Introduction
Science has no central, vested power, personal or organizational to determine what is correct science and what is not. Differences in opinion are bridged by discussion, debate and even dispute and, most importantly, more and better data. This is not to say science has no overview but it is carried by professional organizations, peer reviews, editors and editorial boards whose expertise is limited to their own disciplinary scope. Under this system science has progressed remarkably over the last 3,000 years. It is to be changed at great risk as the greatest historic impediments have been the limiting proclamations by ill-informed, non-science authorities and, to a lesser extent, the lack of experimental technology and the lack of mathematical analytical methods.
We use the term "explanation" to categorize the several proposals which are claimed to account for the origin and evolution of the universe or any part thereof. We do this for two reasons: a) the proposals are explanations albeit of different types, and b) we need an inclusive, neutral term that is not loaded with additional meanings, such as, theory, law, hypothesis, truth, etc.
The current debate is between the several explanations of evolution and the several explanations of creation as summarized in the table below. The debate addresses the following questions:
- Which are predictive? And which are testable?
- Which of the explanations are scientific? And which are faith-based.
- Which best explain the observed data from all sources?
- Are the scientific and faith-based explanations in essential conflict?
- Which ones should be taught to the general public? And in public schools?
- What is the progressive nature of the development of an explanation?
- What about the future of the debate?
We shall try to examine these questions in as direct and a simple manner as possible that will provide an answer to them.
Prerequisites to
the Debate
One prerequisite of a productive debate is the definition of the terms used to be certain the participants are on the same page. Several definitions follow:
Science is the continuing endeavor to formulate better explanations of natural phenomena by determining predictive, testable, mechanistic, cause and effect relationships based upon valid, reproducible measurements of the quantifiable, independent and dependent variables which are integrally associated with the phenomenon. An explanation is:
1. Better if it explains more of the applicable data, involves deep-seated, widely applicable models and is simple in the sense of having fewer adjustable parameters. The decision of "better' is usually a "weight of evidence" decision rather than a numerical comparison one.
2. Predictive if it allows the computation by mortals of new unmeasured data values or new phenomenon,
3. Testable (falsifiable) if it is predictive and new observations can be made,
4. Mechanistic if the manner by which causes lead to effects is described and supported by evidence,
5. Valid if the data does not contain unduly large biases or errors,
6.
Reproducible
if more than one experimentalist can independently reproduce the results
and this requires that given two identical scenarios statistically identical
results will be obtained,
7. Quantifiable if can be described in some metric including statistical and binary variables.
The phrase "cause and effect" implies a mechanistic relationship between dependent and independent variables, and "integrally associated with" precludes incidental statistical correlation of variables. An explanation is better if it describes more phenomena to a greater degree of precision over a wider range of conditions.
Truth, especially absolute truth, is not a goal of science; explanations are always subject to continuing improvement. Further, any conclusion resting on measurements subject to statistical error has a small but non-zero probability of being wrong. For this reason, an explanation can not be said to be true in the absolute or mathematical sense, which requires statistical certainty. The foregoing in no way should be interpreted as saying scientific explanations are always wrong in the lay sense.
Falsifiable is related to testable: For an explanation to be considered as a candidate for a scientific explanation, it must permit at least one decisive test which, if failed, will deny the validity of the explanation. This eliminates many explanations that merely explain the current observations but provide no method to assess validity due to the innate assumptions.
A Fact is a valid, reproducible observation or measurement; the description of a fact includes any statistical description of the underlying measurements even if the statistical parameters are not stated. The statement that a fact is "true" is really a statement that the probability of its being significantly wrong is very, small.
Authority in science implies having extensive knowledge or great ability in a subject. It does not imply the power to act or proclaim conformity as in many faith-based systems. The designation of an authority, e.g., Aristotle, which is not to be questioned, has resulted in the past in the serious stagnation of scientific progress.
Almighty Being (Deity, God, Supreme Being, Devine Authority, Intelligent Designer, etc) is an entity that has the power to set aside the laws of nature and cause arbitrary changes in the universe, its origin and its evolution. This Being is by definition supernatural, can work miracles and is not bound by the "laws of nature". [The proponents of Intelligent Design deny that the Intelligent Designer is a deity but it fits this definition.] The Deity also is usually the source of moral standards and authority but this is not germane to the subject. All too often the critical attributes of a Deity are not defined making logical discourse next to impossible.
Generally it is assumed that a Deity is: omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) and its other attributes flow logistically from these two basic attributes. However if this is true, then a Deity must obey the Rules of Logic and It is then not omnipotent since Its powers are limited by logic. Since the Laws of Nature are applications of logic, is a Deity constrained to obeying these laws as well? Being omniscient and logical, the Deity must be aware of the future and able to predict it. Having done so can It, being omnipotent, then change the future It predicts thus giving rise to a false prediction by an omniscient being. In simple words, are omnipotent, omniscient and logical attributes that are compatible any level? Can one appeal to logic to verify the illogical?
God of the Gaps:
The appeal to an Almighty Being in science and prescience is very old and very
widespread. It occurs in prescience as an element of most faith-based
'creation' explanations. It also occurs in some of the early scientific
explanations especially at points in the explanations where the scientists had
no understanding of the detailed process. The practice has been referred to as
'God of the Gaps'. The gaps still occur in modern explanations but in fewer
numbers and with the understanding they can be eliminated by more data and more
complete, better explanations. Indeed the history of science has been this
removal of Gaps. An example of this is:
A Faith-based Belief System is one in which the truth of its founding concepts is dependent on the words of a Almighty Being or other authority as documented by divinely inspired authors in Infallible Scriptures or a revered human individual whose time-honored teachings are recorded in authenticated documents.
A Theory of Everything (TOE) is an attempt to explain all of the fundamental knowledge of matter, forces and energy in one consistent mathematical physical theory. Combining general relativity and quantum mechanics is extremely difficult as they have incompatible basic descriptions.
Laws, Theories, Hypotheses and Conjectures are terms which express the confidence which science has about an explanation. Law is an older term used to describe an explanation which was of very general application and was in agreement with all known data. Theory is a more current term used as a synonym for Law. Both Laws and Theory indicate a mature, proven and accepted explanation. A Hypothesis is an explanation to be taken seriously but it is not yet proven. A Conjecture is an educated guess for consideration as a possible explanation and development into a more formal explanation. There are exceptions to this usage and the reader should be alert; designation as any of these can not be taken as automatic lack of proof.
The Progression of Explanations is based on developing a "better" explanation. This does not necessarily mean that the displaced explanation is wrong although in some cases it is. When there is a major change in a basic assumption such as, using a helio-centric model in place of a geo-centric model, the prior model (geo-centric) can be said to be wrong because the old model did not form a sound basis for the prediction of data, where as the new model (helio-centric) did. Actually, the first helio-centric model used epicycles to explain the data; later, Kepler used ellipses for the planet orbits with much better results.
At the other extreme, the new model, e.g., Special
Relativity, may disagree with the observations only under extreme conditions
leaving the old model, e.g.,
"Evolution" has come to mean many things in the realm of human discourse and it is wise to define the more important points of the explanations under discussion. The following table contains seven of the more prominent explanations in the current discourses and before legislative bodies. The type of the explanation is that which most proponents of a explanation would choose. The classification of "alleged science" indicates disagreement between proponents and opponents. The descriptions are brief and in lay terms but we believe they contain the most important elements that cause disagreement and today's discussions.
Omitted are the many creation models of the world's cultures and religions which do not seem to be involved in today's discussions. They are similar, not in detail but in character, to the Young Earth Creation, based on faith and authority, not on observable measurements.
|
Name of Explanation |
Type |
Concise Description of Explanation |
|
Science |
Origin of the universe from a miniscule particle of intensely hot energy/mass followed by a short period of exponential growth and then slows cooling by slow expansion. The physical laws of and the nature of the universe are determined by the details of the initial event. Galaxies coalesced due to quantum density fluctuations followed by star, planet and black hole formation by further coalescing. |
|
Science |
Slow, small inheritable changes in existing life forms which are selectively retained and propagated because of improved species survival rates or, more explicitly, improved reproductive success. |
|
(more) |
Science |
Very slow, essentially Darwinian evolution during periods
of stable environments interrupted by periods of rapid evolutionary change
when the environment changes. The degree to which |
|
|
|
|
|
Faith based |
Creation of universe and life in a few days by an all-powerful deity as documented in biblical scripture. Age of earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years. No time for geologic formation or species evolution. |
|
|
Faith Based |
Much the same as "Young Earth" except for a longer time span. Age of the earth is long enough to allow for geologic evolution |
|
|
Alleged Science |
Much the same as Young Earth Creation with an emphasis on the evidence from the Great Flood and Geology |
|
|
Alleged Science |
Complex forms, especially life, could not have evolved by random chance alone and required interposition of an unspecified "intelligent designer" (but not a deity) in an unspecified manner |
The above are not necessarily independent: a) The Big Bang Theory, if extended to include the earth's detailed later evolution, would encompass Punctuated Equilibrium which is a generalization of Darwinism, b) Intelligent Design, by proposing a powerful designer, embodies much of Young Earth Creation which is a special case of Old Age Creation while Creation Science could be applied to all of the creation models. We shall speak of both differences and similarities.
Comments on the
Several Explanations of the Universe
The Big Bang
Theory (BBT)
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant, comprehensive cosmological theory although certain shortcomings have been known from the start, namely, the incompatibility of the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Never the less the BBT has furthered the understanding of our cosmological origins and the evolution of the universe and suggested many experiments, observations and even new theories. The BBT encompasses most of the important modern theories of physics and has been verified by countless astronomical observations. Laboratory experiments in areas, such as, nuclear physics have verified appropriate portions of the theory. Even mass produced items such as global positioning systems support the General Theory of Relativity.
For purposes of discussion the BBT is assumed to include the inanimate evolution of the earth up to the origin of life and to the present time as geological processes are still occurring.
The most significant observations supporting the BBT origin of the universe are the consistency of the expected quantum mechanical fluctuations in the primal universe, the formation of structures of galaxies, and the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation as well as the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium, the present expansion of the universe and independent age estimates. There is little doubt that BBT is a data supported theory but it will require refinement or replacement as the under lying physical theories are refined.
The BBT postulates that, at the beginning of time, the truly primordial, infinitesimal universe came into existence by unspecified means, immediately started to expand and reform its character. The nature of its structure, composition and the laws of nature were determined in the instant of the beginning and the universe evolved accordingly. There is no suggestion of how to do it again to see what happens. It does not specify if some unspecified agent was required at the start. Any statement that a supreme deity initiated this process is simply outside the BBT.
Darwinian
Evolution (DE) aka Natural Selection
The principal data supporting DE is the fossil evidence showing the progression of new species replacing older species as environments change in isolated regions of the species range. DE explains many important details in the fossil record. This is most easily seen in case such as the evolution of the horse where the fossil record is relatively complete. In many cases, the record is not complete but consider: It has been 65 million years since the dominant dinosaurs yielded to the small mammals. With an estimated generation period of five years, the number of generation is about 13 million; far, far more than the number of fossils in any evolutionary line, sometimes represented by one fossil. Undoubtedly, some of the evolutionary changes were soft tissue changes which usually are not fossilized. The missing "missing links" are to be expected and are not a weakness of DE (or PE).
Evolutionary changes of hard tissue often leave their trace on the skeleton long after the change is in disuse. These developmental clues allow both ancient and modern species to be organized into hierarchies denoting the sequence of their evolutionary development. Fossils, ancient by features, are found in old rock strata; the later species are found in later strata as dated by depositional sequence or radioactive decay. Over the long haul simple life forms have preceded the more complex forms though they may continue to exist with them, e.g., bacteria, alga, fungi, etc.
In modern times, selective breeding and selection have produced a wide range of appearance and function in dogs, cats, horses, cattle, goats and sheep. Similar accomplishments have been obtained with plants. This is nothing more than managed evolution and can be considered as supporting evidence for DE. Recently, the discovery of the roles of RNA and DNA in inheritance has provided a molecular explanation for evolution. Briefly, mutated genes may be neutral, i.e., have no effect on survival, but are accumulated and become active with some change in the environment which renders them selective. The subsequent evolution in physical form can be quite rapid as the necessary genes and DNA are in place. This effect has been observed in several existing populations.
Compounded
Accumulation
Everyone knows the benefits of compound interest applied to a savings account over a period of many years. Consider the effect of compounding on 'reproductive success' over the lifetime of a life-form: One celled organisms appeared about 3.5 billion years ago and have a generation time of about 30 minutes under the best circumstances allowing a maximum of about 6 x 10**13 generations. Allowing only an average increase of one in a million in the reproductive success rate of the species per generation would have introduced a fantastic increase in the reproductive success over the lifetime of the life-form, about 1.000001**10**14 or about 10**8. Fortunately, the efficiency of evolution is far less than this. Never underestimate the effect of an exponential function: The effect in one generation may be undetectable but enormous when compounded over many generations.
The above estimate is not as extreme as first glance might lead one to believe for the assumed increase in species reproduction success rate must be divided by the population of one celled organisms in that gene pool to get the individual rate. The population in the primordial oceans must be in the billions giving even more credence to evolution's ability the account for the observed results.
Anthropic
Principle (AP)
In its cosmological sense, the Anthropic Principle states that since man exists the primary parameters, determining the detailed nature of the universe, must all lie in the narrow ranges that make chemistry and biology possible. It has been claimed that the probability of this selection of permissive parameters is so small as to preclude its occurrence and thus a miracle is required. However this explanation assumes that something is known about the initialization of the processes which determine the nature of a universe and its controlling parameters. Indeed, all we really know is that we have the good fortune to live in a user-friendly universe and little is known about the first 10**-42 seconds.
Similar claims are made about the origin of life on earth; the simplest organism is too complex to be formed by chance. The claim does not recognize the starting point: reproducing inorganic structures, complex organic compounds from comets and electric discharges in methane and ammonia atmospheres. Such a claim also fails to make a proper accounting of the interactions of large and small numbers. Consider that: there are about 100 billion galaxies each having 10 billion planets with lifetimes of 1 billion years. In order to generate one primitive life form requires a probability of about 1 in 1,000 billion, billion years (1 in 10**21). I seriously doubt that such a probability can be refuted by the study of one planet.
Probabilities
The discussions of Natural Selection and its alternative explanations and particularly the origin of primordial life often involves the use of probabilities in a questionable manner confounding the concepts of a priori and a posteriori probabilities. Without further characterization, the term, probability means the a priori probability which is an attribute of a well-defined population in a well described initial scenario making a transition to a well-defined end state. Specifically, it is the fraction of a large random sample of the initial population which is found in the defined end state. This is a property of the population, the initial state and the end state. It is NOT associated with any one individual in the population about to undergo a transformation. The probability of an individual having undergone the defined transition is the a posteriori probability and is either 1 or 0, NOT some fraction in between. While the a priori probability is computed from a tally of the a posteriori probabilities; the value of any single a posteriori probability for a single individual bears almost no relation to the a priori probability .
Stated in these terms, the Anthropic Principle becomes: At least one planet (or solar system) has an a posteriori probability of one proving that the defined event (origin of life) is not prohibited. It says almost nothing about the fraction of the stars that have user-friendly planets. This probability can be said to be of the order greater than 1/n where n is the number of stars; and it happened.
Punctuated Equilibrium is a special case of DE where there are rapid species attribute changes due to rapid changes in environmental stresses and the DE evolutionary changes proceed at a reasonably constant pace. The evidence for DE is the same general nature as that for PE and many of the same comments apply. PE does explain several additional characteristics of the voluminous data.
Although it is not usual to do so, Punctuated Equilibrium may be considered to start at the time of the first replicating chemical structures which are a prelude to living organisms. PE makes no claims as to the origin of replicating structures and the suggestion that an all-powerful deity was involved is a non-PE statement. PE continues up into the present times.
The Random Myth – It cannot be said often enough or loud enough that the process of evolution or natural selection is NOT a random process although some steps within it may be stochastic in nature. Consider a stable, interbreeding population in a stable environment with an established gene pool: The population may range from a few thousand to several million individuals (or more); the genome may consist of a few thousand to several tens of thousands of genes controlling inheritance; each species attribute is under the control of one to ten genes; and there are large numbers of inactive genes. The processes (including gene transfer) which alter a gene or genes are undoubtedly stochastic although some genes are more labile than others. We are concerned only with the effect of the gene alteration on species survivability or its surrogate: gene survival. Alteration of one or a few genes leaves thousands of genes intact and the new organism will be 'survivable' with respect to most of its old attributes. The altered attribute will usually cause an incremental change in the overall survivability of the individual; the most drastic changes are fatal as is evidenced by the known miscarriage rate of 50% in the first two weeks of human pregnancy. If the change in survivability is positive, the individual will experience increased survival and the new gene (and its attribute) will be propagated throughout the population. If the increment is negative, the individual will experience decreased survival and the new gene will be lost to the population. Should the increment be very small, positive or negative, it will have minimal effect on the population and the gene may or may not survive and it may not be uniformly distributed through the population. These propagations are NOT random but are the biased result of the unidirectional stresses of survival and as a result natural selection is NOT a random process..
Given the same stable population, consider the case wherein the environmental survival stresses change (the Punctuated Equilibrium case): The selection process will start to select new survival attributes and their genes or perhaps an inactive gene will become active. In any event the process of further natural selection is NOT random. Furthermore there is no physical requirement that a process comprising stochastic steps must be unbiased. Chemistry is replete with counter examples.
Young Earth Creationism
(YEC)
In Western Civilization (and some of its offshoots), the Young Earth Creationism is the Genesis explanation of the complex world around us. Briefly put, some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago God in six days created the universe (stars, heavens, etc.), the earth, all forms of life including man. The subsequent early history of the planet including the Great Flood is an integral part of the creation explanation as divinely inspired scribes set forth in infallible scriptures. There is no time needed for the evolution of geologic strata or life as they were created by God. The current geology of the earth was the result of the Great Flood which covered the earth including the mountains with subterranean water.
The explanation is faith-based and requires the direct action of a supreme being who has the power to create and to direct any subsequent events. The presence of an all powerful being in the process that has the ability to set aside the laws of nature and implement their own preferences at will raises questions about the predictability and testability of the explanation.
Where YEC differs from
Old Earth Creationism
(OEC)
Old Earth Creationism appears to take at least two forms:
- The Earth was created by the YEC model but it was created "old"; all the geology and all the fossils were created during the first six days except for the Great Flood geology. Just why God deceived man by creating an "old earth" is not explained but it does bring up the question, "If God deceived man once, has he done it again by recreating the earth differently and changing all the scriptures to agree?" If so, how infallible are the scriptures if they describe events that did not happen?
- The Earth was created in six long periods of time and the "days of Genesis" are the days on which God announced what he had done. This allows for evolution of geologic strata and life. The Great Flood is still a major geologic event.
The OEC is dependent on a supreme being the same as the YEC. Many of the YEC comments also apply to OEC.
Creation Science (CE)
Creation Science is based on the reconciliation of the geological evidence for evolution with the events of YEC or OEC and the subsequent Great Flood. This reconciliation raises many questions and the reader is referred to the excellent on-line discussion by Clifford J. Cuffey. He concludes that the abundant geologic evidence does not support a single Great Flood but rather a series of annual or local floods.
Even if the Great Flood had been supported by the geological evidence there would still be the problems of predictability and testability when a Almighty Being is involved, a topic which will be discussed later.
Intelligent
Design (ID)
Intelligent Design is based on the premise that natural random processes alone could not account for the complexities of evolution especially the evolution of life. Therefore, intervention of a powerful but unspecified being, not a deity, was required to produce the more complex evolutionary changes. The model could be applied to any deity-based evolutionary explanation. It is another example of 'God of the Gaps'.
The concept behind ID is not new and was proposed by Rev.
William Paley in 1802 and was specifically rebutted by
The concept of natural laws being abrogated when necessary by a powerful Intelligent Designer raises interesting questions. How do we determine which changes resulted from natural small processes and which resulted from the IDer's intervention? Just what powers does this unspecified being possess? It is obvious that he can make judgments about the future of life and can discern what changes to the natural processes are necessary to accomplish his goals. He also has the power to set aside natural law when he wishes and this alone makes him supernatural. If it were not stipulated that he was not a deity, I would say he at least was God-like. His ability at will to intervene in the natural progression of evolution raises the problems of predictability and testability. It is the unpredictable nature of this entity that makes ID a non-scientific explanation.
Since the intelligent designer is to be invoked for only the most complex evolutionary changes, ID also will be prone to failing the criterion of reproducibility: The decision concerning complexity will be strongly dependent on what the observer knows. For example, an observer, who is familiar with self-replicating, non-living systems as well as the supply of organic molecules from both space and the primal atmosphere through electrical discharge, will be much more likely the assign natural causes to initial life forms whereas an observer unaware of these may well invoke the service of the intelligent designer. Thus observations made under this explanation are really statements of opinion and will tend not be reproducible. This is not the same as the normal differences of opinion that arise early in the development of an explanation for the latter are not inherent in the explanation.
The Essentials
of the Debate
Our purpose is to classify the above explanations as either a) scientific or b) as faith-based. To be classified as scientific, an explanation must meet all of the basic criteria mentioned in the definition of science above. Failure to meet even one these criteria will cause the explanation to fail the scientific classification. To be classified as a faith-based explanation, the explanation needs only to appeal to an all powerful being.
To make the debate as simple as possible, we note that three
of the explanations, Group I (
Opposing Groups in the Origins Debate
|
Criterion |
Group I ( |
Group II (YEC, OEC, CS, and ID) |
|
Predictive |
Yes, many new astronomical observations, especially the CMB, confirm BBT and copious, geological evidence supports PE. The models support computations of new values of variables. |
No, how do mortals predict the arbitrary, future actions of an Almighty Being. Many of the variables are not even mentioned the old or new variations; how can they be predicted? |
|
Testable |
Yes, because it is predictable |
No, because it is not predictive |
|
Mechanistic |
Yes, details of phenomena are explained; detailed analysis demonstrates consistency between component phenomenon |
No. Detailed mechanisms for events that occurred are rare; statements are generally taken on faith. |
|
Valid Data |
Yes, repeated measurements have reduced errors and biases to reasonable values |
No, there is little supporting data and no repeated measurements. |
|
Reproducible |
Yes, many, many observers involved. |
No agreement on interpretation of geologic data in the support of one Great Flood (CS). Co-existence of man and dinosaurs contested. Contain inherent personal opinion |
|
Quantifiable |
Yes, most phenomena characterized by measurable causes and effects. |
No, few quantified variables. |
|
|
|
|
|
Comment |
This explanation is not complete yet it accurately describes many of the known phenomena; new data will cause new additions. The hiatus between relativity and quantum mechanics needs to be removed. |
This explanation is complete in that it is described by divinely inspired authors in infallible scriptures; it is very incomplete in that it explains few or no physical phenomena. Changes in such an explanation give rise to fundamental conceptual problems such as, "Do changes, authored by man, still have divine authority?". The above comments are limited to the characteristics of creationism as a science and have no bearing on is qualifications as a faith-based system. |
The Group I explanations qualify as scientific on all of the characteristics of a science whereas the Group II explanations fail the qualifications on all counts. It is noteworthy that Group II failed on the characteristic of "predictive" and this alone is enough to disqualify it as "scientific". Since Group II members all make reference to an almighty being it seems reasonable to classify them all as "faith-based" or religions. Since faith-based beliefs have different attributes than science, they have different defined areas of application and if their practice there should not be a conflict. The trouble starts only when one system invades the territory of the other and declares: "My beliefs are superior to yours." The correct statement would be: "My beliefs have a different foundation than yours and serve different purposes in different areas". The two systems need not be competitive.
The best explanation of the measurable, physical world is clearly the scientific system and the best explanations of the questions of faith, morality, justice, love, hate and other various human aspirations is undoubtedly the faith-based systems. With more understanding of details, science may better explain the molecular processes active in faith-based systems but the truly abstract nature of subjects of these systems may be beyond science. Certainly at the current time, science is not supplying solutions to the important faith-based problems of this century.
Are
Science-based and Faith-based Beliefs in Conflict?
This question is a little bit like asking, "Who is the best runner, the winner of the 100 meter sprint or the winner of the 26 mile marathon? They are different races which have different rules and test different things. They even use different sources of energy in the body. The answer depends upon personal preference. The question has no meaningful answer independent of whom is asked..
The conflict between science-based and faith-based systems is unnecessary. Science should be conducted and judged under the rules of science and faith-based system should follow their own rules. One can be involved in both as long as one keeps the rules straight. It's a bit like playing chess and checkers at the same time; one must keep the rules straight and a true statement on checker board is not true on the chess board.
What Should Be
Taught in the Public Schools?
Science and morality (as expressed by enacted laws) are both too important to our society to leave them unaddressed in public education. The electorate needs to understand both to make good decisions in a democratic society.
Science should be taught in the public schools including the history of science and the historic progression of scientific thought. The high school graduate should have some understanding of science and how it has contributed to our civilization, what has made it thrive and what has caused its stagnation at times. The BBT, PE and DE should all be taught as the current best explanation of the known data which supports them. The Group II topics should be taught as the history of science showing its progression from ancient beliefs to modern thought. They should not be taught as the current best scientific explanations. Their deficiencies as scientific explanation can be used as counter-examples of the attributes of science. The progression of cosmology from the Sun as a flaming chariot to the BBT can be used as a vehicle for teaching all of these topics placing them in their proper historic perspective.
Creationism in all its forms should be taught in the public schools along with other faith-based concepts, not as science but as a comparison of faith-based systems which form the moral foundation of our multicultural societies. Every effort should be made to create an impartial presentation and to avoid an evangelical atmosphere which is forbidden by the constitution. The parochial teaching of a religion and the efforts of proselytizing are best left to the churches.
Historic Cosmology – The
Progression of a Series of Explanations
It is useful to examine the progression of the explanations of the solar system and universe in order to understand how a concept in science is developed. The table below lists some but not all of the most significant events in the development of the current cosmological explanation.
See http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/index.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/index.html
http://www.levity.com/mavericks/bigbang.htm
The development includes the origin of the universe, its evolution and especially the structure of the solar system as expressed in western culture. The evolution of geologic strata and life has not been included. The dates are approximate and may post-date some of the earliest work. The originator is the name of the person most often associated with the explanation but many people have contributed to the final form of the explanations. Other cultures have alternate explanations especially for the first explanations but the later, modern explanations tend to be global. Many, many other people contributed ideas for improvement and/or data used to confirm the explanation or developed the mathematics so necessary to modern physical theory. The descriptions merely suggest the nature of the explanation.
Progression
of the Explanation for the Origin and Nature of the Universe and Solar System
|
Date |
Originator |
Description of Explanation |
|
2500 BC |
Judaic Genesis |
The Six Day Creation of the Christian Bible is the faith-based result of this model. |
|
350 BC |
Aristotle |
Aristotle's Earth-centered Model was one in which the moon, planets, sun and stars were attached to perfect concentric, spheres rotating around the earth at different constant speeds. It did not explain retrograde (periodically reversed) motion of some of the planets or their varying brightness. Epicycles (small circles rotating on the spheres) were introduced which explained some but not all of the problems. |
|
200 BC |
Aristarchus |
This was the first heliocentric (sun-centered) explanation. It was not accepted because it contradicted Aristotle (and later the Church) which were considered as 'absolute authorities'. This reliance on 'authority' rather than data delayed adoption of this correct concept by 1740 years. Aristotle's unassailable authority was a stumbling block for the progress of science in many areas. |
|
150 AD |
Ptolemy |
The Ptolemaic Model added further epicycles to the Aristotle epicycles; it helped but still could not agree accurately with the data. |
|
1540 AD |
Copernicus |
The Copernicus' Helio-centric Solar System, breaking with the tradition of Aristotle and the Church, was the first permanently adopted model. The earth and planets orbited the sun, the moon orbited the earth, and the earth's daily rotation and yearly revolution about the sun made the stationary sun and stars appear to move. The planets orbits were still perfect circles modified by epicycles albeit fewer of them. Still some discrepancy with the data remained. |
|
1600 AD |
Brahe |
This contributor collected volumes of the most accurate data of the motion of the planets, especially Mars. His suggested explanations were never accepted but the accurate data enabled progress by others. It is an example of good data stimulating good theory. |
|
1610 AD |
Kepler |
Kepler's Laws, based on the Mars data of Tycho Brahe (Kepler's mentor), broke tradition with Aristotle and proposed elliptical, not circular, orbits. Three laws enabling the computation of planet positions were also proposed. This abandoned the long-traditional "perfect spheres" concept of Aristotle as adopted by the Church. |
|
1600 AD |
One of the first to break with Aristotle's physics
introducing major concepts that formed a foundation for |
|
|
1700 AD |
Newton's
Laws of Motion extended Kepler's Laws by suggesting a Central Force acting between the planets and sun,
and generalized the theory to include all forms of motion. It was found not
to apply the very high cosmic velocities and very high cosmic temperatures;
and assumed the velocity of the force of gravity was infinite. It did not
address the quantum effects of very small bodies. Never the less, it was the
mainstay of physical science for 200 years and it still is the mainstay for
the non-relativistic motion of 'large' bodies. |
|
|
1873 AD |
Maxwell |
Electromagnetic
Theory (Maxwell's
Equations) did for the electromagnetic phenomena what |
|
1915 AD |
Einstein |
Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity replaced the Newtonian system by one that
required science to be the same for all observers and to remain rational. Its
concept of space/time did much to explain very dense matter and truly large
bodies. This general theory of relativity gave rise to a much deeper
understanding of natural phenomena and reduced to |
|
1926 AD |
Schrödinger |
Quantum (Wave) Mechanics gave a sound basis for the interaction of photons and matter and provided a probabilistic basis for the behavior of 'small' bodies, e.g., atoms, electrons and photons, and explained atomic spectra. It did not address gravitation. |
|
1948 AD |
Gamow |
The Big Bang Theory attempts to explain the development of the universe from an ultra-dense, ultra-hot, ultra-small, ultra-dense particle of mass/energy; the resulting matter is described by many of the modern explanations listed here. (more) |
|
1970 AD |
Many |
The Standard Model is an explanation of the fundamental particles and forces which affect the nuclei and atomic structure but not gravity. It is the current, comprehensive, best explanation of modern high energy physics. |
|
1970 AD |
Many |
String Theory is a new explanation for modern physics which includes gravity but has not yet been shown to agree with the available data. It is intended to address all known forces including gravity. It is not yet proven but some researchers are optimistic. |
|
1995 AD |
Many |
Membrane Theory is a new explanation for modern physics which includes gravity but has not yet been shown to agree with the available data. This is still far out. |
The above progression demonstrates many of the attributes of the long-term scientific process and how it has evolved:
- The long-term change of emphasis from creation to the understanding of matter as well as its origin.
- The dependence of the newer hypothesis on a proceeding hypothesis.
- The mutual stimulation between the accurate measurement of observations and better hypotheses.
- The inhibiting effects of both authoritative individuals and institutions.
- The increasing dependence of physical theory on increasingly advanced mathematics.
- The increasing integration of the several fields of physics into a comprehensive explanation.
- The growing sophistication of the process of theory development and verification.
- The growing accuracy with which fundamental parameters can be determined.
- The ever-growing operational gulf between faith-based and data based systems.
- How invariant the goal of science has been; to better explain the observations.
Conclusions
One can draw many conclusions from a review of the long debate over the origins and explanation of the universe.
The two groups:
- Do not share a common basis, do compete and the
debate should go on.
This seems the most likely outcome as man appears to be unremittingly confrontational and rancorous. This is not a proper justification to continue the status quo. - Do not share a common basis, do not compete, the
debate is senseless and should end.
I.e., "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." This compromise position has been adopted by several religious organizations, notably, the Roman Catholic Church. This allows both sides to respect the other and even allows a person to accept both views as valid. More importantly, it allows two very positive aspects of humanity to co-exist with mutual respect and to re-enforce each other. - Do compete and somehow, someone must decide what
constitutes their common basis.
This is not easy. If science acquires new, conflicting data, by its rules it must change its explanation; if faith-based explanations find new, contradicting information, it must renounce its authority, ignore the data, or misinterpret it. If science is to yield to authority then, it is no longer data-based; if faith-based explanations yield to data they are no longer faith-based. If either side adopts the operational rules of the other then the yielding side ceases to exist. If the groups were to agree to merge and adopt common operational procedures, who would adjudicate them? Science and faith-based activities are both international. Who would decide which of the many, many faith-based creations is the correct one to use? - Do compete and faith-based presses its claim to be a
science, i.e., Creation Science, Intelligent Design.
Science (data-based explanations) has established a very long and amazing record of predicting new observations for both previously known and unknown phenomena. Science and engineering are an integrated effort which unites under one roof all of the biological and physical sciences and has established literally millions of predicted and verified data values. The errors in many of the predicted parameters can be accounted for by experimental error. The probability of the established explanations being falsified (except in known regions of their parameters) is vanishingly small. It is not at all clear how even best of the faith-based explanations (Group II) can make this type of prediction (e.g., advance of the perihelion of Mercury, bending of light by the Sun's gravity, CMB predictions, etc.) with such accuracy. Until the creationist's predictions are better than the predictions of Science then the better explanation is the scientific one.
Additional Reading & Links:
Dedicated issue, Darwin & Evolution, Natural History, Vol. 114, No. 9, November 2005 (Wide coverage)
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/ – Click: Special Report; Go to Articles; Etc.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ - Click: Understanding Evolution/Attention Teachers/Relevance of Evolution; Etc.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ - Click: Evolution Libraries; Etc.
www.nationalacademies.org/evolution - Click: Many eclectic sources
http://www.talkdesign.com/ – Click: Evolution; Intelligent Design (Some Gems buried in Ads)