This post is the second in a series introducing the logical and intellectual foundation for creationism. To read the first post, click here. This series will be followed by another introducing the biblical foundation for creationism. Lastly, there will be a third series comparing creationism theories with what we observe in our universe. This will form a complete case for biblical creationism.
Let’s begin by conducting a thought exercise from one of my favorite books:
As you read this [post], try to stand apart from yourself. Try to project your consciousness upward
into a corner of the room and see yourself, in your mind’s eye, reading. Can you look at yourself
almost as though you were someone else?Now try something else. Think about the mood you are now in. Can you identify it? What are
you feeling? How would you describe your present mental state?Now think for a minute about how your mind is working. Is it quick and alert? Do you sense that
you are torn between doing this mental exercise and evaluating the point to be made out of it?Your ability to do what you just did is uniquely human. Animals do not possess this ability. We call it “self-awareness” or the ability to think about your very thought process. This is the reason why man has dominion over all things in the world and why he can make significant advances from generation to generation.[ref]Stephen Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, pg. 31.[/ref]
The above quote is from Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Covey’s work is one of the best-selling business and relationship books of all-time. Here he points out how humans can take a step back and examine how they think about things. A dog or any other animal can’t conduct this sort of self-examination. In this post we will look at how worldviews exist and how they influence our thoughts and conclusions. In the next post we will “take the step back” and examine and compare the two main worldviews in the Western world: naturalism and biblicism.
The term Covey uses for worldview is “paradigm.” He says a paradigm is “the way we ‘see’ the world – not in terms of our visual sense of sight, but in terms of perceiving, understanding, and interpreting,” and that paradigm’s “create the lens through which we see the world.”[ref]Covey, pg. 15.[/ref] Basically, everyone has a set of assumptions and values which influence their thoughts and interpretations. Nobody is without bias – especially scientists. In fact, the term “paradigm-shift” was coined in Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and in this book Kuhn shows how every major scientific breakthrough began with a shift in thinking.[ref]Covey, pg. 13.[/ref]
Part of what comprises a worldview are the realities which are simply assumed to be true. Every single logic system has an “assumption set” it is built upon. These assumptions are called postulates. Postulate is defined as “to suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of something as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.”[ref]https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+postulate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&safe=active.[/ref] Do you see the truth inside the definition? In order to begin reasoning, some things must first be assumed. These assumptions form the foundation upon which the reasoning builds.
This is even true for modern mathematics. In high level math, there are 10 “axioms.” Axiom is simply the word mathematicians use for postulate. These axioms are not without controversy! The “Axiom of Choice” is believed by some mathematicians to be too powerful to be assumed as true. Why? Because so much of math relies on it. Without the “Axiom of Choice”, a large chunk of modern mathematics can no longer be proven as true. There is a faction of mathematicians who conduct math without assuming the “Axiom of Choice,” and they cannot prove near as much.
Here are three truths which can be gleaned from the example of mathematics:
- All schools of thought have a set of assumptions as their foundation.
- Because these assumptions by their very nature cannot be proven, there is rarely universal consent regarding them.
- Even with something which is believed to be as grounded in reality as math is, nothing can ever really be proven. Instead, everything which is proven is only proven if the assumptions underneath it are true.
Now a change in thinking has different ramifications for observable and philosophical (historical) science. In observable science, a paradigm shift (which could also be called a worldview change/adjustment) may enable a scientist to devise a new hypothesis. He can then proceed to test this hypothesis in a laboratory experiment, and other scientists can repeat this experiment to validate his results. Once a group of experiments consistently confirm the hypothesis, it may be regarded as a theory within the scientific community. The large body of experimental (and repeatable and verifiable) evidence gives the hypothesis weight. And in this way, the experiments serve to validate or invalidate the paradigm shift which the scientist had.
The consequences and ability to verify paradigm shifts are much different in philosophical science. Before I explain this, let us return to the quote from Curnoe the Australian paleoanthropologist shared in part 1 of this series:
Nobody looks at a fossil with a completely open mind. I suppose to some extent also we see what we think. So, you come to a fossil and you have an idea about the way you think human evolution worked, and the first thing you do is try and fit that fossil into your worldview.[ref]Curnoe, D., Xueping, J., et al, Human Remains from the Pleistocene-Halocene Transition of Southwest China Suggest a Complex Evolutionary History for East Asians. Public Library of Science One, March 14, 2012; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031918. See also http://creation.com/enigma-man.[/ref]
Curnoe is admitting how his worldview – in his case his views on how evolution worked – influences the deductions he makes while studying fossils. He attempts to see how these fossils fit into the belief system he already holds. Therefore, it is logical to conclude if his worldview changed, then his findings from the fossils would change as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Humans are all biased and impacted in this way. But here’s the issue in regards to philosophical science: we cannot conduct a repeatable experiment in order to validate or invalidate a paradigm shift. Yes, scientists can look at other observations and point out findings which suggest otherwise, but the ability to evaluate the paradigm shift with the same level of strength is not possible.
Are you unconvinced worldviews impact philosophical science to a high degree? Allow me to present an ironclad example.
The cosmological principle is the set of three primary assumptions underlying the big bang theory. It is unproven and unprovable. It is simply assumed to be true. The cosmological principle consists of these three assumptions:
- The universe is homogeneous (it looks the same no matter where it is viewed from).
- The universe is isotropic (it looks the same no matter which direction one looks).
- The laws of physics are everywhere the same.[ref]http://creation.com/the-heavens-declare-a-different-story.[/ref]
Now, are these assumptions reasonable? Are they picked because they seem to be the most reasonable postulates to assume? NO! Not at all, and Richard Feynman, nobel-prize winning scientist, admits this himself:
I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas. … It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary … To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.[ref]Feynman, R.P., Morinigo, F.B. and Wagner, W.G., Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, Penguin Books, London, 1999.[/ref]
The implications of this quote are staggering. Here we have the most renown American physicist of all-time admit the assumptions driving the big bang have nothing to do with observable evidence and everything to do with the worldview held by mainstream scientists.
As mentioned before, the worldview held by evolutionary scientists is called naturalism. The primary assumption of naturalism is that nothing exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy (anything outside of this, e.g. spirits, souls, or anything divine, is referred to as “supernatural” which means “beyond natural”). Therefore, within naturalism, there is no God. In addition, this must mean our universe and earth were not created by God. The last result is our planet must not be anything “special” (because it is the result of a random chain of reactions versus being specially created by a God). Feynman admits this as saying they have stated how “ordinary” our planet, star, and galaxy are. Our “ordinary” status is not the result of scientific evidence. It simply must be assumed to avoid embarrassing and damaging the worldview and teachings of mainstream scientists.
Here’s the kicker: not only are the uniformity assumptions only held to support the worldview beneath them, they are held despite evidence to the contrary. For example, the universe is NOT isotropic in regards to distribution of galaxies. Instead, superclusters of galaxies viewed from earth form spiral structures.[ref]http://creation.com/the-heavens-declare-a-different-story.[/ref] In a truly isotropic universe, the distribution of superclusters of galaxies would be random and not conformed to any structural pattern. This is one of the many observations which contradict the alleged isotropic and homogeneous nature of our universe.
In summary:
- Evolutionary science is built upon the worldview of naturalism.
- The assumption set of naturalism says nothing exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
- It follows that our universe was not created by a God (who is by definition outside of the matter, space, time, and energy of our universe).
- This means our planet was not specially created, but the product of a random sequence of events.
- Therefore, the placement of our planet within the universe cannot be “extraordinary” (because this is statistically improbable if our creation was the result of random events).
- The observations from our planet look like observations from a place near the center of the universe (I am not arguing for a geocentric universe – creationists do not believe everything revolves around the earth).
- The assumptions of uniformity “assume away” the “special” location of the earth by stating the universe would look this way from any location.
- These assumptions are held despite observations directly contradicting the isotropic nature of the universe.
- These assumptions are required for the big bang models to work.
- Therefore, the big bang model requires assumptions which fly in the face of the evidence. It is held onto by mainstream scientists not because it is the best explanation of what we can observe, but simply because it is an explanation which works based on the assumptions of the naturalistic worldview.
This is evolutionary philosophical science in a nutshell. Much of it is not driven by evidence but instead driven by assumptions. The same is true for creation science as well, however. Both fields must rely on assumptions because they are not the same type of intellectual study as observable science is. In observable science, the bias of parties is largely destroyed by the unbiased, observable, and repeatable experiments. But in philosophical science (whether conducted from a naturalistic or biblical perspective), the theories are not driven by experiments. Instead, they are driven by logical deductions from the evidence. Logical reasoning, as we saw earlier, always starts with assumed truths. If the assumed truths change, then the deductions change.
This is why it is wrong to say creation science is not science. Creation science and evolutionary science are both forms of philosophical science. The difference which leads to all other differences is found in the worldviews and assumptions which lay underneath the two. In evolutionary science, philosophical science is conducted assuming naturalism (and often assuming evolution) is true. In creation science, philosophical science is conducted assuming the Christian Bible is true. Both sides are extremely biased! The question is, which bias is more reasonable to hold? The first step to deciding which form of philosophical science is superior is to examine the assumptions which form their foundation. The secondary step is to examine their deductions in light of what we can observe.
In our next post, we will take the first step. Based on what we can observe in the universe, we will see whether belief in the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural is more reasonable.