Re: Evolution and Creationism

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Richard Tarara wrote:

> Responding to William Beaty:
>
> I think you grossly misrepresent the degree to which science HAS
> investigated things like UFOs, ghosts, and all sorts of 'paranormal'
> phenomenon.  People like James Randi use scientific methods to continuously
> disprove claims of paranormal powers and phenomenon and most major
> documented 'strange' events have been investigated 'scientifically'.

I hope you aren't suggesting that Randi attempts replications of
scientific claims.  I would agree that James Randi does use reasoning to
throw light on claims of many phenomenon.  The bulk of these claims are
misguided and deserve to be disproved.  However, CSICOP is not a group of
researchers who attempt replications of reported phenomena.

There is a big difference between debunking a claim and scientifically
testing it.  For example, if I report evidence for an unorthodox
phenomenon, and if a skeptical person shows how that phenomenon violates
physical law, that in itself does not disprove the claim, because history
shows that the discovery of anomalous evidence occasionally forces us to
change what we had previously regarded as solid physics.  Only by
*successfully* replicating a claimed phenomenon can I make a decision
about its genuineness.  With no replication, all we can do is make
judgements based on probabilities.  Even a failed replication can be
attributed to other problems besides the non-existence of the phenomenon
in question.  To demonstrate that a phenomenon does not exist, a series of
replications is required.  If even a tiny portion of them succeed, then
the question has not been answered entirely.

A famous example is Dr. Simon Newcomb's paper (around 1905?) which showed
that flying machines could not be built using any known material or power
source.  Newcomb "disproved" flying machines in the same way that any
modern skeptic would.  However, by offering incontrovertable evidence, the
Wright Brothers demonstrated that Newcomb's debunking of the claims of
those flying-machine inventors was flawed.  This illustrates that no
disproof based upon theory and reasoning alone is 100% trustworthy.  Dr.
Newcomb was a world-famous astronomer at the time, so even the stature of
the skeptic does not guarantee that their reasoning is sound.

If theory and reasoning is sometimes flawed, and if evidence is sometimes
the result of delusions, hoaxes, or "pathological science", how can
science analyze religious claims at all?  I think science can proceed in
the same way it has always proceeded in regards to ANY theory or evidence.
However, if we declare that religious claims are outside of science, and
if we refuse to devote funding to testing them, then that's an artificial
barrier.  If we declare that religious claims are faulty because they
violate know laws of science, we open up the possibility of error because
our knowledge of the laws of science has changed in the past.  If we
declare that religious claims have ALREADY been scientifically tested,
then I must ask for evidence in the form of published peer-reviewed papers
describing experiments which shows that such testing has in fact occurred.
In my experience it does not occur.  There are no organized research
projects which have a goal of looking into testable religious claims.
James Randi is not a scientist, and he does not publish peer-reviewed
research into religious claims.


>  Are
> there things that have not been explained--of course, but by their very
> nature many of the claims you list below are simply not susceptible to
> scientific scrutiny.

I agree.  If somebody reports a miracle, that doesn't allow us to
replicate the miracle, and so we only have anecdotal evidence.  We can't
"do science" if all we have is solitary rare and unreproducable events.
Anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but sometimes it suggests that genuine
events are occuring.  The evidence for meteors and ball-lightning was
dismissed by scientists for many decades, but this did not affect the
reality of those
phenomena.  If there is no anecdotal evidence for a particular event, then
chances are good that it does not occur.  However, if a particular event
does actually occur, we would expect this fact to be reflected in the
occasional anecdotal reports.  (Sprites and Jets above thunderstorms are a
good example.)  Anecdotal reports suggest that further research is needed.
On the other hand, sometimes a large number of anecdotal reports means
nothing, because each one is a fabrication brought about by "fad
psychology" or by a belief-system widely present in the human population.


> Even when such is attempted, what comes into play is a statement I
> paraphrase from Eugene Hecht's excellent old text PHYSICS IN PERSPECTIVE
> --'Science fails for scientific reasons while Magic fails for magical
> reasons.' True believers can never be persuaded by 'scientific logic'
> since such is outside the sphere of their belief system.  Likewise the
> skeptical scientist will never accept that which cannot be confirmed by
> scientific test.

Exactly.  If we were to "do science" regarding religious claims, then the
unswayable opinions of the "believers" is irrelevant.  The goal is not to
sway the believers, the goal is to test the claims and see if they are
real or not.  If the "believers" do not accept the results of the
experimental work, then let them get some funding, replicate the
experiments, and publish their results in the scientific literature.  Over
time science can get to the bottom of many such issues, but only if
science is not artificially prevented from proceeding.


> As to the reason for religion--I strongly suspect that most, if not all,
> religions can be traced to man's inability to accept his own mortality, that
> we will each cease to exist as self-aware, thinking entities at death, and
> must therefore create a belief system by which this inevitability can be
> circumvented.   I'm sure almost everyone at some point has seriously and
> deeply considered the possibility of non-existence and most have found it
> absolutely terrifying--the 'need' for religion is therefore not surprising.

I agree.  The horror of our approaching personal extinction is a good
reason for the existence of all sorts of religions, and all sorts of
strange "mental events."   On the other hand, turn this around.  If
strange events occur, then humans might form religions as a way to explain
them.  Fear of death does not prove that religions are fantasy, it only
suggests that this might be so.  In the same way, the presence of myths
which attempt to explain genuine physical phenomena does not prove that
there must be a genuine phenomena at the heart of religions.

Also, only some religious claims are testable.  I don't believe that the
existence of "god" can be proved or disproved.  However, if there is
evidence for an "invisible spiritual world," and all that it implies, then
we do have a way for science to proceed.  However, if we make the initial
assumption that the "invisible world" does not exist and therefor all
evidence is faulty, then we are just as prejudiced as the "believers", and
our "true disbelief" interferes with any possibility of testing whether
that "invisible world" is real.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>
> > Is there life after death?  Is there an "invisible world" where souls,
> > gods, etc., reside?  A world which is not part of the material world known
> > to physics?  Are "near death" experiences a taste of this, or are they
> > just hallucinations?  Do angels whisper advice and tell us secrets?  Do
> > miracles occur, or are they invariably hoaxes?  Are ghosts and hauntings a
> > product of delusion, or are they genuine unexplained events?
> >
> >
> > All of the above questions are usually derided as being outside of
> > science.  I believe that the solution to the creation/evolution debate can
> > be found if we pursue answers to the above questions.  However, if we
> > should attempt to start a research project to look into them, colleagues
> > will laugh and refuse to fund such a thing.  This doesn't mean that the
> > questions are unanswerable.  It just means that the concensus of
> > scientists as expressed in peer review is that such questions SHALL NOT be
> > explored.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L