Archive for December, 2007

Science and Admissible Evidence for a Hypothesis

Friday, December 21st, 2007

Two_Clown_Nudibranchs.jpgWhite_peacock.jpgLockheed_SR-71_Blackbird plane.jpgFerrari.jpgWe noticed last time that science is unwilling to allow for an intelligent designer no matter where the facts are leading. I say unwilling rather than unable because I think the rules that govern the permissibility of evidence are questionable or unintentionally biased.

But let’s be fair. Scientists are proud of science being a testable, provable, repeatable process of learning; as well we all should be. And evolutionists would say that it is necessary to exclude anything other than natural explanations precisely because they are not provable and testable. But the question then arises, what exactly does it mean to be provable or testable?

Take gravity  something we can’t see. I can drop a set of keys and it will always go down. Is that what makes it provable? Or is it because I can quantify its speed as it falls? Is that what makes it testable? Why can’t things we can see, such as the widespread existence of symmetry, function as evidence? Do I have to measure the frequency of it to legitimize it? What governs the admissibility of it as evidence? Why should it be denied as evidence when it never used to be?

If I wanted to determine if a ship, car or plane (something we’ll pretend none of us has ever seen) was designed or had evolved, it would seem reasonable to include the following observations or facts:

  • It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
  • It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical propeller, wheel or wing assemblies.
  • They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
  • Perfectly fitting seats (seemingly designed for a human) in a beautiful, red Lamborghini or the luxurious housing area of sleek yacht….

So let’s compare that with what we see in the animal kingdom; perhaps a fish, cheetah or a parrot. We very quickly see that the same facts that convince us that the mechanical object was designed are seen in the animals.

  • It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
  • It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical fins, leg or wing assemblies.
  • They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
  • Peacocks, swans, leopards, polar bears, colorful fish on a stunning reef.

From one type of animal to another, we see beauty, grace, strength, and suitability to their environment, designs, symmetry and patterns. Now tell me again why these facts are not admissible as evidence that these living objects were designed? Why can’t science let facts lead us to whatever hypothesis seems the most logical? Why is it logical to deduce that a complex, aerodynamically perfect jet fighter was designed by an intelligent being and the living version of a hawk, is not?

Science and its Limitations

Thursday, December 13th, 2007

DNAKansas State University immunologist Scott Todd said, “Even if all the facts point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Todd S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

It is really interesting that he not going to accept an intelligent designer no matter what the facts say. And that is science. But how can it be that there is an instance where Facts don’t count?   I am all for people having the right to choose how to interpret facts, but something about that seems skewed. And everyone should definitely be aware that this is what is going on in science.  Or should I say that this is how evolutionists say science works? But the fact remains that you can show thousands of examples of design, patterns, symmetry, beauty, symbiosis, and many other types of evidence and it simply will be rejected out of hand because the facts don’t count it has to be explained by natural causes.

The question that comes to my mind is, shouldn’t Science be the search for any true explanation? Why does it HAVE to exclude an intelligent designer? Aren’t we supposed to follow the evidence where it leads? Just because we don’t like where it’s leading, does that give us the right to reject a theory that fits the facts well? Something seems awful fishy here. Do I smell human bias? Doesn’t this seem to contradict how science normally always works? You make a hypothesis and look for facts or you look at facts and develop a hypothesis to explain it?  Ask yourself honestly. Is there any reason why science shouldn’t be capable of leading us to the best explanation whatever that may be?

Stay tuned for next weeks look at Science and Hypotheses