CREATION
SCIENCE: Scientific Subjectivity
The importance
of initial assumptions in the formulation of a scientific theory or technique
has been commented on. It has also been said that true science is based
upon repeatable observations through which theories or techniques are
tested. However, so much of what is purported as science today is not
of this nature. Initial assumptions are not proven, neither are the theories
testable. This is due to the fact that the ‘sciences’ of origins are dealing
with historical events spanning many millennia of time. For example, scientists
cannot observe a reptile to bird type evolutionary process as it is believed
to take tens of millions of years to occur.
It would
not be fair to label scientists as distorters of truth or propose that
they are on a mission to undermine faith in God (although there are some
very vocal pseudo scientists who do just that). On the contrary, of all
groups, scientists are compelled to be more objective than most. They
are bound by their observations and their results are testable. However,
when it comes to the theory of origins, a scientist’s predisposition to
one or another paradigm comes into play. Out of the laboratory, a scientist
is still a human being. And it was outside the laboratory that the theory
of evolution has been given birth and nurtured.
Evolutionary
thinking has taken the world by storm. It has captured the minds and imaginations
of people far removed from the scientific community. Evolution has atheistic
overtones in the minds of the vast majority of people. This could in some
way account for its popularity as Christians believe that in his fallen
state, mankind is in rebellion against God. Evolution is portrayed as
fact in every secular institution, magazine, textbook, or museum display.
It is within this environment that a budding scientist formulates his
or her world-view.
Here is
an example of how partiality to a particular mindset skews scientific
conclusions:
The constant
rates of radioactive decay, are used to ‘date’ rocks. Geochronologists
say that these rates have been carefully monitored for the past 80 to
90 years, and no significant variations have yet been measured. These
readings, taken in our present environment, are extrapolated backwards
by 4.5 billion years (the proposed age of the earth). Extrapolation over
that many orders of magnitude would normally be considered heretical in
the field of mathematics, yet it is allowed in this case.
The speed
of light, on the other hand, has been measured for the past 250 years
and exhibits an exponential decline to an asymptotic value of 299,792.458
km/sec. Despite crude methodologies, if the speed of light had always
been constant, a plot of the findings should look more like attenuated
white noise (static) than an exponential curve. The exponential trace,
however, is quite clear. Should the speed of light have decayed, it would
require many paradigm shifts as to how we view the universe. Many scientists
are unaware of the debate (it isn’t taught). Many others choose to ignore
such findings.
Originally,
very nearly all the great scientists were Christians: Faraday, Pascal
and Newton to name but a few. Today, many more than you would imagine
still are. In fact, an increasing number of reputable scientists are questioning
evolutionary theory despite the world’s continuing acceptance of it. Of
all ‘Christian scientists’, many are physicists. Perhaps it has something
to do with their dealings with the immutable laws of the universe which
maintain the harmonious order we require for survival. More recently,
however, scientists in the field of biochemistry are finding the claims
of atheistic evolution more difficult to believe. With modern breakthroughs
in their field, the complexity of life at the molecular level is astounding
scientists afresh. Could pure chance ever have been responsible for such
awesome and intricate design? Intuition (see Romans 1:20) continues to
be a source of scepticism for all people.
Here are
a few quotable quotes:
…And
scientists, contrary to the myth that they themselves publicly promulgate,
are emotional human beings who carry a generous dose of subjectivity
with them into the supposedly "objective search for truth".
In fact,
a completely unbiased, unprejudiced exploration of nature is a methodological
impossibility, as a biologist and philosopher of science Sir Peter
Medawar is fond of pointing out. Without a set of expectations to
act as a guide, such a search would be a chaotic and largely unprofitable
enterprise. Moreover, the way in which scientists typically report
their findings, in formal papers submitted to learned journals, is,
he says, "notorious for misrepresenting the process of thought
that led to whatever discoveries they describe." Preconceptions
are rarely acknowledged, because this after all would be "unscientific".
…
The
anonymous aphorism "I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed
it" is a continuing truth in science. …1
… NO
DOUBT, the theory of evolution will continue to play the singular
role in the life of our secular culture that it has always played.
The theory is unique among scientific instruments in being cherished
not for what it contains, but for what it lacks. There are in Darwin’s
scheme no biotic laws, no Bauplan as in German natural philosophy,
no èlan vital, no divine guidance or transcendental forces.
The theory functions simply as a description of matter in one of its
modes, and living creatures are said to be something that the gods
of laws indifferently sanction and allow…2
- Lewin,
Roger, 1987. Bones of contention: Controversies in the search for
human origins, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, pp 18-19.
- Berlinski,
David, 1996. The deniable Darwin, Commentary, 101(6):3.
Becky Conolly
|
For
more information and resources contact:
AFRICA CHRISTIAN ACTION
|
|
