rmooney@uicsl.UUCP (02/22/84)
#N:uicsl:7500049:000:7452
uicsl!rmooney Feb 21 12:34:00 1984
Mr. Miller in his introductory paragraph of his last message attempts
to neatly dispose of the Occam's razor arguement against creationism as
science, and moves quickly on to a more secure area for him, the Paluxy River
tracks. Unfortunately, his little sidestep cannot be allowed.
First, let me state that although I find the specific "evidence" that
creationists attack evolution with to be generally unfounded, I do not
feel knowledgeable enough to defend evolution on all counts. It is obvious
that one person cannot address every piece of evidence or redo every
scientific experiment ever done. One must trust the scientific community
to evaluate claims within their area of expertise. I am confident that if
any of the arguements raised by creationists have any merit, they will event-
ually be recognized and accepted by the majority of scientists within the
appropriate field; however, as yet this has not been the case. I encourage
persons who believe there is scientific evidence that the current view of
"origins" is inadequate to attempt to convince scientists in the appropriate
fields of their claims, such challenges are an important part of science.
So far, so called "scientific creationists" have not been very succcessful in
this endeavor.
However, I feel, as I believe almost all scientists do, that proposing
supernatural causes is something which science cannot do. I feel there
should be, and is, within the philosophy of science a tenant which disallows
such a thing. I feel it is obvious that a supernatural explanation is not
an explanation at all. Such concepts as God are by definition unexplainable
and can therefore not be used in a scientific theory whose entire purpose
is to explain. Fortunately, my sentiments are not just my own but ones
which form the basis of a fundamental axiom of science "Occams Razor",
"Thou shalt not propose theories more complicated than necessary to explain
the observed evidence." To those who doubt that it is fundamental to science
I refer you to the cause of the heliocentric revolution, and to Newton's
Principia in which it is stated almost directly.
Mr. Miller would have us believe that it is somehow "unfair" to rule out
a theory on anything but empirical grounds. Well, who ever said science was
"fair"? It is obvious that all theories are not "created equal". Apparently,
Mr. Miller would have considered the scientists who first accepted helio-
centrism as being unfair to Ptolmaic astronomy which had yet to be disproven.
Apparently to Mr. Miller the complexity of an idea should have no bearing
on its acceptability as a scientific theory. It would be perfectly fine
to still accept the view that pulsars are well timed beacons of an advanced
extraterrestrial civilization despite the existence of a simpler theory that
they are rotating neutron stars. After all, we can't actually go visit pulsars
and perform controlled experiments on them, and both seem to fit (or could
be made to fit) the data equally well; therefore, both should be taught
on an equal time basis. Obviously this is not what we want. If science could
not apply Occams Razor to evaluate competing theories, it would be impotent
since it would be swamped with a plethora of possible explanations with no
means to evaluate them.
Now to expand on the point that creationism, since it presupposes a
supernatural realm, could never be considered science since simpler
naturalistic explanations would always exist. I challenge anyone to imagine
something occuring in the natural world which would absolutely demand the
existence of a supernatural realm and could not be explained with an
appropriately concocted materialistic explanation. I fail to see how this
could be done. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced
materialistic explanation is indistinguishable from magic"
Let us assume, for the sake of arguement, that the creationists convinced
me that all life appeared suddenly on Earth. I would probably propose, being
of a science-fiction mindset, that it could be the case that life was planted
here from a giant space-ark from another planet on which such life evolved.
However, what if they convinced me that the abiogenesis of life as we know
it is theoretically impossible (how this could be shown to be imposssible
and not just unlikely I do not know), then I would probably propose that
we were designed and created by another form of intelligent life based
on another chemistry or even just "energy entities". I will stop before
getting too ridiculous but I believe this type of reasoning could go
on indefinitely. The important point is that I never have to suppose
something mystical or unexplainable, everything obeys some sort of
materialistic laws, supposing something unexplainable or unobservable
by definition at any point would be a violation of Occams Razor. Giving
up at somepoint and saying there was a GOD would be a scientific cop-out
and leave a very complex mechanism unexplained when simpler alternatives
remain.
I have confronted Mr. Miller personally on the issue of why he does
not propose such theories as the extraterrestrial origin one if he truly
believes the validity of his evidence, instead of immediately resorting to
a supernatural explanation which is much more complicated. In his answer
he revealed his real motivation, scientific validation of his personal
religious beliefs. He stated that if evidence for the age of the Earth
and origin of life agreed on the surface with the the Bible's account then
he believed this somehow has proven the rest of the information in the
Bible to be true as well. Apparently he would have us believe it is
scientific to rely on the consistency of a *book*. Is this what we want!
I would also reply that if the Bible was consistent with certain scientific
findings that it would support the extraterrestrial hypothesis beautifully.
Mythology consistent with the facts would appear naturally in such a situation
and it would be reasonable for the early earth folk to consider their care-
taker/"creator" as a God, remember, Cortez was thought to be a god by the
Aztecs.
Some might believe my alternative proposals to be "ridiculous" and
"impossible" (let me state again I see no evidence warranting such theories).
All I can say to that is that they are certainly less ridiculous and
impossible than the idea of a supernatural. They may simply not seem that
way because the latter idea has had more exposure since many people
accept it as a matter of *faith*. However, to an unbiased mind the
alternatives to supernatural creation are certainly simpler. Their
ontology does not demand a whole other realm of existence which is
unobservable and un-explainable. So until the creationists are willing
to explain what kind of creature this "God" is and what physical laws
and limitations He is bound by, how can they expect anyone to consider
it a scientific alternative when simpler choices remain.
To sum up, science does not claim to be universal truth, it is simply
the best method ever concocted to help humans predict and "understand"
the natural world in which they live. It is a game, and there are certain
rules which any player must abide by. Certain people who want to play
the game but do not want to follow the rules would have us believe that
some of the rules are "unfair", I would simply call them necessary.