Asking Questions

Science is about testing things and, frankly, falsifying them. That is, if it is to be considered science, you have to be able to prove that it is not a valid hypothesis. This is the stated reason why Intelligent Design, for instance, is not allowed to be discussed in the world of science. There is no test whereby someone could say, "No, this test shows that Intelligent Design is false."

It's odd to me -- I suppose because I'm not a scientist -- that this rule seems to be so unfairly applied. I'm sure that if I were an actual scientist I'd understand the exception clause where pet ideas don't have to be subjected to the same rule. Take, for instance, Darwinian Evolution. While "evolution" has a variety of meanings, Darwinian Evolution (the "Evolution" of the day) has a very specific definition:

The proposition that the phylogeny of all species is wholly ascribable to the combined effects of random variation (mutation) in genotypes of the members of a stock as a result of the operation of undirected accidents with consequences to their phenotypes and the operation of preferential (but by no means certain) survival of those resulting phenotypes most suited to survive in the contemporary environment.

Now, this definition has problems enough. What, for instance, is a "species"? Science disagrees with science on the definition. (So ... how does one falsify the varying definitions?) But apart from the problem of defining the definition, there are claims made in the definition that cannot be tested or falsified. It claims that the whole thing is a product of "random variation" (emphasis mine) as a result of the operation of "undirected accidents." Each point in these claims requires a lack of influence. Now ... test for that lack.

It just doesn't seem right to me. Darwinian Evolution makes a claim. It is an absolute denial of the possibility that anything outside of "random" variations from "undirected accidents" could have played a part in the existence of life on this planet as we know it. It is, in fact, a theological claim of sorts -- denying God. In other words, if you subscribe to Darwinian Evolution, you must deny Christianity and very likely the existence of God. Those who argue for Theistic Evolution do so against Darwinian Evolution because they specifically deny "random," "undirected," and "accidents." Sorry, guys ... you're not real Evolutionists. You're just a part of that faulty "Intelligent Design" group, obviously not prone to real science, and clearly accepting of unprovable claims of some "god" or something. You're just Creationists in Intelligent Design clothing. And Darwinian Evolution lets itself off the hook. "We don't need to test our own hypothesis ... but it's still science."

I could offer some interesting tests of my own on various claims, but they would be struck down because, after all, I'm prejudiced. (I am prejudiced, but show me the "real scientist" who isn't, and I'll show you a liar.) For instance, given the hypothesis that everything occurs by random events, what would you expect? Randomness, of course. And what do we see? Order. Hmm, looks like that might be a reason to doubt the hypothesis. Or, related, given chaos, what would you expect to see? Chaos. Instead, we find far too much order. How about this one? Given nothing, what would you expect to see? Nothing. Odd ... we find something. How very strange! Some Evolutionists make some strange responses to tests like these:

"It looks as if we are getting order out of random and chaos. That suggests that something orders it. Randomness doesn't produce order."

"No, you're wrong. We know that randomness produces order."

"How do we know that?"

"Because it did! Look at the world!"

Oh, I see, we prove "random variations" and "undirected accidents" by showing that the world is orderly so our hypothesis is correct? Sorry, but that's circular reasoning.

There are many who claim that anyone who is a person of faith can only be one of two things: Ignorant or stupid. Their corollary is similar: "If you hold tightly to your faith against what we know, you are arrogant." I have to wonder why people who ask "How does order come from chaos?" or "How do we get from inorganic to organic?" or "How would you explain the massive information stored in DNA by 'undirected accidents'?" are the arrogant ones while those who simply dismiss them out of hand are the reasonable, thinking people. Certainly people of faith make stupid claims and foolish arguments. I'd be a liar to deny it. But they're not alone in that. Mainstream "right thinkers" make equally stupid claims and foolish arguments. It is my assertion that science doesn't stand at the top of the heap as firmly as it thinks or claims. It is not the unbiased bastion of truth it thinks it is. And when we simply dismiss those with whom we disagree out of hand because they disagree with us, well, that's no way to come to the truth. Look, maybe you don't like the idea that when I see a watch in the field, I assume a watchmaker. Fine. But you have to admit that it's not an ignorant or stupid or unreasonable conclusion ... don't you?

(As a side note, I highly recommend reading 10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design, a three-part series over at Evangelical Outpost. You'll find them here:
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
They make some excellent points on the questions at hand.)