Hokum-Balderdash Assay

As a college student some 15 years ago Lauren Becker worked during summers as a ranger in a state park in the Bible Belt. During the guided tours she would take the hikers down to the base of a 256-foot waterfall--the main attraction of the park. She would then tell them, among other things, that the rocks they were standing on are 300 million years old.

Although Lauren had heard that there were people who believed the earth is only 6,000 years old, she'd never actually met any. It was during her stint at the park that she finally came face-to-face with young earth creationists. And not a few of them. For instance, whenever she would talk of the age of the rocks, some mothers would try to prevent their children from hearing about the facts. During one hike a man actually argued that the rocks were only a few thousand years old and the only reason we think they're millions of years old is that the Devil made them look that way to make humans turn away from God!

You can listen to Lauren Becker's story by downloading the December 30 2005 Point of Inquiry podcast. It is a most enjoyable piece and I highly recommend it. (The MP3 file is around 38Mb. Becker's segment is around 10 minutes long, while the entire podcast runs 55 minutes.)

Here are excerpts:

A 300-million-year old rock is the answer resulting from decades of observation, research, field study, laboratory testing, comparative studies, and critical thinking. A 6,000-year old rock is the answer because God said so.

...

The lack of a deity is not an opening for chaos; it is a call for responsibility.... Our species has continuously found meaning, purpose, and comfort in the idea of God or gods. Unfortunately, if we want to know what is actually going on--and our survival depends on understanding reality--religion is utterly bereft of explanatory power....

The discovery that a rock is 300 million years old is the result of lots of questions by lots of people who devise lots of different ways to ask the earth about itself. Much to our delight she is talking. Science is how we listen and the scientific method is how we understand what she says. To deny that a rock is 300 million years old is to deny the process that got us to that understanding. Since this process of inquiry is our best tool for succeeding in the world its denial is a grave threat to our future prosperity. Far from making us stronger faith cripples us because it takes away our greatest advantage--our ability to question, to learn, to adapt, and therefore to live.

(Lauren Becker is a Point of Inquiry contributor and Assistant Public Relations Director for CSICOP.)


Science leads to reliable knowledge because it does not claim to possess absolute knowledge of the world, is based on systematic observation of the world and rigorous testing of claims/hypotheses, and is self-correcting. Unlike religion, science does not delude itself about the understanding it gleans and possesses. This is one of its greatest strength. This is one reason it has been so successful.

On the other hand, rather than being founded on the principle of tentativeness of understanding¹, the search for better and more detailed understanding, and self-correction, most religions are absolutist and dogmatic in character. And as for their supernatural beliefs/explanations, they are untestable. Hence, they can only remain unverified and unverifiable extraordinary claims. Moreover, since the supernatural by definition is not constrained by natural laws people can make the most ludicrious of appeals to the supernatural, people can attribute anything that they cannot understand (even things that they believe are impossible in this world) to the supernatural and make the supernatural cause practically anything they fancy (An aside: Can deities make a round square? Or create married bachelors? Or commit suicide? Can a deity create entities that supersede itself in all aspects, thus creating beings greater than itself? If not then what does omnipotence mean exactly? If God is constrained by, for instance, logic, then there are limitations to a deity's powers. But what then are the implications of the existence of such restrictions?).

If an explanation is valid/correct, then it has the power to predict. Scientific explanations provide deterministic and stochastic predictions. Indeed scientific theories would be useless (and untestable) if they had no predictive power. Supernatural explanations, on the other hand, cannot be tested and don't predict anything. Becker rightly declares that supernaturalism is "bereft of explanatory power." Pat Robertson can declare that if the Christian deity gets pissed with some person--as in Ariel Sharon--then He will in his infiinte wisdom gift him with a stroke or heart attack. Problem is, how can you predict (and test) this if we have no way of knowing God's emotional state or whether the supernatural exists in the first place? What use is the explanation that person K was cured because supplications had been answered by the supernatural, when failure to get well despite a barrage of prayers are explained away with the rationalization that God sometimes refuses to accede to our prayers because he knows what's best? With all bases covered the claim that prayer works is nonfalsifiable.

One of the worst and yet common pitfalls in supernaturalistic thinking is that of producing ad hoc explanations--rationalizations that cannot be tested/falsified. Thus, during the short-lived elation over the supposed survival of 12 American miners a number of people attributed their survival to the supernatural. How did they know that? They didn't; they merely believed. For in order to know one must have good evidence/reasons to support one's belief. I am actually tempted to go all the way and declare that all supernatural explanations are ad hoc explanations.

In the world we live in supernaturalistic explanations are completely devoid of utility in understanding and predicting processes and events. They are merely superstitious beliefs or palliatives that provide a false sense of understanding--and it is false because those who propose and believe them have no way of confirming whether these explanations are in fact right or wrong.

Notes:

1. Michael Ruse, "Creation-Science Is Not Science," Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, ed. Martin Curd & J.A. Cover, NY: W.W. Norton, 1998, p. 40

Professor Don Howard in the December 2005 Physics Today article "Albert Einstein as a Philosopher of Science" shows how the scientist who revolutionized physics in the 20th century had extolled philosophy, how Einstein had deemed it important to science, and how he had steeped himself in the philosophy of science.

Skeptico asks, "Why does science exclude the supernatural?" As he rightly points out one very important reason is the nontestable/nonfalsifiable character of supernatural claims. We have already heard philosopher Barbara Forrest comment on this matter:

Any claim that depends on the supernatural ... is not falsifiable. [I]n science whatever claim you make has to be grounded in empirical evidence and you have to at least in principle know what kind of disconfirmation would show your theory to be wrong.... And so any position that's grounded in faith and the supernatural is one that by definition not falsifiable.

Geologist Arthur Strahler explains why the supernatural is outside the purview of science:

Religious tenets, which usually involve belief in supernatural entities, are ... beyond the limits of scientific appraisal.

[S]upernatural forces, if they can be said to exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science--that's simply what the word "supernatural" means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up "from nowhere." Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore the claims of the existence of supernatural forces and causes. This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of evaluating and processing information will collapse. (Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992, p. 13-14)

To get technical about it, science must exclude the supernatural because at its very foundation "science is committed to methodological naturalism (MN)," a position which "does not deny the existence of supernatural entities per se" but "simply assumes for the purpose of inquiry that they do not exist." In the same essay philosopher Michael Martin concludes that science's commitment to MN is warranted because it does not block inquiry, it is not a science-stopper unlike supernatural explanations. (Justifying Methodological Naturalism) 

Coincidentally, Unscrewing the Inscrutable has cogent things to say about MN:

The reason that scientists use MN when they are performing science is quite simply because it works. MN assumes that the natural world is all there is, then observes it and constructs hypotheses and theories that attempt to describe how a given naturally-observed phenomenon works. This is not to say that since MN presupposes a natural world, that there is no supernatural world. The question of whether or not a supernatural world exists just isn't ever addressed by MN. It can't be. That's why it's called "methodological naturalism" and not "methodological supernaturalism".

Was driving along Ortigas Avenue eastbound around 5 pm (practically sunset) today when I noticed right there in front of me this incredible sight--three maybe four sets of successive rainbows amidst what in my best assessment was a large cumulo-nimbus cloud. It was simply awesome.

I never have a camera around when I need it most and this certainly is one of those Kodak moments I may never again experience in my life. Here's a drawing of how it kind of looked like. I'm hardly pleased with this rendition (in fact I'm ripping my hair out since the colors just aren't right!). It certainly does not do justice to what nature displayed before my eyes.

Each rainbow to the left was slightly smaller in width making it look as if there were a number of receding rainbows--not unlike multiple receding images formed when you have two mirrors facing one another. My bespectacled eyes not being the best instrument around, the whole phenomenon was a little blurred. Now I'm doubly angry I'm still waiting for digicam prices to drop before finally jumping on the bandwagon!

More than just being in awe of this phenomenon, I'm intrigued as to the physics behind this. How do multiple rainbows of this sort form? I wonder if the Bad Astronomer can edify us. I remember he had a blog entry about rainbows not too long ago.

This study brings to mind Jean Piaget's volume conservation experiments with children. Not that adults fail such an experiment. They just aren't good evaluators of volume given various containers with different height to width/diameter ratios. I don't know how good we are as judges of character but it looks like we're not too good as judges of volume.

When pouring liquor, even professional bartenders unintentionally pour 20 to 30 percent more into short, squat glasses than into tall, thin ones, according to a new Cornell University study.

"Yet, people who pour into short, wide glasses consistently believe that they pour less than those who pour into tall, narrow glasses," said Brian Wansink, the John S. Dyson Professor of Marketing, Applied Economics and of Nutritional Science at Cornell. "And education, practice, concentration and experience don't correct the overpouring."

The reason for the difference, Wansink speculates, is the classic vertical-horizontal optical illusion: People consistently perceive equally sized vertical lines as longer than horizontal ones.

This study brings to mind Jean Piaget's volume conservation experiments with children. Not that adults fail such an experiment. They just aren't good evaluators of volume given various containers with different height to width/diameter ratios. I don't know how good we are as judges of character but it looks like we're not too good as judges of volume.

When pouring liquor, even professional bartenders unintentionally pour 20 to 30 percent more into short, squat glasses than into tall, thin ones, according to a new Cornell University study.

"Yet, people who pour into short, wide glasses consistently believe that they pour less than those who pour into tall, narrow glasses," said Brian Wansink, the John S. Dyson Professor of Marketing, Applied Economics and of Nutritional Science at Cornell. "And education, practice, concentration and experience don't correct the overpouring."

The reason for the difference, Wansink speculates, is the classic vertical-horizontal optical illusion: People consistently perceive equally sized vertical lines as longer than horizontal ones.

Donald U. Wise, emeritus professor of geology at the University of Massachusetts, composed the song "Marching Song of the Incompetents" in honor of ID creationism.

The song, to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic," goes like this:

My bones proclaim a story of incompetent design
My back still hurts, my sinus clogs, my teeth just won't align
If I had drawn the blueprint I would certainly resign
Incompetent Design!
Evo-Evo-Evolution. Design is but a mere illusion
Darwin sparked our revolution. Science shall prevail!

All together now! "My bones proclaim a story of incompetent design..."

I snorted when Scotty proudly said in one of the Star Trek movies (traveling back to 20th century earth and saving the humpback whales I believe) that they were using "transparent aluminum." Aluminum that's see-through? Oh sure!

I now have my tail tucked between my legs and am going off to a corner with a paper bag over my head. A transparent material based on aluminum has been developed. Besides allowing light through it is strong enough to stop a 0.50 caliber armor-piercing bullet. It is now being tested and could one day replace glass armor in military vehicles.

The saving grace for my ego is it isn't a form of aluminum the element per se, but a compound called aluminum oxynitride. Hey, I've always known aluminum has compounds that aren't opaque. Al hydroxide, Al silicate, Al ... Now where's that Condensed Chemical Dictionary of mine?

(news via Bad Astronomer) 

Seems ID creationists have been crying foul. If SETI and the search for E.T. intelligence is considered legit why not their search for His Royal Architect? Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute explains why not:

[T]he credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal – a dead simple tone – is not complex; it’s artificial. Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add – for example, DNA’s junk and redundancy.

...

[T]he champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we’re on the lookout for very simple signals. That’s mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA’s chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist.

(via NSCE)

Drats! Just discovered Jerry Coyne's article in The New Republic is now only available to subscribers. Access here instead: The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name or here