For a concise description of the scientific method, see Excerpts from "The Victory of Reason."
| General Ken | ||||
| You want to talk about what science knows about God? Darwin settled that. Evolution proved that God does not exist. | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Where would you like to start? Why the scientific method cannot even address the existence of God, or what the theory of evolution does, or does not, tell us about God? | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| Let’s start with evolution. And don’t call it a theory. It is a fact! | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Why do you want to demote it? In science, there are a great many facts, and far fewer theories. Facts are things observed about nature. We construct theories to explain how the facts fit together into the laws governing nature. | ||||
| As new facts become available, we may confirm a theory. Or disprove it. Sometimes we propose a new theory. Sometimes we try to fix a problem in an existing theory. | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| Evolution is a proven fact. Why do you keep calling it a theory? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| No, there isn’t any evidence that proves the theory of evolution. Actually, there isn’t any evidence that proves any scientific theory. If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part. It seems to be the best explanation of how a species can develop new traits, and how those traits can spread through a population. But that doesn’t prove the theory. | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| What about all of the things in the fossils? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| All of those fossils are just some of the facts that the theory of evolution seeks to explain and fit together. But like all scientific theories, there may be other explanations for those facts. Scientists might say they have confirmation of a theory. But they won’t say they have proven a theory. They remember Newton’s laws of motion. | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| What about Newton’s laws? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Newton’s laws of motion were a great advance. And for a little over 200 years most observations seemed to confirm those laws. Then Albert Einstein published his theory of relativity. It modified Newton’s laws of motion. The theory of relativity extended the laws of motion. But the new theory did not refute Newton’s laws. Newton’s laws work reasonably accurately for most of the motion that we can easily observe. But not for really large objects, really small objects, or really fast-moving objects. For those, it turns out we need Einstein’s theory. | ||||
| We may have the same thing happen to evolution. We may still find some improvements to the theory of evolution. | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| But that doesn’t mean the theory, as is, isn’t true. And it still shows that God isn’t necessary for humans to have evolved. | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| The fossils show different species. DNA analysis supports the theory of evolution. But that does not prove the theory. | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| What other explanation is there? Do you think that God created all those species? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Science won’t consider any theory that supposes an action by God. | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| Doesn’t that prove evolution? If there is no evidence for God having created all those species? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Science doesn’t work that way. Lack of evidence does not confirm any theory. To support a theory, science wants to make predictions using the theory. Then we conduct repeatable experiments. If the results match the theory’s predictions, that supports the theory. | ||||
| Matthias | ||||
| But why won’t science consider anything that includes action by God? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Now we are getting into the other issue. | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| Which was? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Why science cannot even address the existence of God. | ||||
| God is not bound by the laws that control the natural world. Science studies those laws. So God won’t fit into any scientific theories. Because scientists can’t predict God’s actions, they can’t create a repeatable experiment involving God. | ||||
| Matthias | ||||
| I agree that God isn’t bound by the laws controlling the natural world, but why is that important? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| The scientific method helps us learn about the laws of nature. Using it, we have learned a lot about the laws of nature. But the method has limits. It can only cover things that bound by the laws of nature. The laws of physics, biology, chemistry, and so on. | ||||
| Matthias | ||||
| What about the "repeatable experiments?" What are they? And why are they important? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Anyone can develop a theory of how some part of nature works. Scientists evaluate each theory by using it to make predictions. What would result if you took some action? Then they take that action and compare what does happen to what they predicted. | ||||
| A theory that can’t predict what will happen is useless. Theories that do predict what will happen are useful. Those theories get further study. And more experiments. | ||||
| Matthias | ||||
| And why the "repeatable" part of that? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Scientists are wary of what anyone says about what happened or didn’t happen. And that "anyone" includes other scientists. Any one scientist might conduct an experiment. He publishes the design of his experiment and the results. Others repeat the experiment. They might find flaws in the experiment’s design. They might get different results. If necessary, they will improve the design, and share their design and results. | ||||
| They want to know if a well-designed experiment gets consistent results. Once they have a well-designed experiment then multiple scientists run it. They should all get the same results. If the results match theory’s predictions, they will begin to accept the theory. Or modify the theory. If the results don’t match, they may reject the theory. | ||||
| Matthias | ||||
| Are scientists really that skeptical of other scientists? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Yes. Richard Feynman said that "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." | ||||
| Matthias | ||||
| How does that rule out science having any theory that includes God? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| God has the power to suspend the laws that govern the natural world. God will do that when it suits His purposes. Therefore it is impossible to have a theory about when and how He will do that. So God does not fit into any scientific theory about nature. | ||||
| God can and will do what He wants. We can’t design a repeatable experiment that counts on God performing on our command each time we run the experiment. | ||||
| That rules out both parts of the scientific method. | ||||
| General Ken | ||||
| So we can have the theory of evolution and still have God? | ||||
| Filius X. Publius | ||||
| Yes, but I would say it differently. Evolution is currently our best theory of how genetic mutations spread through gene pools. It does not conflict in any way with the existence and power of God. | ||||
Do you disagree? Do the arguments presented support the conclusions? Are there any errors? Do you have any counter arguments? Please post your comments, arguments and corrections here.
All comments submitted will be considered to be in the public domain.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.