Examining the source.

Read of the watchtower Society's article Here

 

 

The first Council of Nicaea (artist’s impression) paved the way for the Trinity doctrine

“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

 

“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”—Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God.

 

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church.

No end in sight V

Making an argument or being argumentative?

 

Michael Behe replies to Ken Miller's misrepresentation of Intelligent Design and the concept of the mouse trap:

"The problem... is that it's not an argument against anything I've ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains - can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are?

"Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he's doing: he's starting from the finished product - the mousetrap - and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other puposes. Again, that's intelligent design!

"The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else: it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you'd still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled."

...

"When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there's nobody there to do that.

"In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape that are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use th emousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They'd all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.

"In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the toher pieces into position, you'd be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it's very improbable. Even with the small machines, you wouldn't expect them to self-assemble during the entire life-time of the earth. That's a severe problem that evolutionists don't like to address."

Manifest destiny?

"after their kind"

A reproduction of the Watchtower society's article

KIND

 

The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.” (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created “kinds,” which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.

The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.”

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.” This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”

Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new “kind,” in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same “kind,” such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Whereas specific created “kinds” may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline “kind.” The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each “kind.” But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these “kinds” can commingle genetically.

Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil “bridges” between “kinds” are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same “kinds” without evolving into other “kinds.” The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and “according to their kinds” during the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.

From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: “Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.” (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different “kinds,” since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.—See ARK No. 1.

Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic “kinds” emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their “kinds.” Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving “kinds” have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.—Isa 55:8-11.

Science or storytelling?

Areproduction of the Watchtower  Society's article

Is Evolution a Fact?

 

 

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders.* These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’*

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.*

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered a fact?

Can Mutations Produce New Species?

Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations—or random changes—in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed: “Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection.”

Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed.

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, who was interviewed by Awake! Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”*

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.” Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”*

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Does Natural Selection Lead to the Creation of New Species?

Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a result, evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years.

Back in 1966, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote: “I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.” Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’ conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating anything new.”

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

Does the Fossil Record Document Macroevolutionary Changes?

The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”

This confident statement is quite surprising. Why? In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand “frames” really document the process of macroevolution? What does the fossil record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits that the record shows that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

Evolution—Fact or Myth?

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? After criticizing some of Richard Dawkins’ reasoning, influential evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense “because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].”

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or on a myth?

[Footnotes]

Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. However, the changes dog breeders can produce often result from losses in gene function. For example, the dachshund’s small size is caused by a failure of normal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism.

While the word “species” is used frequently in this article, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the much more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.

See the box “How Organisms Are Classified.”

Research shows that the cell’s cytoplasm, its membranes, and other structures also play a role in shaping an organism.

Lönnig’s comments in this article are his own and do not represent the opinion of the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research.

Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. Lönnig deduced from this phenomenon the “law of recurrent variation.” In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than for plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.

Materialism, in this sense, refers to the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process.

Barrande's Skepicism.

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

BY AWAKE! CORRESPONDENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

“MORE than a kingly gift, the most gallant homage to have been paid to the Czech nation!” That is how a journalist described the legacy that the Czech National Museum received from Joachim Barrande, the noted 19th-century paleontologist. Barrande’s “kingly gift” to the Czech people consisted of an important collection of more than 1,200 crates full of fossils, which he had spent decades collecting, studying, and classifying. While you might not be inclined to rhapsodize over a collection of old fossils, Barrande’s gift is far more valuable to paleontologists than a treasure trove!

A paleontologist is a scientist who uses fossil remains to study life in past geologic periods. Paleontology is a relatively new science. During the Middle Ages, fossils were dismissed as “jokes of nature” or were thought to be remains of dragons. By the 18th century, however, people in the upper classes were beginning to take an interest in collecting fossils. Scientists in many countries also began to take an interest in the study of fossils. Joachim Barrande was one of them. What do we know about Barrande, and what did he contribute to the field of paleontology? Since he was a contemporary of Charles Darwin, what were Barrande’s views on Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Barrande Makes a Career Change

Joachim Barrande was born in 1799 in Saugues, a small town in southern France. He studied engineering in Paris, specializing in road and bridge construction. At the same time, he took courses in natural science. It soon became apparent that he was gifted in that field. After graduation Barrande began working as an engineer, but when he caught the eye of the French royal family, he was invited to tutor the grandson of King Charles X. The subject—natural science. In 1830, as a result of a revolution in France, the royal family was exiled and eventually went to Bohemia. Barrande joined them there. It was in Prague, the capital of Bohemia, that Barrande again took up engineering.

As an expert in road and bridge construction, Barrande was assigned to survey the countryside around Prague for a proposed horse-drawn railway. While he was going about his work, Barrande noticed that there was an abundance of fossils in the area. Taking a closer look, he was amazed to discover striking similarities between the strata of Bohemia and the strata of Britain. His passion for the natural sciences rekindled, Barrande ultimately quit engineering and, for the next 44 years, devoted his life to the study of paleontology and geology.

Barrande’s classroom was the fossil-rich countryside of central Bohemia. Each day brought new discoveries of exceptional beauty and variety. By 1846 he was ready to publish the initial results of his research. In this work he described and classified new trilobite species, which once inhabited the bottom of the sea.

Barrande continued collecting and studying fossils. Then, in 1852, he published the first volume of a monograph, or treatise, entitled The Silurian System of Central Bohemia.* Volume I discussed the trilobites. This was followed by volumes devoted to crustaceans, chondrichthyes, cephalopods, lamellibranchs, and other fossilized organisms. During his lifetime he published 22 volumes in which he described in detail more than 3,500 species. The work is one of the largest monographs in the field of paleontology.

Meticulous and Disciplined

Barrande’s methods set him apart from other researchers. To his work as a naturalist, he brought the discipline of an engineer. As a designer, he would not tolerate inaccurate calculations or drawings. As a paleontologist, he strove to attain a very high degree of precision in his drawings, taking great pains to ensure that they were accurate down to the finest detail. He personally retouched many of the drawings that were included in his monograph, although the originals had been sketched by a professional artist.

Barrande’s meticulousness, however, was not confined to his drawings. After each volume of his monograph had been typeset, he personally checked the text. If he was not satisfied, he sent the offending parts back to be reset. Barrande’s goal was to ensure that every work he published was as accurate as possible. He succeeded admirably. Today, almost 150 years later, researchers still use the Silurian System as a reference work.

What About Evolution?

When Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, many scientists jumped on the evolution bandwagon. Barrande, however, did not. From the beginning, he rejected the evolution theory because he saw nothing in the fossil record to convince him that the theory was true. Barrande said that the purpose of his work was to “find out reality and not to construct ephemeral theories.” (Italics ours.) Indeed, on the title page of each volume of the Silurian System, he inscribed the motto: “C’est ce que j’ai vu” (This is what I have seen).

Barrande did notice that the bodies of many animals were in different stages of development. However, he correctly concluded that they were of the same species but of different age. He saw no evidence that one kind of animal had evolved into another. Summing up Barrande’s philosophy, the book A Petrified World says: “Barrande’s whole work is . . . built on facts, and that is its most precious feature. At this stage of basic research, there is no room for speculation or guessing or for general theories either.”

A Humble Man Gives a “Kingly Gift”

Despite his great success, Barrande did not fall prey to the snare of pride or dishonesty. Although he was at ease with the intelligentsia of Europe and spoke several languages, he never lost the common touch. He learned Czech in order to be closer to the people. This helped him in his work, as it allowed him to communicate with the stone quarriers who helped him acquire new specimens for his collection.

Barrande was a religious man, and what he found in nature strengthened his faith in God. He called fossils “medallions of the first creations.” Moreover, in the introduction to his work, he referred to the emotions that moved him to keep studying: “It is a feeling of admiration, satisfaction, and recognition that pervades and charms the one who discovers or contemplates a part of the works of the Creator.”

Joachim Barrande died in 1883, leaving behind scientific material of uncommon value. His meticulous approach to his work is appreciated by scientists the world over. Because of the realistic, factual approach he took, Joachim Barrande’s carefully documented discoveries are still serving researchers today. From a scientific standpoint, it was not an exaggeration to describe Barrande’s legacy as “more than a kingly gift.”

On science and scientism

A reproduction of 'salvo's' article

 

 

Blinded by Science

Believe Science Has All the Answers? Evolutionary Biologist Austin Hughes Says, Open Your Eyes

Keep in mind now that Dr. Austin Hughes, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, is an evolutionary biologist, which pretty much means that he accepts evolution as an adequate mechanism for producing the diversity of life on earth. This also means that he is no friend to intelligent design, which he calls a "biologically naïve" theory. So perhaps it's his background in philosophy, which he studied at Georgetown University and then later at Harvard, that makes him so hostile to the idea that science alone can render truth about the world. Whatever the reason, you won't find a more learned, eloquent, or impassioned opponent of contemporary scientism.
When did you become aware that scientism was a problem in the scientific community?
I guess it was when I started my graduate program in philosophy at Harvard. That's when I first encountered logical positivism, and I must admit that I found it very attractive at first. It was interesting to talk about science and the philosophy of science. In fact, I was motivated to begin studying science because everyone at Harvard was always talking about it like it was the only thing that mattered. I wanted to work in a field that was worthwhile, so I decided to become a scientist myself.

What changed your attitude toward scientism?
Well, when I first went back to school and started taking all of the undergraduate science courses that I had never taken—I had been a philosophy major at Georgetown—I felt that the world of science was much more tolerant than other academic fields. For example, my professors did not seem to condemn people for their religious beliefs like they had at Harvard. However, I eventually realized that my scientific peers weren't any more tolerant than my philosophy professors had been; it was just that they assumed that no one in their field subscribed to religion. They found the idea so ridiculous that it was a complete non-issue. It was then that I started to find scientism very narrow and at times even intolerant.
Do you think the field of science has always been like this?
No. My professors, while mostly atheists, nevertheless believed that there were certain kinds of questions that science wasn't qualified to address. I remember reading a book in the mid-seventies by Peter Medawar, a British biologist who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which admitted that there were certain kinds of questions that science couldn't answer. Medawar even stated in the book that he himself did not have a metaphysical bone in his body, but that he respected those who did. This kind of view wasn't so uncommon among the scientists who were my teachers, but now things are different.
How so?
Well, now you have writers and speakers such as Richard Dawkins who have made a career out of popularizing scientism. They are publicly proclaiming in the name of science that there's no knowledge but science and that science has disproved the existence of God. Today there's this new niche for people who claim the authority of science and yet pontificate on things that have nothing to do with science and in which they have no training. When it comes to philosophy and
theology, for instance, Dawkins makes errors all the time because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

What are some examples of current scientific theories or ideas that exhibit the traits of scientism?

If it's real science, then it's not scientism. Scientism is taking the mantle of science and claiming for it an authority that it doesn't have. Examples would include scientists who maintain that evolution disproves the existence of God or who say that we exist in a purposeless, random universe. And then there are those physicists who insist that the universe gave rise to itself, or the whole field of what is called evolutionary psychology. These are examples of speculative storytelling that have absolutely no evidence behind them. It's speculation that will never be testable. In my opinion, such claims are closely allied to pseudoscience. It's all very similar to early last century when pseudoscientific fields such as eugenics claimed authority in areas that were previously considered off limits for science, such as ethics and social policy.
How does scientism justify moving into areas traditionally explained by philosophy?
What they say is, "Philosophy has never solved anything. It's just nonsense or religion." They don't realize that they themselves are incapable of answering the really big questions. Take these multiverse theories. Basically, they're just a way to deny that the universe has the appearance of design. "The universe was not designed," these scientists say. "It's just that there are lots and lots of other universes, and we just happen to be in one that's favorable to life." But that doesn't solve the metaphysical problem, does it? Where did all of these universes come from? Who established the rules within each universe? Who established the rules by which new universes are generated?
What about in the area of epistemology?
I don't know whether you've seen the book Where the Conflict Really Lies by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, but in it he makes the case that if you take the position of scientism literally, then there's no reason why we should believe that anything in science is true. In other words, if everything is just some sort of random product of random forces, then there's no reason to think that we can somehow figure anything out and get it right—to believe that our theories are true. That's really the Achilles heal of the whole scientism enterprise. When we make a decision to accept one scientific theory over another, we are essentially stepping outside of science in that we're using philosophical reasoning. We're making a judgment about whether we believe that the evidence is reasonable—whether it really conclusively decides between two alternative theories. It's almost impossible to imagine how science could exist if there was nothing but science.
What is the difference between the essentialist and institutional theories of science?
Essentialist theories say that something is science only if it exhibits the hallmarks or essential traits of science. In other words, they best support a clear distinction between science and philosophy, as well as a necessary role for each. Institutional theories, on the other hand, argue that science is whatever science says it is. It was an institutional theory that justified the racial science of Nazi Germany, which was basically just pseudoscience based on some misunderstood anthropology. The same is true of Lysenkoism in Russia. If science is whatever science says it is, then it's hard to say why these cases aren't science as well. A lot of times the philosophers of science will say that science is self-correcting; the stuff that is false will eventually be defeated. This is true to some extent, but the defeat of both Nazi and Soviet pseudoscience was due to political factors, not the self-correcting nature of science.
Why is falsifiability a good criterion for what science can and should study?
What I like about it is that, even though it isn't quite a perfect criterion, it does sort of correspond to what scientists actually do. Scientists don't try to verify things. Rather, they try to prove their hypotheses wrong. If they can't prove them wrong, then they tentatively accept them. The philosopher Karl Popper developed this concept partly in response to logical positivism, but I also think he was writing in response to Nazi pseudoscience. One of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that it will come up with hypotheses that sound like science but are in no way testable: "Humans evolved upright posture because . . . whatever." Fill in the blank. I think we need to hold biologists' feet to the fire and say, "Wait a second; give me a testable hypothesis," which I actually believe it is possible to do in evolutionary biology.
If the trend toward scientism continues, what will be the long-term result?
For one thing, it will hurt the credibility of science. Let's say that some scientist announces that science has disproved the existence of God. People in the general public are not going to understand that he is not really speaking for science—that he is expressing a metaphysical or religious opinion using his status as a scientist to prop it up. They will consequently develop a negative attitude toward science. Sure, some people will reject religion because of this claim, but many more will reject science. It's kind of ironic. Richard Dawkins used to have a chair at Oxford that was dedicated to the public understanding of science, but now he is making these sweeping statements about religion that are only hurting the public understanding and appreciation of science.
Is that the only possible negative effect?
No, scientism also undermines science itself. Unlike those in the liberal arts who claim that all discourse is some sort of manipulation of other people, scientists are almost refreshingly naïve in today's academic world in that they believe in truth—or at least many of them do. However, when you start undermining the basis of truth, which comes from philosophical reasoning, scientists themselves will start believing that there's no truth in science. I've actually seen this to some extent—a disturbing trend toward a careerist approach to science. A collaborator once said to me, "You know, it doesn't really matter if it's true if it makes a big splash in a journal such as Nature or Science." I told him, "No, no, no," and the reason I finally gave him, because I knew he wasn't the kind of person I could appeal to with ethical reasoning, was that it would hurt him in the long run.
So the integrity of science gets undermined. What then?
Science itself could disappear. I really believe that this is a possibility. There's this ingrained belief in our culture that science will always progress, but we have no way of being sure that this will in fact happen. Civilizations collapse and disappear. Science is a unique phenomenon that really only appeared once in the history of the world—in Christian Europe. If its philosophical foundations are undercut, then it's very possible that it will disappear. There's also the danger that the misuse of science will become a tool for political tyranny. The two most tyrannical regimes of all time, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, both claimed to be scientifically based. Marxism/Leninism was promoted as scientific Socialism, while Hitler claimed that National Socialism was actually applied biology. It's entirely possible that this sort of thing could happen again.
Can this trend toward scientism be reversed, and if so, how?
Yes, it can be reversed, but only if the fields of study that are dismissed by the advocates of scientism show some sort of revival or refuse to go away. I see some signs of this happening in philosophy. When I was in graduate school, all the top philosophy departments in the English-speaking world were totally dominated by the logical positivist school, and I don't think that's true anymore. There is more diversity today. Even people who are Thomists are appearing here and there in state university philosophy departments, and that just wasn't true forty years ago. I think this is a positive sign that the humanities are finally beginning to take their fields back from scientism proponents.
What else can be done?
Science education is also very important. Americans in general don't understand science, so they're easily misled by people making claims in the name of science about things that science really can't address. But improving science education is a difficult thing, especially when the educational establishment believes in scientism. Nonetheless, I think that an emphasis on critical thinking and learning about how science really works, as opposed to teaching science as just a body of knowledge, would go a long way toward weakening the claims of scientism. Think about some of the stuff you read in the Sunday supplement: "A new study has shown that women are more likely than men to do such and such." If the public understood the concept of falsifiability alone, then they'd be like, "Wait a second." That would be a great start toward exposing scientism for what it is. •

---

-

On the family album according to naturalists

A reproduction of the discovery institute's article 



The meeting room was tense as Ronald Wetherington, a professor of anthropology at Southern Methodist University, took the podium. He was about to address the Texas State Board of Education before its vote in March 2009 over whether to inform students about scientific weaknesses in neo-Darwinian evolution.

And what Dr. Wetherington told the board is that there are no weaknesses. Human beings have "arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world," he said. "No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils. . . . So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true." According to Wetherington, the field of human origins provides "a nice clean example of what Darwin thought was a gradualistic evolutionary change."

It is not uncommon for evolutionary scientists like Wetherington (even those who teach at Christian universities) to be adamant about the evidence in favor of human evolution. Digging into the technical literature, however, we find a situation that's starkly different from the one presented by Wetherington and many other evolutionary scientists who engage in public debates.

A closer look at the literature shows that hominin fossils generally fall into one of two categories—ape-like species or human-like species (of the genus Homo) —and that there is a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the claims of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. In fact, scientists are quite sharply divided over who or what our human ancestors even were. Newly discovered fossils are often initially presented to the public with great enthusiasm and fanfare, but once cooler heads prevail, their status as human evolutionary ancestors is invariably called into question.

Early Human History

The details of the earliest stages of human origins are murky. They come from what UC–Berkeley paleoanthropologist Tim White once called "a black hole in the fossil record."¹ There are, to be sure, three main species that have emerged as contenders for the supposed common ancestor of humans and apes. But despite what is printed in the media, the extant fossils for all three species are fragmented and greatly disputed by experts.

When Orrorin tugensis was initially discovered in 2001, the New York Times ran a story titled "Fossils May Be Earliest Human Link."² The fossil itself—dubbed Millennium Man—was known only from "an assortment of bone fragments,"³ including pieces of the arm, thigh, and lower jaw, as well as some teeth. Debate over Orrorin has centered on whether it was an early hominin capable of walking upright, and on this point a 2007 commentary made a key admission: "All in all, there is currently precious little evidence bearing on how Orrorin moved."⁴

When Sahelanthropus tchadensis was first discovered in 2002, the popular science journal New Scientist claimed that "the new species is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees."⁵ But since that fossil was known only from a skull and some jaw fragments, experts naturally disagreed. For example, Brigitte Senut, a leading researcher at the Natural History Museum in Paris, said, "I tend towards thinking this is the skull of a female gorilla."⁶ Three paleoanthropologists subsequently concluded in an article in Nature that "Sahelanthropus was an ape."⁷

The most recent hyped-up hominin fossil find was Ardipithicus ramidus, dubbed "Ardi" by its promoters in the media. The Discovery Channel ran the headline "'Ardi,' Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled" and quoted Tim White as stating that Ardi was "as close as we have ever come to finding the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans."⁸ Doubts arose, however, after news reports acknowledged that "some portions of Ardi's skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction," and that its pelvis initially "looked like an Irish stew."⁹ Later, technical papers in both Science and Nature disavowed claims that Ardi was a human ancestor.¹⁰ According to Time magazine, one of the authors of those papers, Esteban Sarmiento, "regards the hype around Ardi to have been overblown."¹¹

Australopithecines Are Like Apes

While early hominin fossils are controversial, due to their fragmented condition, there is one major group—the australopithecines—that is widely promoted as directly ancestral to humans. The primary claim is that australopithecines had the head of a chimpanzee but a body that allowed it to walk upright, like humans.

Despite the prevalence of that standard view, authorities have found that the fingers, arms, chest, hand bones, striding gait, shoulders, abdomen, inner-ear canals, developmental patterns, toes, and teeth of australopithecines point away from their being human ancestors and/or suggest that they didn't have human-like bipedal locomotion.¹² For example, an article in Nature observed that the most complete australopithecine specimen—the famous fossil Lucy—was "quite ape-like," especially with respect to her "relatively long and curved fingers, relatively long arms, and funnel-shaped chest."¹³ The article reported that Lucy's hand bones suggest that she "'knuckle-walked', as chimps and gorillas do today."¹⁴

Paleoanthropologist Leslie Aiello, who served as head of the anthropology department at University College London, stated that when it comes to locomotion, "Australopithecines are like apes, and the Homo group are like humans. Something major occurred when Homo evolved, and it wasn't just in the brain."¹⁵

A Big Bang Origin of Homo

When the human-like members of our genus Homo appear, they do so abruptly. A paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution called the appearance of Homo sapiens "a genetic revolution" in which "no australopithecine species is obviously transitional."¹⁶ In a 2004 book, the famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that "the earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap" without "any fossils that can serve as missing links."¹⁷

The lack of fossil evidence for this hypothesized evolutionary transition was confirmed by three Harvard paleoanthropologists, who wrote:

Of the various transitions that occurred during human evolution, the transition from Australopithecus to Homo was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and consequences. As with many key evolutionary events, there is both good and bad news. First, the bad news is that many details of this transition are obscure because of the paucity of the fossil and archaeological records.¹⁸

And the good news? "Although we lack many details about exactly how, when, and where the transition occurred from Australopithecus to Homo," the three went on, "we have sufficient data from before and after the transition to make some inferences about the overall nature of key changes that did occur."¹⁹

In other words, the fossil record provides us with ape-like australopithecines ("before") and human-like Homo ("after"), but not with fossils documenting a transition between them. In the absence of intermediaries, we're left with "inferences" of a transition based strictly upon the assumption of Darwinian evolution. No wonder one commentator argued that if we take the fossil evidence at face value, it implies a "big bang theory" of the appearance of our genus Homo.²⁰

Resistance Isn't Futile

Despite the constant drumbeat of media stories announcing the discovery of the latest "missing link," the evidence shows that human-like forms appear abruptly in the fossil record, without any fossils connecting us to our alleged ape-like evolutionary ancestors. This contradicts the expectations of neo-Darwinian evolution and suggests that unguided evolutionary mechanisms do not account for the origin of our species. •