have it both ways. Either evolution is science in which case exceptions (falsifications) to the theory falsify the theory, or it is simply a story supported by interpreting evidence in such a way so as to support a particular evolutionary theory.
Also, Mayr acknowledges that it is difficult, if not impossible to decisively falsify an invalid theory in fields such as evolutionary biology. What I believe he intended to communicate is that it is difficult if not impossible to get rid of a particular part of the evolutionary framework which may be false. However, his statement is even more true for evolution as a whole. Even if the theory of macro-evolution (vertical evolution - namely that man ascended from lower forms of life) is entirely false, it is difficult to discard this. Why? If a certain mechanism for a particular aspect of the evolutionary story becomes highly questionable (e.g.. Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, etc.), it is possible to begin to speculate about entirely different mechanisms (e.g. punctuated equilibrium) which might be able to accomplish the required result.
The Nature of Evolution
Story Telling Is Based Upon Interpretation: The Lawyer and the Evolutionist
Science is limited to testing the present and describing what exists now, the present state of things, how things currently function, etc. How the past produced the evidence of the present is limited to being a matter of informed interpretation, not science. We can illustrate this with the story that a prosecuting attorney might tell to a jury.
Let's suppose that a blunt object is found near a dead body and that there is blood on this object. Furthermore, let's suppose that the victim's body indicates trauma to the head. Forensic science might reveal that some of the blood on the blunt object is genetically identical to the blood of the accused and some to the victim. Do these scientific particulars "prove" what happened? Has it been scientifically proven that the person who is accused of murder was involved in a fight and killed the victim with the blunt object? Don't be too quick to assume that science has proven what has happened in the past.
The prosecuting lawyer must tell a story. To make the story convincing, the attorney must interpret the evidence in such a way so that it appears to validate his story that the defendant is guilty. But consider just a few of the problems the prosecuting lawyer faces in reconstructing this story.
First of all, that blunt object may or may not be a murder weapon. If a blunt object actually caused the death, there is at least the theoretical possibility that the real murder weapon has been substituted with this object - perhaps even with an identical object.
Second, theoretically at least there are many possibilities of how the defendant's blood came to be on the weapon. Someone could have sprinkled or smeared the defendant's blood on the object in an effort to make him look guilty. Or perhaps the accused was bleeding and picked up the blunt object either shortly before or after this person died, etc. Additional evidence such as motive, etc. might suggest a link between the victim and the blunt object thus increasing the probability of the prosecuting lawyer's story - but it still does not prove what happened.
Third, there is still the question of who committed the murder (if it was murder). Perhaps the deceased died of a self-inflicted wound from the blunt object which coincidentally or intentionally contained a little of the blood of the defendant.
Scientific data does not prove what has happened in the past. Science informs us about the present state and working of things. Even astrophysics informs us about star light and radiation that is currently visible from earth. In order for a story to be told about the past, the evidence must be interpreted using a number of assumptions. In the case of a prosecuting attorney a framework of guilt is assumed as he or she interprets the evidence based upon this assumption. And so the lawyer, using the best scientific tools available along with the additional evidence of a possible motive, accessibility, etc. attempts to tell a convincing story to the jury. The lawyer's task is to either reduce or increase the probability that a particular story has occurred. The jury is required to access the probability of two competing stories (the defense's and the prosecution's), hence the common phrase "beyond a reasonable measure of doubt." If science could prove history, we would not need juries.
This is also the nature of the story of evolution. A fossil, a rock or a laboratory experiment does not prove what happened in the past. These bits of evidence must be interpreted within a framework which is itself built upon a number of assumptions. It is often easy to interpret evidence to fit a framework, but what if the assumed framework is not true? Any singular piece of data might be interpreted either in favor of evolution or creation stories, depending on the scientist's viewpoint and assumptions. Is the Grand Canyon evidence for a global catastrophic flood cutting through what was then perhaps still soft layers of recent deposition or is it evidence for an enormous period of time as the Colorado River slowly eroded down through successive layers of ancient rock which had been built up over eons of time? If evidence of over-thrusting, polystrate fossils, parallel alignment of fossils or other such physical evidence exists, the probability of a particular story might be increased or decreased.
Ultimately, what should be important to us (the jury) is "which story can account for all of the data the best!" Unfortunately, scientists are also very human and there is a strong temptation to ignore data which appears to disagree with the framework which someone wants to promote.
A Conglomeration of Stories
Evolution is not a monolithic whole. Instead, evolution is more like a centipede. In order for evolution to be even theoretically possible, many different smaller mechanisms must be capable of having occurred. If it is possible to demonstrate that the current theory for any one of those mechanisms is not possible (e.g. mechanism for origin of the universe, mechanism for origin of life, etc.), this merely shows that one theory for one mechanism of evolution is wrong.
The theory of evolution is like:
Stories about what might have happened in the past are not observable nor testable and thus can not be scientific statements. Evolution is not science, but interpretative story telling. This is true about creation as well as evolution.
Can you prove by a scientific experiment today whether there really was a girl called Mary who had a little lamb whose fleece was as white as snow and everywhere Mary went the lamb was sure to go? It is possible today for a little girl called Mary to have a lamb, but that neither proves nor disproves the origin and truthfulness of the story. Similarly, scientifically we can demonstrate that white sheep do exist and that sheep tend to follow people ... even little girls. But this still does not scientifically prove that a little girl name Mary lived long ago and had a sheep which followed her around giving rise to the nursery rhyme. What it does indicate is that the probability of the story that a little girl called Mary who may have had a little lamb which followed her around is favorable. Similarly, testing and physical evidence either increases or decreases the probability of the stories of evolution and creation. But the scientific factualness of either story is beyond the realm of empirical science to prove.
Evolution verses Creation - Science verses Religion?
Many evolutionists would like for you to believe that the nature of the discussion of creation verses evolution is a case of science verses religious faith. For example:
"Even today, many groups believe in religious creation myths at the expense of accepting the scientific understanding of the origin and history of Earth. In such cases, the adherence to a creation myth is usually associated with restricted religious values rather than a rejection of the science-based world view."(17)
The following diagram illustrates what evolutionists would like for you to believe:
However, the actual conflict can be illustrated with the following diagram:
Some of the Real Questions are:
The Best For Which Evolutionists and Creationists Can Hope
From an empirical scientific viewpoint, if each side in this debate wants to be scientifically credible what each side must attempt to show is that there is no seemingly conclusive evidence preventing their story from being a viable option AND that there is favorable evidence which supports the possibility/ probability of it having actually occurred. Those on either side of the fence who claim that there is scientific proof that "it happened this way" are not speaking as true scientists but rather clever lawyers. One of the two might actually be accurately recounting history, but they are not speaking as scientists but as story tellers interpreting the evidence. In the discussion of evolution and creation from a scientific viewpoint, the best someone who is telling a story can hope for from the scientific method is that:
1. The evidence appears to provide a high probability for their particular story2. No conclusive conflicting evidence exists against their story.
Regarding showing that there is no conclusive evidence preventing a story from being viable, it would appear that the creationist has an advantage. Although the evolutionist might cry "unfair," a creationist could always claim "this is just how God made it." However, I doubt that such a response will hold much convicting power for the skeptic. A response which might well be received as being more credible would be to help evolutionists recognize that their negative assessment of the creation story actually stems from their own assumptions and not necessarily from the scientific method.
Darwinism? Punctuated Equilibrium? Other Evolutionistic Theories?
Today, some scientists are abandoning Darwinian evolution in favor of other models of evolution because Darwinian theory is repeatedly not squaring with the evidence. How should one react to the mounting physical evidence against Darwinian evolution? What are the implications or what should the implications be for evolution as a whole?
Let's assume for the moment that some form of macro-evolution really occurred. Based upon this assumption, how should contradictory evidence against the current proposed mechanisms of evolution be understood? If evolution is actually true, the current inadequate models should be abandoned in favor of new evolutionary mechanisms to explain the evolutionary story. If macro-evolution is actually true, it would be tragic to our human knowledge to conclude that the framework is wrong, just because the current theories for various mechanisms are wrong.
Now let's assume for a moment that macro-evolution never happened. Based upon this assumption, how should contradictory evidence against a particular part of macro-evolution be understood? Hopefully, the series of failed explanations will cause a person to not only question the individual theoretical models, but also the overall narrative framework and its underlying assumptions. Unfortunately, the reality is that even if it is false, many evolutionists will continue to defend it and seek new explanations because they a priori assume that evolution is ultimately true.
What would it take to convince someone that evolution is not true? That depends upon the person. Evolution is like a large centipede made up of many smaller sections each of which provides an explanation for some necessary step of evolution. If someone notices that the entire creature in its present form is experiencing systemic shock from a number of bleeding ulcers, hopefully that person will not look for new explanations, new theories and new mechanisms, but begin to question if the evolutionary framework itself is a viable story for our origins.
A Brief Comparison of Track Records
So in which story are you putting your faith?
Barry Newton Copyright © 1998, Revised Version, 2000
Endnotes
1) Ernst Mayr, This is Biology The Science of the Living World (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge: 1997), p. 34.
2) Ibid., p. 34.
3) Ibid., p. 48.
4) Ibid., p. 34.
5) Vincent Barry, Philosophy: A Text with Readings (Wadsworth Publishing: 1980), p. 305.
6) Ibid.
7) Mayr, p. 48.
8) Ibid., p. 49.
9) The Explosion of Science: From Molecule to Man edited by J. A. Young and Tom Margerison (Crown Publishers, New York: 1969), p. 86.
10) Linda Gamlin and Gail Vines, The Evolution of Life (Oxford University Press: 1987), p. 143.
11) Roger Lewin Thread of Life: The Smithsonian Looks at Evolution (Smithsonian: 1982), p. 93.
12) Cells: Building Blocks of Life 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall: 1997), p. 13.
13) Ibid., p. 14
14) Ibid., pp. 14-15
15) Mayr, p. 49
16) Ibid., pp. 49-50
17) Arthur Busbey, Robert Coenraads, Paul Willis and David Roots, Rocks and Fossils (The Nature Company Guides published by Time Life Books, 1996), p. 16.
Other articles which may be of interest:
Various Articles on EvolutionEvolutionary Junk DNA? Science Now Confirms It Is Not Junk!
A Critique of the Reductive Atmospheric Model for the Synthesis of Amino Acids
