Science Rules!

Science Rules!

When a proselytizing believer comes up against a skeptic's observation that there is no credible objective evidence of supernatural beings, the believer will sometimes try to reject that observation by telling the skeptic, "You can't disprove the existence of God". Is that a valid argument? In order to examine that question, let's try out the argument on a simpler task. Let's try to disprove the claim "unicorns exist."

To accomplish this, we might start by examining every square yard of planet Earth in search of a unicorn, but that would only be a start. Once we're satisfied that there are no unicorns on Earth, we must also search other places where they might exist. We've got a couple of rovers on Mars, and they haven't spotted any unicorns yet, but they've only examined a small fraction of the Martian surface. Our unicorn hunt will have to finish the job and then move on to all the other possible places.

To conclusively disprove the claim "unicorns exist," we would have to establish conclusively that the entire universe is devoid of unicorns. Clearly, an exploration of that magnitude is beyond what is possible for the human race, much less a lone skeptic. Since the evidence-gathering task has been shown to be impossible simply because of the limitations of being human, expecting the skeptic to attempt it is unreasonable, which makes the argument and the debate tactic invalid. A person cannot make an unsupported claim and expect the skeptical listener to take on a quest to disprove that claim. There is no such thing as a "burden of disproof" to be foisted onto the skeptic.

That leaves only a "burden of proof," which belongs to the person who states the claim. It is up to the person who claims that a particular thing exists to provide evidence that backs the claim. For example, a person who claims that unicorns exist should not be surprised if a skeptic asks him to trot one out for inspection. The claimant should not expect the skeptic to simply take his word for it, or to be satisfied with stories that the claimant has written about unicorns or pictures that he has drawn of unicorns.

The skeptic's reliance on credible, objective evidence to determine which claims to accept and which to reject is one example of how the principles of science can be applied in everyday life. Science is not about treating all ideas as though they have equal value. Science is about evidence. Ideas that are supported by credible, objective evidence will be accepted. Ideas that are not supported by credible, objective evidence will not be accepted. For example, the idea that the Earth might be flat still exists, and has not been disproved. It is not accepted, though, because the preponderance of evidence at hand instead supports the idea that the Earth is roughly spherical.

Developing the evidence needed to evaluate an idea, claim, or speculation is done using a process called the "scientific method." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The first step in that process is to formulate a hypothesis. This is the attempt to define the relationship between observed facts and/or to define the mechanism by which a phenomenon is thought to operate. An effective hypothesis makes testable predictions of the results of experiments that might be performed or observations that might be made.

The second step is to test the hypothesis by carrying out the suggested experiments or observations. For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicted not only that the Sun's gravity would bend passing starlight, but also that light's path would be bent by twice as much as could be accounted for by substituting the mass-equivalent of a photon's energy (E/c^2) into Newton's equation of gravity. That prediction was tested by British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington who measured the apparent positions of stars near the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/06/the_last_1919_einstein_test_l.php

The third step is to refine the hypothesis by incorporating the information obtained from experiments and observations. This should lead to more predictions, tests and refinements until the predictions and results match up accurately and repeatably, producing a large body of reliable knowledge that supports the hypothesis. At that point, the hypothesis is considered to be well-proved, and is accorded the status of a theory.

The reader may have noticed that the words "speculation," "hypothesis" and "theory" each have very different and definite meanings when used in the context of the scientific method. This contrasts strongly with the way these words are used by advocates of things like "intelligent design" creationism. The way that creationists use "speculation," "hypothesis" and "theory" all seem to be taken to mean about the same thing as "speculation," and the usage of "theory" becomes very flexible.

To downplay real science, creationists say that evolution is "just a theory," but when creationists want to put a positive spin on creationism, especially when trying to force public schools to teach it as science, they say that creationism "is a theory, too!" This is a corruption of scientific terminology.

Creationists also try to equate creationism and evolution as two competing systems of belief, and complain that if evolution is taught in public school science classrooms, fairness to belief systems demands that creationism should be taught there, too. In fact, scientists do not "believe in" evolution on faith, the way that believers believe in the existence of supernatural gods or an "intelligent designer." Scientists accept evolution because the evidence at hand indicates that evolution is the best-supported idea put forward, so far, to explain the observed similarities between species.

Another tactic that creationists use is to argue that, since the evidence supporting evolution is incomplete, evolution is not proved, and therefore creationism must be the correct explanation for the presence of life on Earth. This is not a scientific way of reaching a conclusion. Even if creationists could somehow disprove evolution, that would not, by default, prove creationism.

Instead of presenting positive evidence that supports their claim that a supernatural "intelligent designer" exists, creationists rely on negative argumentation against evolution. This is the "argument from ignorance," the idea that any phenomenon which cannot be explained to the last detail, within the framework of the current state of human knowledge, must be attributed to the act of a god or deities, thereby providing evidence for the existence of said deity or deities.

Ignorance is not evidence. By drawing their conclusion using the "argument from ignorance," creationists are essentially contending that if life's explanation isn't behind door #1, then it must be behind door #2. What if there's a door #3? What if there is some future state of human knowledge that is capable of providing a complete, scientific explanation for the origin and subsequent evolution of life? By insisting on reaching a final conclusion, right now, through unsupported "must be" argumentation, creationists are using a process that science calls "jumping to conclusions."

When stripped to its basics, the argument put forward for creationism says, "The presence of the world and life is evidence of a creator, and that creator is the explanation for the presence of the world and life." Obviously, this is a circular argument. If creationists want to have creationism accepted as science, they need to produce some credible, independent, objective evidence to back the claims they make about the existence of a creator. Until then, their claims are unsupported and are rightly denied any place in the science classroom.