This article was prompted by the misconceptions existing in
the comment sections of various discussion forums regarding creation and
evolution. Many hostile atheists and evolutionists are quick to disrespectfully
dismiss any reasonable questions regarding the theory of evolution, all the while
preaching scientific freedom. Some
claim evolution is ‘scientific fact’,
or that it has been proven by ‘science’.
But if this was the case, why are there still works published to challenge this
idea – even from among the secular scientific and philosophical communities?[1]
And do they actually understand the nature of science and the difference
between empirical and forensic science?
Empirical science
(also called operational or experimental science) is a term used to describe
science that can be observed, tested and repeated under controlled conditions.
The scientific method basically requires that something has to be measurable
and therefore observable in the physical dimension. This is the science that
brought us antibiotics, acne cream and the atom bomb. Where empirical science
differs from origins science (also
called historical science), like forensic science, is in the fact that we are
dealing with data that originated from occurrences in the past where there may
or may not have been eyewitnesses, and obviously the data cannot be replicated
under laboratory conditions. While forensic science as a term theoretically
refers to the legal system, it basically entails presenting a case (before a
judge) based on evidence gathered at the crime scene. The role of the judge is
then to decide whose interpretation of the evidence is the best.
As an example I will use the cricket bat found in the home
of Oscar Pistorius following the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. Once news of the
blood-stained bat broke, it looked very incriminating. Some argued that the bat
was used as a weapon in a domestic fight. But Oscar’s version of the events
states that he used the bat to break open the locked bathroom door. The same
bat is therefore used as evidence by both
the prosecutor and the defense attorneys to prove their respective
cases. The interpretation of the evidence depends on your view of the events or
your objective, which is your presupposition (or assumption). Without
assumptions, the bat would mean nothing and cannot be used as evidence to prove
anything. The only reasonable deduction is that it got stained by blood, period.
So how does this apply to origins science? Origins science
(for lack of a better term) also deals with (forensic) data from the past that
cannot be replicated in laboratories, and must be interpreted without the
luxury of eyewitnesses. Since the observable universe is in a state of decay
(giving rise to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of entropy[2]),
it can be reasonably concluded that the universe had an origin and cannot have
existed indefinitely. Like the blood on the bat, few (if anybody) would argue
this fact, but what we do differ on is how it came into existence.
Creationists believe it was created in six days according to
the Bible, while evolutionists and other atheists believe the universe and life
had a beginning independent of any Intelligence (i.e. big bang, abiogenesis and
evolution). Those are the two main presuppositions through which the data are
interpreted, and both parties look for evidence
to prove their respective
cases, i.e. proof.
So what proof is
there for a Creator? Creation, obviously. Paul writes in Romans 1 that those
who cannot see the Creator in the Creation are without excuse – it’s that
obvious. This was also the basis for William Paley’s famous Watchmaker-analogy
– a watch is evidence of a watchmaker[3].
This was argued in a book titled Natural
Theology published in 1802 already, and which Charles Darwin ironically
admitted to admire more than any other
book[4].
This was such a strong case for a Creator, that Richard Dawkins attempted a
refutation thereof with his book The
Blind Watchmaker.
And what proof is
there for the big bang, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution? Exactly the same evidence that creationists use as proof for a Creator. Why? We have
exactly the same ‘crime scene’ at our disposal. It all depends on your
presupposed world view through which you interpret the data. The fossil record
as evidence can either be used to prove burial during Noah’s Flood, or prove a long history of evolution,
depending on your presuppositions!
So next time someone claims intellectual superiority for his
theory or world view based on the evidence presented, remind him that it remains
open to interpretation. Just like Oscar’s bat is open to interpretation.
I rest my case.
[1]
Compare Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian
Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.
[2] The
law of entropy states that energy in an isolated system tends towards thermal
equilibrium, which is a state of maximum entropy or disorder.
[3] If
those who claim that there ‘is no
evidence for a Creator’ should remain consistent in their argument, they
must also dispute the fact that a creator (criminal) can be responsible for
incriminating forensic evidence on a crime scene since it might have come about
by natural processes without intelligence. The physical absence of a criminal
does not mean he was not responsible for the crime scene. Similarly, the
intangible nature of an alleged Creator (according to the scientific method
which limits itself to observations in the natural realm) does not mean that He
could not have been responsible for Creation.
[4] Darwin wrote: “I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s "Natural Theology." I could almost formerly have said it by heart” Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, C. Darwin to John
Lubbock, 15 November, 1859, D. Appleton and Co., New York, Vol. 2, p. 15, 1911.
