The Importance of Assumptions
by John Malloy
This is part three of a six-part series of articles. The rest of the series is coming soon....
“Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make — bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake — if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble.”
Lemony Snicket, A Series of Unfortunate Events #5
Growing up in a small Florida town during the 1960’s and early 1970’s, I was surrounded by the excitement of the space program and other technological achievements of the period. I eagerly read science fiction include the early greats like Wells, Verne, Clark, Asimov, Heinlein, and fully absorbed the mindset that science provided the best path to knowledge. I also attended church from an early age, was baptized at the age of 13, and actively studied the Bible. By the time I was a junior in high school, I was forced to confront the conflict inherent between these two paths.
Everything I read in scientific literature stated that there was no doubt that man was the product of evolutionary processes. Mankind, like all other life, is a product of natural processes than began with the accidental creation of very simple life forms approximately 3.7 billion years ago. There is no need for supernatural events and any attempt to insert a supernatural force into the discussion would be “unscientific”. The Bible, however, claimed that the entire universe, including all life, is the supernatural product of a divine creator. These claims are not just found in the book of Genesis. Paul treats Adam and Eve as literal individuals in his letters to the Corinthians, Timothy, and Romans. Significant theological principles hang on their literal existence. The totality of this disagreement seemed to eliminate compromise beliefs such as theological evolution as logical alternatives. Was science fundamentally wrong, and if so, how could so many scientists who studied this their entire lives be wrong? Alternatively, were Christianity and Judaism, and other religions simply silly superstitions? Fortunately, and some might say providentially, I met a man who was able to provide a logical solution to this conundrum.
In 1972, David Eakin was a doctoral student at the University of Florida. David, working to get a degree in botany, had already encountered the same conundrum but had a deeper understanding of the level of knowledge of the scientific community and had tackled the apparent contradictions with zeal. I met David when he presented a series of lessons in my home town. His approach was to look at the different fields and examine the proofs of evolutionary creation. He then examined the actual data or evidence that had been found to show the limitations of the scientific conclusions. He divided his presentation into six topics: Comparative anatomy and morphology, Vestigial organs, Genetics, Paleontology, Fossil man, and Age of the earth.
For example, when discussing the fossil record, he discussed what is found in sediment and how scientists the complexity of the fossils themselves to date the fossils. This process worked by assuming that evolutionary theory is correct. This assumption is clearly seen in textbooks with the images of fossils preserved in layers and layers of sediment, each deeper layer containing the remains of more primitive life forms. Often, there is no other dating process available so the strata is dated by the fossil observed. Yet the fossil record is actually more chaotic than illustrated in the text books. Lower layers do not always contain simpler orgasms, nor are given species always confined to the same layers. Just as importantly, Darwin’s theories would have required continuous variation in animal and plant life. Yet, the fossils found do not contain the transitional life forms that would be expected. Nor does the dating process of fossils provide independent confirmation. Usually, radioactive dating is not practical leaving the researcher to assign an age of the strata based on a theoretical understanding of the probable date of the fossil found. The lack of transitional species has led to a rejection of Darwin’s relatively simplistic view of evolution (Gradualism) and replaced it with other explanations which are variations of Punctuated Equilibrium.
When an evolutionist studies the fossil data, he understands that the data (or evidence) is far from perfect. Having rejected supernatural world views, he seeks the best explanation using the natural processes available. Another individual may see the same data but, because he has not rejected the supernatural, he may see the data justifying other explanations. Neither is dishonest, yet the same data can lead to drastically different conclusions.
It is important to note that, in his lectures David did not throw out evolutionary theory. Instead, he used the concept of general and special theories of evolution proposed by G.A. Kerkut.
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”[1]
Different interpretations of data do not indicate dishonesty or stupidity. The scientist in the field understands that his data is not going to be easy to interpret, but continues with the effort to the best of his ability. Unfortunately, this lack of clarity is not conveyed to the public for a variety of reasons. Part of it is the desire (and necessity) of text book publishers to simplfy the material for students and part of it is the responsibility of transmitting knowledge to a general public that typically lacks formal training or experience to understand the complexity themselves. Evolution therefore became a “fact” that every knowledgeable person must accept. Only the “uneducated” or those “blinded by religion” would think differently.
To illustrate, my engineering career has shown that even the most careful laboratory experiments rarely provide data that exactly conforms the experimenter’s expectations of consistency. Every sensor has a limitation on its accuracy and when all of these uncertainties are collected, the potential errors can be quite large. This, of course, assumes that the sensors and data recorders are working properly. Data obtained outside the controlled laboratory conditions are even more chaotic. Engineers have the luxury of performing many experiments in the laboratory to measure the variation of data points, creating formula to design the technological marvels that we currently have. The collected data serve as boundaries to allow us to design with conservativism that hopefully keep us in “safe” operating regimes. But natural scientists cannot approach their fields in the same way. They know that observed data is very limited and will not match text book simplicity, but they do the best they can. And, when you have limited data, you interpret it according to your understanding of what theory tells them they should be seeing. Unfortunately, few people seem to know this outside the professionals that actually do the research.
I am sure everyone has had discussions with someone who disagreed with them. You outline your arguments, present your conclusions, and the arguments seem to have no effect on the other person. They then present their arguments and you look at them in return without comprehension because the arguments do not make any sense to you. Sometimes the two of you use the same logical point or piece of data to make a dramatically different point! We believe that a specific piece of data (or evidence) should lead all who view it to the same conclusions, yet it often does not. That is because everyone interprets data through the lens of their own assumptions or world views. The common term for this is a paradigm. In its simplest form, the paleontologist looks at fossils of different complexities on different layers of strata and sees a conformation of the slow evolutionary development of life on the earth. Where simple fossils are found above complex fossils, he assumes that geologic processes have folded layers so that the older strata are now located above the younger strata. The creationist looks at fossils of different complexities in different layers and sees evidence of cataclysmic events that killed and deposited animal life according to size or habitat. Both are viewing the same data but, because data is usually messy, their preset paradigms lead to different conclusions.
I have concluded that most of the serious, disagreements are based on different world views. These may range from belief/disbelief of supernatural events and belief in the historical record of the Bible, to our understanding of free will vs. God’s sovereignty. The very definitions we use for the words we use, are shaped by these world views. Many of these paradigms are based on deep thought and often have a lengthy pedigree. Yet contradictory world views cannot be viewed equally. If we believe in absolute truth, at least one set must be wrong. Therefore, the beginning of truth is the weighing of our world views against the facts we know.
Perhaps the most fundamental question that affects our world view is the existence of a God. Yet many people never consciously address this question. They drift into a given point of view, based on the views of family, friends, teachers, or social and mass media. They, with little thought, accept these views to maintain emotional comfort. As a result, they struggle when ask about their beliefs and often hold contradictory views. When challenged, they have trouble providing logical arguments and often either duck the questions or respond with excess emotion.
Over the last 150 years, many have been taught that religion, as Karl Marx described it, is the “opiate of the masses”[2] They have been instructed that religious belief is useful for the sick, but science provides a true understanding of the world around us. And the maintain that the wonderful discoveries of science have shown that there is no need for religion and no need for a supernatural creator. Those living in the academic world have largely accepted these beliefs, while the “less educated” resisted that point of view; portraying the religious as ignorant. Yet neither side has a monopoly on either the intelligence or the ignorance and most accept the views that are consistent with the paradigms they were trained in. It takes a special person to carefully review their own paradigms and change them based on the facts and data around them. That, however, is what we are called to do. In subsequent sections, I will review the paradigms present in the modern scientific establish that makes it hostile to religious belief and the acceptance of the supernatural. I will also evaluate the evidence or data that supports a belief in Christianity. This evidence is historic, not “scientific”, because modern science does not recognize the supernatural.
[1] Kerkut, G.A. (1927–2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960
[2] "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion". Lenin: Collected Works. Vol. 15. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1973. pp. 402–13 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
