Science
What is the nature of science?
Science is the study of the nature of the world. We discover how the world works by using the Scientific Method. This method involves observing the world, and making a reasonable guess, called a hypothesis, about why a particular thing happens. With a working hypothesis, you may test other such situations to see if the hypothesis continues to hold true. If it fails a repeatable test, the hypothesis must be discarded or altered. Through time and testing, most hypotheses are discarded or altered. Those that are consistent and have passed all tests are called theories. A scientific theory as defined here is considerably different from the common usage of the word theory, and the differentiation between the two meanings is extremely important. For example, if a crime is committed, we might say we have several theories about who did it and why. In common language, we might state something to the effect of, “I think the butler did it, but that’s only a theory.” But this is not a scientifically-tested theory, this is merely an untested hypothesis, in the language of the scientist.
The proper use of the word theory is closer to something between the common usages of the words theory and fact. Even then, some theories have considerably more evidence behind them than others. Included among those are the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution. Such theories have what is often called a “mountain of evidence” behind them, to such extent that they are for the most part treated as scientific fact, with only minor adjustments possible to a strong underlying theory.
So the whole gist of science is guessing, and either disproving your guess—your hypothesis—or not disproving it. If your guess withstands many attempts to disprove it, it becomes a theory. If your guess withstands all attempts to disprove it from many different angles, and has much evidence to support it, then it is a strong, robust theory, and may be considered by the general public to be a scientific fact.
Science has no outright bias for or against religion. On the contrary, science welcomes all possible explanations of observed phenomena. Explanations that hold up to testing are kept, but those that fail are discarded. Those tied to traditional religions get upset when science disproves supposed explanations in their scripted works, usually explanations of the workings of the world written by men centuries or millennia ago who did not understand most of the scientific basics we recognize today. The testing itself is based upon observation and logic, the only real way to encounter the truth.
Scientific Evidence
How do we know that the Big Bang and evolution are true? After all, when dissecting the reasons for rejecting theist claims, we say over and over that merely taking someone’s word that something extraordinary happened isn’t good enough, we need evidence. Should we just take the word of scientists, or science teachers, or even the authors of this book, merely because they say so?
Of course not. But there’s a huge difference between “evidence” from a “witness” to an event like a supposed spiritual healing or miracle, and actual evidence such as that from a scientific experiment. That difference is repeatability (or verifiability). The scientific evidence mentioned in the rest of this chapter is repeatable. If you really want to, you can study enough about whichever particular field, and go repeat any desired experiment yourself. Since this repeatability is tested and questioned by other scientists, we can take those pieces of evidence which have received heavy scrutiny as being factual. Newer pieces of evidence, with less skeptical inquiry into them, are usually viewed with a more critical eye, and others often request data to test the repeatability of the evidence. (Even such things as fossils are verifiable and have an element of repeatability, in that we can find other fossils that can confirm or disprove our theories about existing fossils.) But overall, the scientific process builds its theories and conclusions on repeatable, verifiable, observable data and events and experiments. If there is sufficient credible contradictory evidence, a theory must be discarded.
So scientists don’t lend credence to theories like the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution based on nothing, or based on what some authority in the field told them. Their trust in those theories is not “faith” or a “belief,” they look at the underlying evidence. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, some respected scientists argued against it. The community was divided, so many scientists developed experiments to test whether the universe was static or expanding. The experiments matched the predictions of an expanding universe. The old static universe theory was discarded, because it did not match observable evidence.
Sometimes people who misunderstand the scientific process try to turn it and the evidence toward their own ends. This is especially true among creationists, who are trying to twist statements and tiny anomalies into large-scale evidence for their pet theories. Unfortunately for them, the scientific process is not something that can be bent to give a desired outcome. You cannot change or discard evidence as suits your needs! If evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you must change your hypothesis to take account of the new data. This leads us to our next section.
Creation Science is Not Science
Earlier in this chapter we explained how science works, and how it depends on repeatable or verifiable evidence as analyzed by trained experts. So what about evidence from “Creation Scientists,” who say they are also experts and view the evidence in a different light? Why aren’t their claims given as much weight as Big Bang scientists or evolutionary scientists?
First and foremost, let’s look at credentials. An awful lot of the folks who support creation science have doctorates, aren’t they well-educated enough to properly analyze the evidence? Check a little more closely, and you’ll find quite a few of the creationist “doctors” have degrees in fields such as education or engineering or agriculture or chemistry, wonderful fields all but certainly not geology or biology or anthropology. Dig a little deeper, and you’ll also find that some of their degrees come from bible colleges or unaccredited “diploma mills” posing as universities. A list of prominent creationists with such questionable degrees can be found at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html.
And even if you find that less common, truly accredited scientist, why is he or she the only one? If there is truly a controversy, why isn’t there a large group of accredited, respected scientists in the correct field who are disputing evolutionary theory? You can’t find it because such a group doesn’t exist. One creationist group circulated a document that now lists 500 scientists who support creation, trying to prove that there is a controversy. In response, the National Center for Science Education—see the Book of Resources for more info—published a list that now contains the names of over 700 scientists who say they support the theory of evolution. Seven to five, still sound like a controversy? Take a closer look at the NCSE’s list, every single one of their scientists is named Steve! Steves (or Stephanies, or Stefans, or Estebans, etc.) make up only about 1% of the population in the United States (there are six Steves on the list of 500 creationist scientists), so it’d be reasonable to say there are probably about 70,000 scientists who support evolution. You can see the “controversy” doesn’t really exist. On top of that, about two-thirds of the Steve list consists of biologists, who are few and far between— only one of their six Steves is a biologist—on the creationist list.
When looking at creationist claims, you can also often find hyperbolic inflation of credentials. You’ll see the phrases “leading scientist,” “world-renowned,” “top researcher in the field,” and the like. These claims are imaginary, with the goal of changing the mind of the casual reader who doesn’t take the time to investigate further. Often, to bolster such claims, inappropriate quotes or misquotes from real scientists are included. Here’s a sample quote used by creationists:
“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.”
-- leading evolutionist Louis T. More
Sounds like evolution scientists are in a tizzy, right? Wrong. The truth of this quote is that it is from a relatively obscure evolutionary scientist, in 1925, long before many of the fossils we recognize in the current fossil record were found. Attempts to dupe people by presenting obscure 80-year-old quotes from little-known authors show the lengths that people will go to when trying to reinforce a worldview that conflicts with actual evidence.
Debunking all the specific claims of “Creation Science” is beyond the scope of this book, but several others have done so. The interested reader is directed to the impressive list at www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ complied by Mark Isaak, or to the section in the Book of Books entitled “Modern works on the Big Bang and Evolution.” There you can find more than enough information to counter claims that the theories of the Big Bang and/or Evolution are flawed.
It’s unfortunate that such steps to counter false claims are necessary, or that we even have to have a section in this book on the subject. But there are still many out there who cling to a biblical literalism that denies the factual evidence for these established scientific theories, and continue to teach such absurdities to children. (Recall that at one time church teachings taught us the earth was flat, and later that the sun revolved around the earth!) Such biblical literalism is dangerous, for it teaches that we should deny facts we can see with our own eyes, in favor of the writings of men from thousands of years ago.
Those pushing such ideas sometimes also support a theocratic state, and harsh or capital penalties for those who do not believe in their particular brand of theism or deny their “facts” or do not follow their particular set of prescribed morals. We cannot allow biblical literalists to commandeer the scientific education of our children and pervert it into something that is no longer science, for this would be the first step toward their goal of a theocracy. So, we must take pains to lay out detailed, organized evidence for these truisms that should be obvious to any rational observer. The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist includes some short summaries of such evidence, but interested readers should also consider looking over the list at the TalkOrigins website or reading some of the works in the Book of Books for a much more detailed look at the evidence and the arguments.
When the theist argues the metaphysical, we must certainly allow them their beliefs. After all, they are by definition beliefs about which no definite proof can be given. But when the theist pronounces on the physical world, in contradiction to physical evidence, it demands that all Freethinkers stand up for the truth.