What science is all about -- some thoughts

What is science all about? 
A. Let's start by defining terms. This is what the Free Dictionary says about science (1st meaning only):
1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

I will restrict myself to meaning 1a, actually. How does science differ from three other honorable enterprises, namely the study of history, performing music, or working as a check-out person in a grocery store?
The study of history usually can't involve experimental investigation. You can't see what would have happened if George Washington hadn't crossed the Delaware, for example. You can guess, and your guess may be right, but you can't know. But you can experiment in science. You can find out what happens if someone takes their medicine every other day, rather than every day.
Music performance doesn't involve much identification (in that you are classifying something, such as rock types or species of grasses) and description, nor theoretical explanation. It may involve experimentation, though.
Grocery checkout persons don't do much identification, either, except what's already done for them in the bar codes on items. They may experiment, however, for example by smiling at some customers and not at others, but the amount of experimentation is limited. If they start only charging for every other container of milk to compare it with customer satisfaction, or giving more change that the customer is supposed to get, they'll get fired.

B. The controlled, replicable experiment, then, is one of the cornerstones of much science. Granted, even scientists can't experiment on everything. Historical geologists can't manipulate history any more than history professors can. Astronomers can't manipulate stars or galaxies. Where direct experiment isn't possible, most scientists may compare experiments, as it were, that nature has already provided. For example, how does the light from different stars, in different regions of the universe, compare?

A controlled experiment is one wherein, ideally, one property, and only one, is varied between groups, and everything else is the same. For example, you might test inbred fruit flies, all in the same environment, giving one a vitamin supplement, and one no such supplement, and compare their fertility. (It is usually impossible to make the environment absolutely identical for every organism, or for different attempts at the same experiment. Even inbred strains may have a little genetic variation.)

Replicable means that someone else can test what you have done, by trying the same experiment.

I understand that there is debate about how science really works, but I'm going to ignore it. See the Wikipedia article on "Science" for an introduction to this.

C. Science is clearly important. Think of social media, energy use, and ballistic missiles. The products of science, often called technology, are also important.

The previous sentence mentioned three important topics. None of them is a strictly scientific topic. All of them have legal, political, ethical, economic and even religious implications. That's true of most or all of the technological products of scientific work. If a scientist, for example, says that she is opposed to allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses, or that human embryos can ethically be destroyed in the process of stem cell research, what she says on one of those subjects should carry no more weight than what a grocery clerk says, unless she is a legislator, in addition to being a scientist.

Sometimes scientists think that they are making scientific statements, but they aren't. They are merely scientists making statements, not making statements that are backed up by controlled, replicated, experiments. Watson and Crick, for example, claimed that they had discovered the secret of life, when they proposed the double helix. They had made an important contribution, but they hadn't discovered the secret of life. They hadn't explained how DNA came to be so central to living things in the first place. They hadn't given an explanation for how the information in DNA comes to be expressed (we now know a lot more about that, partly because of the work of Crick, himself.) Both of them, apparently, thought that they had ruled out any supernatural explanation for living things. But they hadn't. God could have created life with DNA as its main information carrier. I don't believe any experiment can rule that out (or prove it.) Hebrews 11:3 says "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." God could have somehow written His signature in DNA, or in rock layers or clouds, or in astronomical objects, but He didn't. Or did He? The believer can and does see God's handiwork in all of these. The non-believer doesn't. We can choose to believe, or not to believe.

D. I don't want to leave the impression that science gets a better and better picture of how nature works only by doing experiments. As Thomas S. Kuhn pointed out, scientists get such a changed picture by new ways of looking at the world -- adopting a new paradigm. What experiments scientists do is determined by how they view the natural world. Galileo wouldn't have done any experiments on radio, because he didn't know there was such a thing. Newton didn't discover gravity. But he did (perhaps after watching an apple fall) realize that gravity could be explained as an attractive force. This wasn't because of any experiment that he did. The experiments came later.

This is a re-post, slightly modified, from a post of mine on December 11, 2006. Thanks for reading.

Why isn't God's existence obvious to everyone?

If God is so all-powerful, why can't we prove that he exists?
 
I believe that God exists, that He brought the universe into being, that God the Son redeemed us through his death, and was resurrected as a token of God's power, that God the Son sustains the created universe at present, and that God the Holy Spirit guides believers now. I also believe that the claims in the previous sentence cannot be unquestionably proved, mathematically, scientifically, or logically. As the scripture quoted in the graphic at the top of this post puts it, "By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what was seen has not been made out of things which are visible." (Hebrews 11:3)

The author of Hebrews does not explicitly say that we can't unequivocally prove the existence of God to doubters, but it implies that, and common experience indicates strongly that we cannot prove God's existence irrefutably to a doubter.

Why is this so? Why does God hide himself? One classic answer is that, in this way, God allows for choice to believe as part of the free will of human beings. If God's existence were that obvious, everyone would be a believer.

Recently, Jim Stump, of the BioLogos Forum has posted on this question. I'll let you read his post, but will say that Stump believes that God has arranged things so that He is hidden for another reason, which Stump spells out. (Stump's post is partly based on a book by John Mullen, and Stump also refers to his own previous posts on the subject at hand.)

See also my post on Hebrews 11:3, Read Stump. Thanks for reading this.

Atheism doesn't have all the answers, and it can be a religion, say some prominent atheists

Michael Ruse is a prominent philosopher. His academic career has included a lot thinking about the relationship between Christianity and science. He has written a lot about the connection between Darwinism and ethics. In a recent article, he describes himself as "an atheist Darwinian evolutionist ..."

The article is about what Ruse sees as excesses by some other prominent atheists, and he names some of them: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne, Edward O. Wilson. Actually, he calls these people, and they would probably agree, Humanists. These Humanists, and others, Ruse says, are too enthusiastic. In other words, they are actively trying to convert others to their views, and ignoring weaknesses of their position. At least some of these four, and others, are advocating a sort of religion based on science.

Ruse points out some serious weaknesses. For one thing, he says ". . . there is no simple line from evolutionary biology to the ethical life, and there is no guarantee that an alternative secular religion will lead us there." I agree. Ethics has to be based on something, and Darwinism doesn't provide such a foundation, whatever the scientific merits of Darwinism.

Another serious weakness is that science has limitations. Ruse says that science can't answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Does life have a purpose." Indeed. The Humanists claim that those questions can be answered by science, or that they aren't important, which is ridiculous.

Ruse makes a powerful case, and it's more powerful because of his prominence, and his own atheism.

For more about Dawkins, see here and here.

*  *  *  *  *

In another article, Gary Gutting, writing in Salon, claims that Richard Dawkins has departed from ideas with firm foundations. The question Gutting considers is the question of whether God exists. Dawkins does not, I believe, claim to have disproved God's existence beyond all doubt, but he clearly believes that he has made some strong arguments against His existence. Gutting, a philosopher who apparently believes in God, himself says that "I myself think that there’s no argument that decisively establishes that God exists." But that's by no means the same as proving that He doesn't.

(Gutting is apparently a solidly competent philosopher, but he's not much of a biologist -- he seems to think that tortoises are amphibians . . .) 

Gutting concludes that there is a serious case to be made for theism. Therefore, either Dawkins doesn't understand that, or he does, and has chosen to pretend that there is no such serious case.

I conclude by quoting Hebrews 11:3 "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." (World English Bible, public domain) My own belief is that Gutting is correct -- there is no decisive argument for the existence of a creator God. But I can logically and legitimately believe that He does exist, and so can you, even if Dawkins doesn't.

See also here.

I thank Jim Stump, of BioLogos, for pointing me, and other readers, to these articles.

Sunspots 451

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:
The Arts: Wired has posted photos of famous museums, made from gingerbread and other sweets.
 
Computing: Did you get taken in by one of these 2013 Internet hoaxes?
Humor: (Only humorous if you aren't having a problem, and I don't have a regular category for this one.) The history of toilet paper, and its predecessors.
Philosophy: The Skeptical Zone presents a mathematical proof that "naturalist science can be no threat to faith in God." Not everyone agrees, of course!
Science: National Public Radio reports on a gene that makes Hispanics more likely to have diabetes.
NPR also reports on what happens to you if you fall into a black hole. It's an important question, for physics.
 

Image source (public domain)

Why Strict Atheism is Unscientific

There's a fine post, on the topic of the title, "Why Strict Atheism is Unscientific," at the BioLogos forum, including a splendid quotation from Carl Sagan. It's brief, readable, and important.

Read it, if you wish to. Blessed Christmas.

Dialog on the existence of God

I recently posted on an apparent change in the Discovery Institute's policies.

A commenter took the opportunity to fume about the Discovery Institute, me, and Christians in general. I quote his entire comment, and my response. I made a mistake, repeating a word, in my response, and have corrected that. Otherwise, this is reproduced exactly, including a pretty awkward sentence of mine. The quotations in bobxxxx's comment are from my post.

bobxxxx said...

"I believe that, as Hebrews 11:3 indicates, acceptance of God's designing is a matter of faith."

Acceptance of your god fairy's magic (which you dishonestly call "design") is also a matter of insanity.

"Although I don't see anything wrong with mentioning, in such a classroom, that there are people who believe that significant features of existing organisms are the result of design,"

Well, I suppose a biology teacher could tell her students that there are people stupid enough to believe in magical creation (what you call design as if that makes it less childish), but what would be the point of wasting class time talking about that? Biology classes are for biology. Biology classes are not for discussions of what insane people think.

"I recently discovered that the Discovery Institute (DI), the organization leading the Intelligent Design (ID) movement,"

Normal people call it the MAGIC movement. Intelligent design = magic. Calling magic by another name is dishonest and calling magic by another name doesn't make it any less idiotic.

You should know that the Discovery Institute is a Christian creationist organization that pretends it isn't a Christian creationist organization. The retards who work there know nothing about science, they are compulsive liars, and of course they have never discovered anything.

Martin LaBar said...

"Discussions of what insane people think" might be important in biology classes. For example, some people -- insane is not the word I would use, but I think that good evidence shows that they are wrong -- sincerely believe that vaccinations are harmful, and some believe that there is no such thing as global warming. Discussion of both views, without agreeing with them, would seem to be appropriate, and avoiding them in biology classes might even be considered negligence.

I don't know anyone who works at the Discovery Institute. I agree that some of their tactics seem to be deceptive, and that they have not produced any credible scientific evidence that proves Intelligent Design. But calling them retards and compulsive liars seems to be going pretty far.

There are important scientists who believe in the existence of a powerful God, who was involved the the beginning of the universe, and in the way things are now, but who have done credible scientific work. Francis Collins, director of NIH: Francis Collins, and Owen Gingerich, noted astronomer, are two such. (I don't believe that either of them is a fan of the Intelligent Design movement.)

Great scientists of the past believed in God, such as Newton -- I make no claim to understand Newton's beliefs, but it seems clear that he believed in a transcendent God. Even Einstein believed in God, to some extent. Perhaps these, and many others, were deluded, and believed in fairies or magic. But I believe that they were on to something.

I don't believe that any experiment has proved unquestionably that there is a God, nor that any such experiment will ever be done. But, conversely, can you cite any experiment that proves that God does not exist? I don't think so.

What ever the Discovery Institute's failings, combating them with ad hominem invective, such as you have used, doesn't seem wise, fair, or warranted, and you seem to have as much scorn for creationists of all stripes (there are many kinds) which is at least as bad as, unfortunately, some of them have for atheists.

Thank you for your comment.

Thanks for reading.

So far, bobxxxx has not responded to my response.

What I believe about origins

Some time ago, someone asked me what I believed about origins. What the individual wanted was to see which of several categories of belief I fell into. I didn't exactly answer him on that, and I'm sure I told him more than he wanted to hear, but here's part of my answer.

Then, yesterday, a commenter was surprised that I didn't think purposeless chance was the main creative agent.

So I'm posting this on St. Patrick's Day, even though it's not particularly green.

What do I believe?
1) I believe that God was involved in the planning and execution of the origin of matter, the universe, and life.
2) I believe that the Son had the most important role in this (John 1, and other scriptures, teach this), but the Father and the Holy Spirit must have also been involved.
3) I believe that the Son not only created, but that He somehow is maintaining things. (Colossians 1:14-17)
4) I believe that things changed, due to a deliberate sin by human beings, such that God's original plan is not now completely expressed. How much the Fall has changed things, I'm not sure. Probably a lot. Christ came to redeem us, and the rest of creation, from the effects of that sin.
5) I believe that God's design allowed for emergent properties, that is, for example, Carbon was created so that life, as we know it, could be based on it, when life appeared.
6) I believe that God's design for life was comprehensive enough that He allowed what appear to us to be chance processes to work in carrying it out. However, He may also be actually selecting and directing which sperms succeed, which spores germinate, etc.
7) I believe that God somehow created humans specially. We are especially in His image, we have dominion over other living things, and Christ appeared on earth in human form.

* * * * *
Added July 23, 2007: See here for more on the topic of item 7.
8) I'm not sure exactly what the "image of God" means. I believe that all of God's creation, such as a stone, has some of the image of the creator in it. We have more of it than stones, of course. Presumably the image includes things like the capacity to love, to reason, to communicate, and to create (on a much smaller scale). Perhaps the soul (whatever that is) is God's image in us.
9) I don't know if there are living things on other planets or not. The Bible is silent on the subject, and proving that there are such living things wouldn't bother me. (It is impossible to scientifically prove that there aren't living things on some other planet.) The same holds true for alternate universes. God is big enough to be the God of all the universes, however many there are. We only know of one for sure, though, and of one place in it where there is life.
10) I believe that God used the Big Bang to begin the universe as we know it, and that the Bible does not rule this out. Furthermore, I believe that science has no good explanation for what caused the Big Bang, or came before it, while Christianity and Judaism do have such an explanation -- God planned and created the Big Bang.
11) I believe that I don't have all the answers on this subject, and don't think anyone else does, either.
12) I believe that the most commonly held theories, or at least the ones that are heard about most, namely young-earth creationism (YEC) and intelligent design (ID), are not the same. There are serious differences between them.
13) I believe that God has revealed Himself to us in several ways, including through the Bible, the church, and the work of the Holy Spirit, and that of our own consciouses, in our lives, and also through nature. (Psalm 19, Acts 14:17, Romans 1:20) I believe that we, fallen beings that we are, can and do make mistakes in our interpretation of all of these revelations, but that, nonetheless, they are all legitimate.
14) I believe that God did deliberately design the natural world. (He included the capacity for chance processes, such as natural selection, as part of the design, so that they influence the way living things appear.) However, I don't believe that it is possible to prove (or disprove) God's creative activity in the past (or in the present, for that matter) scientifically. Hebrews 11:3 seems to indicate this.
15) I believe that demanding that the public schools teach that science has proved that YEC, or ID, are true, is a serious mistake, not least because there is no such proof.
16) I believe that science has not, and can not, rule out God's creative activity, in at least the following: the origin of the universe, the origin of living things, the origin of human beings. Scientists (and others) may sincerely doubt that God did any or all of these things, but they have no right to claim that science has ruled them out. It hasn't. No public school or university class, or textbook, should make such claims, and, if such claims are made, they should be strongly fought.
17) I believe that some people, perhaps well-meaning, perhaps not, have screamed loud and long about some view of origins, (usually YEC, but, lately, also ID) and gotten many Christians, or the world at large, to believe that all Christians believe as they do. This is most unfortunate. I believe that some intelligent people have been lost to the kingdom because of militant YEC views.
18) I believe that Christians can legitimately hold any of several views on origins, including YEC or ID, but also others, and should respect the right of other Christians to hold differing views, and welcome them into fellowship. There are a number of views, all held by Christians, and all of them have strengths, and all of them have weaknesses. The only view that all Christians must reject is the naturalistic view, namely that we are here solely because of purposeless chance. If the Bible means anything, this view is false.
19) I believe that many students who are home-schooled, or who attend private Christian schools, are being seriously short-changed, because they are taught that YEC, or ID, is what the Bible teaches, or even what science has proved. They should also be presented with a fair view of other interpretations. Not only are they being short-changed, but future generations of Christian leaders are being misled, and, in turn, misleading others.

Addendum, July 19, 2007: As this post indicates, the Bible tells us that God created because of His love.

Addendum, January 27, 2012: I added some labels/tags, and one bible verse.

Addendum, December 20, 2012: Here's a link to a post from BioLogos on the impossibility of disproving the existence of God. (We can't prove it scientifically, either.)

Addendum, January 29, 2013: I added point 10, above, and modified point 15.

Addendum, April 8, 2015: I made three minor editorial changes.

Addendum, May 26, 2016: I have discovered a consensus statement on origins, produced by some prominent Christian scientists with different views on the matter, but which they all agree on. I agree with them. (The consensus statement is followed by a listing of points that they don't agree on.)

Thanks for reading.