[_ Old Earth _] Fact vs. Interpretation

[TOG]

Imagine the following scenario...

Bob, Dave and Frank are close friends who have different religious beliefs (bare with me, this will eventually lead to science). Bob is somewhat religious, but not a born-again Christian. He believes there is an afterlife and that people can contact their departed loved ones. Dave is a born-again Christian and also believes in an afterlife, but in a different way. He believes that once a person dies and goes to Heaven (or Hell, as the case may be), he can have no more contact with the living. Frank is an Atheist and does not believe in an afterlife or in any type of spirit world.

When Bob's wife died, he went to a medium to try to contact her. While he was there, Bob got a strange feeling that caused chills to go down his spine. The table shook, the medium's voice changed and the medium gave Bob a message of comfort.

So much for the facts, but what do they mean? Well, that depends on whom you ask. If you ask Bob, he will tell you that he received a message from his wife. If you ask Dave, he will tell you that a demon had possessed the medium and pretended to be Bob's wife and that this demon had caused the table to shake and the weird feeling Bob got. If you ask Frank, he will tell you it was all fake. The table was rigged with some kind of mechanism to make it shake, the feeling was caused by a draft and the medium faked the whole thing.

So, what does that all have to do with science and why is this story in the Christianity and Science section? Whether or not we can contact our departed loved ones is not a scientific issue, but a religious one. The part that concerns science is in how they interpreted what happened. If you look closely at the story and think about it a bit, you will see that Bob, Dave and Frank all did the same thing, even though they reached different conclusions.Each of them already had a world view, and those world views allowed for varying degrees of contact between the living and the spirit world. When they looked at the facts of what had happened to Bob, they did not examine them in an objective way to find the truth of what had taken place, but rather interpreted them in a way that fit their pre-conceived world views.

Now, there is nothing wrong with having different world views and there is nothing wrong with interpreting things in light of our world views when faced with subjective events such as those in the story above. We all do it all the time. But that's not how science is supposed to work. It seems to me, though, that that's exactly how evolution works. Imagine the following scenario...

Dave and Frank (the ones from the story above) are both scientists, both with PhD's in the same field. A fossil skeleton is found of a hitherto unknown species and they both examine it. Frank looks at it and says: "There are many obvious differences, but there are enough similarities between this species and modern man to show that this is our oldest known ancestor". Dave looks at the same skeleton and says "There are some superficial similarities, but it is so different from modern humans that there is no reason to suppose this species is our ancestor".

Even though both of them claim to be scientists and have the degrees to back up that claim, and even though they both claim to base their conclusions on scientific examination of the evidence, in reality, they are doing the same thing they did in the other story - interpreting the facts to fit their pre-conceived world views. Since Dave believes in creation, he has already ruled out the possibility of a creature so different from us being our ancestor. And since Frank doesn't believe in God, he has ruled out beforehand the possibility of creation and interprets things to fit his the only other theory of origins available to him - evolution.

It is my opinion that the evolution / creation debate isn't about science at all, even though both sides seem to think it is and claim scientific evidence to support their views. It's about how we interpret the world around us to fit our pre-conceived world views.

The TOG
​

 

[Mike S]

I like your analysis.

 

[Vaccine]

You make a good point @TOG , it's how we interpret it. Not too long ago I was having a discussion with an atheist. He posted this:

1. God is satisfied with his works.Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.Gen 6:6

2. God dwells in chosen temples 2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples Acts 7:48

3. God dwells in light Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness 1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

4. God is seen and heard Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

5. God is tired and restsEx 31:17
God is never tired and never restsIs 40:28

6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all thingsGen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

7. God knows the hearts of men Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart Deut 13:3/Deut 8:2/ Gen22:12

8. God is all powerful Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful Judg 1:19

9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/Ex 33:1,3,17,14

10. God is just and impartialPs 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partialGen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
~snip~

He had about 200+ of these. After examining the first few I realized something, these were all conclusions someone had drawn. Those scriptures just didn't say what he thought they said, or had alternate interpretations. If I was willing to let someone else do my thinking for me, I probably would think the bible is full of contradictions.

 

[Barbarian]

Even though both of them claim to be scientists and have the degrees to back up that claim, and even though they both claim to base their conclusions on scientific examination of the evidence, in reality, they are doing the same thing they did in the other story - interpreting the facts to fit their pre-conceived world views. Since Dave believes in creation, he has already ruled out the possibility of a creature so different from us being our ancestor.

Rather, since Dave believes in some man's interpretation of creation, he rejects the evidence a priori. On the other hand, a man like Francis Collins, (director of the Human Genome Project, and an evangelical Christian) who believes in creation, has no religious objections to the way God created things, and accepts the evidence because he has no bias against it.

A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

This is the primary difference between Christianity and creationism. And no, truth is not dependent on what we think of it.

 

[PossibilitiesAbound]

Any 'real' scientist knows that personal attitudes and beliefs fundamentally affect every thought and decision- and interpretations of reality.

In addition, a 'real' scientist will study the facts and try to develop an objective explanation for it. Then he will present it to his peers to see if his explanation really was objective.

However, there are very few 'real' scientists anymore. It is without doubt a very difficult attitude to develop and even more so to maintain. Research is backed by influential funds, and those funds have a lot of influence.

Science is simply the intellectuals' religion now.

 

[PossibilitiesAbound]

That's right. They get some letters after their name as to present them as an expert or knowing, and then they can get up there and spout their opinions as if they were facts. This is in evidence all over. There is so much dissension within the scientific community that it's laughable. They can't agree on almost anything.

I completely agree. Anyone really interested in learning the truth must learn enough to read the research themselves- just the hard data mind you, and no 'interpretations' by the professionals >.<

 

[Barbarian]

Any 'real' scientist knows that personal attitudes and beliefs fundamentally affect every thought and decision- and interpretations of reality.

Guess how I know you aren't familiar with many real scientists. You see, the whole structure of scientific inquiry is based on the idea that (as Nobel Laureate Richard Feynmann wrote) "be careful not to fool yourself; and remember that you are the easiest one for you to fool." Hence the structure of peer review and reproducibility to make sure it works. The fury we often see from ID advocates, is based on the fact that they can rarely get one of their papers published, and this is largely due to lack of reproducibility and self-delusion.

In addition, a 'real' scientist will study the facts and try to develop an objective explanation for it. Then he will present it to his peers to see if his explanation really was objective.

That's the process. But creationists find it infuriating. For obvious reasons.

However, there are very few 'real' scientists anymore.

Hundreds of thousands of them. It's why science has made unprecedented progress in understanding our universe. The majority of real scientists who have ever lived, were born in the last hundred years.

It is without doubt a very difficult attitude to develop and even more so to maintain.

Takes years of training. And yes, it's difficult. But quite doable. I teach students how to avoid fooling themselves in the lab every unit. It's hard to think like a scientist. But anyone can learn to do it.

Research is backed by influential funds, and those funds have a lot of influence.

Which is why most journals require disclosure of any possibly competing interests:
To meet its responsibility to readers and to the public to provide clear and unbiased scientific results and analyses, Science believes that manuscripts (including Brevia, Essays, Perspectives, Policy Forums, Reports, Research Articles, Reviews, and Viewpoints) should be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of the nature and level of their contribution to the article, their understanding regarding the obligation to share data and materials, and any affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that might raise questions about possible sources of bias. Before manuscript acceptance, therefore, authors will be asked to sign an authorship/conflict-of-interest form. Specific information will be sent to most authors at the time of manuscript revision.
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/coi.xhtml

Science, as you may know, is one of the world's premier scientific journals. But many, many others have the same standards for disclosure. Surprised? It's not the way they told you it is.

Science is simply the intellectuals' religion now.

And now you know better.

 

[Barbarian]

The most laughable one out there is the great and mighty (LOL) Stephen Hawkins. That guy is so full of crap that he makes me laugh a lot.

In physics, it's hard to find anyone more knowledgeable than Hawking. (not "Hawkins") Many of his predictions about the nature of black holes have been substantiated, which is remarkable, considering that he had to do the math in his head as geometric equivalents of calculations.

However, when he ventures forth on social issues, he's no more credible than you are when you speak of science.

 

[PossibilitiesAbound]

Any 'real' scientist knows that personal attitudes and beliefs fundamentally affect every thought and decision- and interpretations of reality.
Guess how I know you aren't familiar with many real scientists. You see, the whole structure of scientific inquiry is based on the idea that (as Nobel Laureate Richard Feynmann wrote) "be careful not to fool yourself; and remember that you are the easiest one for you to fool." Hence the structure of peer review and reproducibility to make sure it works. The fury we often see from ID advocates, is based on the fact that they can rarely get one of their papers published, and this is largely due to lack of reproducibility and self-delusion.

Thanks for reiterating.

In addition, a 'real' scientist will study the facts and try to develop an objective explanation for it. Then he will present it to his peers to see if his explanation really was objective.
That's the process. But creationists find it infuriating. For obvious reasons.

I'm beginning to entertain the idea that you have a personal problem with Christians in science.

However, there are very few 'real' scientists anymore.
Hundreds of thousands of them. It's why science has made unprecedented progress in understanding our universe. The majority of real scientists who have ever lived, were born in the last hundred years.

By 'anymore', I meant currently. Yes, there are some now, but not many.

It is without doubt a very difficult attitude to develop and even more so to maintain.
Takes years of training. And yes, it's difficult. But quite doable. I teach students how to avoid fooling themselves in the lab every unit. It's hard to think like a scientist. But anyone can learn to do it.

Thanks, again, for reiterating.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/coi.xhtml

Science, as you may know, is one of the world's premier scientific journals. But many, many others have the same standards for disclosure. Surprised? It's not the way they told you it is.

I am surprised that you bothered to tell me this.

Science is simply the intellectuals' religion now.
And now you know better.

Hardly. If you are out to convince me that the whole scientific community is not in the pocket of industry, I need more evidence than a nice little sign-off waiver.

 

[Barbarian]

In addition, a 'real' scientist will study the facts and try to develop an objective explanation for it. Then he will present it to his peers to see if his explanation really was objective.

Barbarian observes:
That's the process. But creationists find it infuriating. For obvious reasons.

I'm beginning to entertain the idea that you have a personal problem with Christians in science.

I learned the most about biology from a very active Christian who happened to be an Episcopalian. I'm Catholic, myself. I've rarely gotten any flak about being Christian from other scientists. It's really not an issue for the vast majority of us.

However, there are very few 'real' scientists anymore.

Hundreds of thousands of them. It's why science has made unprecedented progress in understanding our universe. The majority of real scientists who have ever lived, were born in the last hundred years.

By 'anymore', I meant currently.

Most of the progress in the last hundred years has occurred in the last 20 years. So you've gotten that wrong, too. And most of the things you've complained about have been controlled in a rigorous way only in the last 30 years. So you're about a half-century behind the curve, now.

Yes, there are some now, but not many.

And now you know better.

Barbarian on what distinguishes scientists from laymen:
It is without doubt a very difficult attitude to develop and even more so to maintain.
Takes years of training. And yes, it's difficult. But quite doable. I teach students how to avoid fooling themselves in the lab every unit. It's hard to think like a scientist. But anyone can learn to do it.

Thanks, again, for reiterating.

Often, when a class doesn't get the lesson the first time, rephrase and reiterate is useful.

(Demonstration of scientific journals controlling for bias)

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/coi.xhtml

Barbarian continues
Science, as you may know, is one of the world's premier scientific journals. But many, many others have the same standards for disclosure. Surprised? It's not the way they told you it is.​

I am surprised that you bothered to tell me this.

You didn't know about it, so I told you.

Science is simply the intellectuals' religion now.

Barbarian chuckles:
And now you know better.
​

Hardly.

I think you're beginning to suspect that it isn't the way you were told.

If you are out to convince me that the whole scientific community is not in the pocket of industry

Given that many major companies spend a lot of money trying to convince us that scientists are wrong, I'd have to say that was a pretty good clue for you that they aren't.

I need more evidence than a nice little sign-off waiver.

Scientists are the monolithic bloc you seem to think they are. Lots of differences, even some significant differences on many scientific issues. Lots of differences in religion, philosophy, and political orientation.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I liked the story TOG. What I find your story shows how 3 different groups might form a hypothesis. Now, when the hypothesis needs to be defended is when it's less about world view, and more about being able to support your claims. Each person must be able to give reason and president to why they came to their conclusion. Then the hypothesizes can be tested to see wich one holds up the best. The one that holds up the best will be considered factual and would then be the theory that explains the phenomenon. The other 2 hypothesis can still exist, but one can only replace the current one if new evidence is found, or more information is found.


Just trout I'd help out.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Imagine the following scenario...

Bob, Dave and Frank are close friends who have different religious beliefs (bare with me, this will eventually lead to science). Bob is somewhat religious, but not a born-again Christian. He believes there is an afterlife and that people can contact their departed loved ones. Dave is a born-again Christian and also believes in an afterlife, but in a different way. He believes that once a person dies and goes to Heaven (or Hell, as the case may be), he can have no more contact with the living. Frank is an Atheist and does not believe in an afterlife or in any type of spirit world.

When Bob's wife died, he went to a medium to try to contact her. While he was there, Bob got a strange feeling that caused chills to go down his spine. The table shook, the medium's voice changed and the medium gave Bob a message of comfort.

So much for the facts, but what do they mean? Well, that depends on whom you ask. If you ask Bob, he will tell you that he received a message from his wife. If you ask Dave, he will tell you that a demon had possessed the medium and pretended to be Bob's wife and that this demon had caused the table to shake and the weird feeling Bob got. If you ask Frank, he will tell you it was all fake. The table was rigged with some kind of mechanism to make it shake, the feeling was caused by a draft and the medium faked the whole thing.

So, what does that all have to do with science and why is this story in the Christianity and Science section? Whether or not we can contact our departed loved ones is not a scientific issue, but a religious one. The part that concerns science is in how they interpreted what happened. If you look closely at the story and think about it a bit, you will see that Bob, Dave and Frank all did the same thing, even though they reached different conclusions.Each of them already had a world view, and those world views allowed for varying degrees of contact between the living and the spirit world. When they looked at the facts of what had happened to Bob, they did not examine them in an objective way to find the truth of what had taken place, but rather interpreted them in a way that fit their pre-conceived world views.

Now, there is nothing wrong with having different world views and there is nothing wrong with interpreting things in light of our world views when faced with subjective events such as those in the story above. We all do it all the time. But that's not how science is supposed to work. It seems to me, though, that that's exactly how evolution works. Imagine the following scenario...

Dave and Frank (the ones from the story above) are both scientists, both with PhD's in the same field. A fossil skeleton is found of a hitherto unknown species and they both examine it. Frank looks at it and says: "There are many obvious differences, but there are enough similarities between this species and modern man to show that this is our oldest known ancestor". Dave looks at the same skeleton and says "There are some superficial similarities, but it is so different from modern humans that there is no reason to suppose this species is our ancestor".

Even though both of them claim to be scientists and have the degrees to back up that claim, and even though they both claim to base their conclusions on scientific examination of the evidence, in reality, they are doing the same thing they did in the other story - interpreting the facts to fit their pre-conceived world views. Since Dave believes in creation, he has already ruled out the possibility of a creature so different from us being our ancestor. And since Frank doesn't believe in God, he has ruled out beforehand the possibility of creation and interprets things to fit his the only other theory of origins available to him - evolution.

It is my opinion that the evolution / creation debate isn't about science at all, even though both sides seem to think it is and claim scientific evidence to support their views. It's about how we interpret the world around us to fit our pre-conceived world views.

The TOG
​

This is a classic example of the fallacious "Weak Analogy."

It is fallacious because it creates a self-serving analogy and is built on the premise, that because A is like B they both conclude in C. When I would contend that the way scientists make interpretations is quite different than what you have presented here.

Let's start by defining the word Theory.

the·o·ry(th

-r

, thîr

)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution is this kind of theory and not mere speculation based off of presuppositions. For instance, when a scientists dates an ice core or uses radiometric dating on an isotope and discovers that it is hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old, this is a fact that does not fit into certain interpretations.

Also, the strength of a given scientific theory is measured by diversity of the phenomena it is capable of explaining, or in other words the ability to make falsifiable predictions about those phenomena. Evolution is leaps and bounds ahead of any "competing" theory in this regard.

Your analogy is also fallacious in that this phenomena cannot be confidently spoken on by any of these three men, they can either make faith based statements or attempt to reason about the most plausible explanation. This is not the kind of falsifiable contentions that scientists make in regards to evolution. However, creationism is not a scientific hypothesis by rather a religious one and as such does not have the same capacity to make falsifiable statements (though it ends up doing so anyway). Evolution is accepted not by only atheists, but people of every single religious belief whether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, etc. have no problem accepting Evolution as a fact. Creationism MUST be built on religious presuppositions regarding a certain interpretation of ancient documents and then attempts to produce observations that fit into that system. Evolution is not a presupposition, it's a discovery that has helped us understand the way life works here on this planet we call Earth.

And as a Christian and seeker of the truth I will continue to build my opinions on facts and evidence, rather than supposition or speculation or rigid dogmatism.