The Human Equation

It really astounds me that people really don’t get how limited scientific observation and inquiry is. As some have said, a scientist proposes a hypothesis and then sets out to test it. I really don’t care if you believe in Evolution, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, Progressive Creationism, the Gap Theory, or Young Earth Creationism because everybody has to start with some assumptions (yes, assumptions, not facts) about the past. The person who believes the world is millions of years old or 6,000 years old is actually limited to what they observe today. We were not there when the Earth was formed and no scientist can provide ‘proof’ or solid ‘evidence’ that certain assumptions about the past are factual. They create models and theories based off of modern observation, i.e. they are basing the earth’s weather patterns off a mere couple hundred years or less of actual weather observation. That is hardly good science in my book, yet time and time again everyone is in a rush to be the first one to be published and accuracy and adequate sample size is neglected in the rush.

You can argue if you want to, but how we interpret what we see in nature is affected by our worldview. Is that scientific? No, perhaps not, but it is the truth. No person is unbiased. If you assume the world is billions of years old then you will look at things around you and interpret them to support that and vice versa. Our worldview may come from different places, but it is still a bias that affects everything we do. I had a friend once try to tell me newspaper reporters were unbiased. I don’t know what planet he was living on, but I have never met an unbiased journalist. I have also never met an unbiased scientist. You can reject the Bible in favor of other texts or ideas, but it is still a bias that directs your research and interpretations. If you accept the Bible, then it will also direct how you interpret evidence. It doesn’t invalidate the data or ‘evidence’ but it does change how we interpret that evidence.

An example of how ideas change can be seen in the shifts from predominantly uniformitarian ideas to the effects of catastrophic phenomena. Creationists already believed, even before Darwin, that certain things we see in nature were evidence of a catastrophe. You don’t have to agree with this interpretation, but, as time has gone on, evolutionary scientists have come to realize the power of a large catastrophe and how it can mold and change the planet’s surface. Was the creationist interpretation invalid because they believed in the Bible and that God created everything? No, it still pointed to the fact that a catastrophe can be responsible for certain geological features we see today, even if you don’t agree with the catastrophe they use to explain it. It had nothing to do with magic, but rather scientific observation based on what they regarded as a historically valid text, not much different than using other historical texts to validate other things we observe.

We could learn a lot more if we worked together and gave credence to others’ ideas as being more than just foolish religious babble or secular propaganda. We need to be more willing to read with an open mind rather than just taking a glance at the fact that it is from an ID person or an evolutionist and writing it off as nonsense. If science education and the science community is truly in crisis is it really going to hurt them to put aside their pride, get off their high horses, and listen to each other? Scientific ideas change from day to day. One day something is good for you, the next day it is bad for you. One day they have discovered a wonderful new drug, the next day it is being shelved because of its disastrous results. In light of the fluid nature of science, are you willing to gamble with your life and the lives of others that evolution is the only way?