The scientific community - much like in a court of law - operates under "mitigated skepticism" or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "Reasonable", in this instance, is very much the key word. For example, in court, is it possible that DNA evidence against the defendant, 1,000 concurring eye witnesses, and the defendant's confession in open court, could all be mistaken? Sure. Absolutely. I will never deny that it is possible; but no jury in their right mind would ever consider a decision other than "guilty". In the same way, a scientist notices an occurrence, and starts thinking of how the occurrence might be explained. Of course, in order for the idea to even be considered a hypothesis, it needs to be testable (which includes the possibility that the hypothesis could fail the test, and be discarded) As the hypothesis is tested, and found to be correct, and found to be correct in numerous different applications, it becomes a scientific theory.
Is it possible for a theory to be wrong? Absolutely. But it is not a question of "is it possible to be wrong" it is a question of "Do we have any reason to think that it's wrong?" No jury would ever look at our above example and ask "Is it possible that the defendant is innocent?" because quite nearly everything is possible. Instead they would ask "Is there any reason to doubt his guilt?" to which the answer is obviously "no".
Meanwhile, when a creationist speaks of evolution especially (by which a creationist typically means "evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang") they very commonly make the claim that science cannot prove anything 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They conclude that, because it's always possible that all of science is mistaken, the claims of "intelligent design" must be accepted as every bit as credible. This is an example of unmitigated skepticism, or requiring proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is a foolish thing to demand as requiring proof beyond a shadow of a doubt is useless in almost every instance, and is actually harmful in most any cases. Consider the following challenge:
Can you prove to me that people need water to survive? After all plenty of people have been thirsty, not taken a drink, and lived. Sure some people have died of dehydration, but that doesn't prove that everyone will die of dehydration without water. In fact, water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, both of which are highly flammable! Bearing this in mind, shouldn't you refuse to drink water until science can absolutely, positively, 100% prove that water is essential to life?
Despite this challenge, I would be willing to bet that there's not a single person among you who will choose to stop drinking water. Why? Because the challenge I just presented is ludicrous. Of course water is necessary to survival! Of course water's not flammable! The idea that we could survive without water is complete nonsense, and everyone knows it. And that's the point! Every piece of evidence points to the same conclusion, and everyone accepts that conclusion as fact, even though no operation of logic can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Further, if we cannot even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that water is necessary for life, how could anyone expect evolution (which is incredibly more complex than my challenge about water) to be subject to proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?
[As an aside: Geometry is one area that could be proposed as an exception to the uselessness of expecting 100% proof. Geometry is vastly different from the natural sciences, in that it deals with concepts that are defined by humans. For example, a square is defined as shape with four equal straight lines connected by four right angles. Meanwhile a circle is defined as a shape in which every point is an equal distance to a common center point. As such, we can 100% prove that there can never be a square circle simply by virtue of the definition of the terms.]
As a second and related point, creationists typically employ a double standard in which they try to discredit evolution by stating that it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but then claim that - because evolution might not be true - creationism is therefore true (no explanation is ever given as to why the inability of a creationist to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt does not prove evolution to be true). It should also be noted that stating two alternatives to both be hypothetically possible, does not make them equally probable, nor does it prove that either of them are true. As such, claiming that evolution cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt does nothing to show creationism to be true. Further if a creationist is to hold on to an unmitigated skepticism consistently, they must accept that no evidence could ever prove creationism, and so they have no reason to believe that creationism is true, and thus have no reason to want creationism to be taught in schools. On the other hand, if a creationist were to adopt a mitigated skepticism, they would have to admit that the evidence supporting evolution absolutely overwhelms the "evidence" for creationism, and must accept evolution as having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
creationists employ a double standard in which they try to discredit evolution by stating that it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but then claim that - because evolution might not be true - creationism is therefore true.
To recap rather briefly: The scientific position demands testable claims, and proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" before admitting anything as being a scientific theory. If something is accepted as a theory, and new developments disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be discarded in favor of a new and better theory. Meanwhile, the creationist position holds a double standard by holding an unmitigated skepticism towards the scientific position by demanding that it should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, while holding no skepticism towards their own creationist position, by claiming that it should be accepted despite the fact that there is no evidence to support the position that stands up under scrutiny, much less is it possible for it to be proven beyond even a reasonable doubt.
I suppose the best way to wrap this one up is with a question: Which of these options seems more sensible to you? Should we follow the evidence to its logical conclusions, and if new evidence contradicts our conclusions, should we either update or discard our previous conclusions to make our conclusions fit as much of the evidence as possible? Or should we say that, since we can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, a theory based upon years of study, and research, and evidence gathering, is as good as a claim based on nothing but what someone would like to be true?
creationists employ a double standard in which they try to discredit evolution by stating that it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but then claim that - because evolution might not be true - creationism is therefore true.
To recap rather briefly: The scientific position demands testable claims, and proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" before admitting anything as being a scientific theory. If something is accepted as a theory, and new developments disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be discarded in favor of a new and better theory. Meanwhile, the creationist position holds a double standard by holding an unmitigated skepticism towards the scientific position by demanding that it should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, while holding no skepticism towards their own creationist position, by claiming that it should be accepted despite the fact that there is no evidence to support the position that stands up under scrutiny, much less is it possible for it to be proven beyond even a reasonable doubt.
I suppose the best way to wrap this one up is with a question: Which of these options seems more sensible to you? Should we follow the evidence to its logical conclusions, and if new evidence contradicts our conclusions, should we either update or discard our previous conclusions to make our conclusions fit as much of the evidence as possible? Or should we say that, since we can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, a theory based upon years of study, and research, and evidence gathering, is as good as a claim based on nothing but what someone would like to be true?
No comments:
Post a Comment