Natusaurus

Natural History in Science and Religion

The pastor was debunked?

Oct 7

Posted by Jonathan in Faith and Religion, Science and Religion | No Comments

Atheist videoblogger Qdragon1337 has made a video about an article by a local pastor. It’s an evangelistic piece of propaganda – the article that is! – and Q-Dragon makes short work of it. Specifically, by means of ‘old-fashioned debunking’, in his own words.

The word ‘debunking’ always reminds me of Stephen Jay Gould, who really made a career out of it. Gould was not just a palaeontologist, he was excellent at tracing historical roots of ideas and confronting modern conceptions with original documents as well. Gouldian debunking meant: showing that history isn’t quite what it used to be and shaking up what we thought we knew about nature, history and any conceivable combination of those two words.

What does Q-Dragon do when he debunks? The young man (1993) is quite brilliant, and naturally applies his knowledge about physics and the universe. By his own admission, however, Q-Dragon does not read books about philosophy, and that turns out to be a problem here. The pastor’s article makes a clear statement in terms of the philosophy of religion, but Q-Dragon does not recognize this. It follows he doesn’t debunk that part either.

Pastor Rob Daley wrote a small op-ed piece titled ‘Universe proves existence of God’. Note the way this title is phrased with a purpose typical for evangelicals: it’s not the universe proving the existence of God, no, this is phrased like a front page headline. Stop press! ‘Hey,’ readers are likely to think, ‘this is big news.’ Daley wants to activate his readers from the beginning.

What follows is a typical statement of natural theology, or the idea that the existence of God can be derived from nature itself. One might think Daley is a creationist, because the website of his church flatly states those connected to it believe ‘the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God and…final authority in all matters of faith and practice.’ The article, interestingly enough, suggests he at least interprets doctrine with at the very least some flexibility in the light of modern science: ‘Scientists are convinced that our universe began with an enormous explosion of energy and light.’ Er…well, sort of. This is like comparing atoms to very small spheres and thinking that turning off the hot water three seconds earlier will lessen global warming a tiny bit. Rather than being blatantly false, it is a lay person’s way of interpreting and describing science. Point is: he is describing, with limited science education, science itself and certainly not creationism.

It’s an observation Q-Dragon fails to make. Rather, he focuses on Daley’s following point: that this must have been caused by a God, because there’s no other credible explanation. Justifiably, Q-Dragon points out that a current lack of an explanation for any phenomena does not mean it must have been miraculously caused by God. But that argument goes both ways – by the same token, a scientific explanation for any phenomenon does not mean it is outside the influence of God. Who knows? What Daley is actually saying is only that the explanation must be a creator God, he doesn’t specify where this God’s influence begins or ends, how God went about His business, nor how His influence can be recognized. It is possible to understand how events took place and still attribute them to God. Religious persons do this all the time. Given the fact that Daley seems to have some conception of the Big Bang and a faith that probably won’t be shaken by new discoveries, it seems likely he will maintain that God influenced Creation no matter what scientists discover.

Q-Dragon claims there are good hypotheses for the origin of the Big Bang. A typical creationist will dismiss them, listen to them and then justify his predetermined dismissal. Daley will probably listen to them, misunderstand them and then accept or dismiss them within his knowledge about physics. Pretty much like the average lay person does, really.

So Q-Dragon debunks less here than he perhaps believes. However, Daley does make a mistake when he uses the term ‘proof’. Does he really believe there is such a thing as proof in theology? I wouldn’t be so sure there is. If so, it is likely not to be the same kind of proof that is accepted in science. Q-Dragon understandably interprets proof in scientific terms, because proving has become connected to measurable and testable things. In other words: science. When Daley talks about proof, he means that which is the most convincing matter of faith. The ‘complexity and design’ of the earth ‘argue persuasively’ for God, which is different from logically proving He exists. What the pastor does is not solving an unknown in an equation, it’s preaching.

Daley makes a more interesting point when he talks about the laws of nature being uniform and reliable. This touches on the basic assumptions of science. According to Daley, the fact that science works at all is because of God. Again, the term ‘proof’ is out of place here, but this does remind of the basic Christian premise of exoteric monotheism – the idea that God exists outside of humanity and is a singular being. This kind of faith is very helpful to science, at the centre of which is the idea that nature forms one system that behaves in a consistent way. If Christians can accept that through religion, I’m all for it, and it is what Daley argues.

Feynman, the atheist who is quoted by Daley, was right: the fact that there are laws that can be derived by observation and the logic of our limited minds seems miraculous. I can completely understand why a christian would consider it nothing short of divine. Atheists should accept that such a belief does not at all prohibit any scientific theory, even if they don’t share it.

So Daley’s letter to the newspaper is not a creationist text, and it seems likely he isn’t a creationist either. Reading this text, he is carefully arguing for his audience to accept what science comes up with and have faith in Jesus. Why the latter? Well, because it’s Jesus, that’s why! Notice how the last sentence of the article – ‘through faith in Jesus we come personally to know the God of the universe’ – actually contradicts the title, in a fashion. If you have come to know God through Jesus, why would you need proof from nature? (Some theologians, like the influential Karlt Barth, answered: you don’t).

Treating religious teachings itself as the source of faith is regarded as a weakness by Q-Dragon, but really, isn’t that what we, atheists, believe to be the case? I don’t think Christians study rocks, planets, animals, oceans and the behaviour of gamma particles, only to conclude ‘hey, 2000 years ago there was a man crucified and he was the Messiah!’. No, we think people become Christians because of a tradition, and we think this was a historical development. Which fits perfectly with a Christian claiming he has faith in Jesus because the bible says so. Again, it is not a logical proof and this is where Daley should consider himself debunked, but at the same time he does admit himself that it’s mostly about what is considered most convincing.

So to conclude, I’m rather disappointed Q-Dragon did not look a bit more carefully at the text; it is not a typical creationist rant. Atheists should be aware of the group of Christian philosophers and theologians who on the one hand claim their faith is rational and defensible, yet at the same time accept modern science. Debating such people is not the same as debunking creationist drivel. On the one hand, we owe it ourselves to step up for atheism because that’s what we think is true, but on the other hand, science benefits the most by being an open process where all religions can participate and when it is understood by the largest amount of people.

Proposing a Scale

Oct 3

Posted by Jonathan in Creationism | No Comments

Yesterday, the unthinkable happened in my home: a mouse actually walked into one of my mousetraps. Usually, the little buggers are far too clever to wander into one, making the remarkably powerful contraptions mostly a danger to me, but this one had gotten careless and blundered straight into it on one of his usual routes. By the looks of it, it was a very quick affair, the metal coming down on his neck in a fraction of a second.

Mousetraps remind me of Michael Behe, even though I never read his book (I’m rather lazy when creationist books are concerned – there never seems to be a shortage of believers willing to summarize them). Behe argued that a mousetrap is an example of an irreducibly complex system. Now, the phrase ‘irreducible complexity’ is commonly found among creationists in different contexts, but Behe is actually quite clear on what he means with it: it’s a system consisting of multiple parts working together for a function where, if one of the parts is removed, the whole system no longer functions. A mousetrap no longer works if you take away one of its parts. Evolution, Behe argues, would require that all parts came together in a single variation-producing event. The odds of a mousetrap just coming into existence from loose parts is negligible. Therefore, it must have been designed. Extending this analogy to biological systems that fit the definition of irreducible complexity is supposed to lead to the conclusion that life itself has also been designed.

Behe is of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, that much is clear. His arguments have been refuted extensively, but still it must be said: I am rather grateful that Michael Behe exists. Really, I am.

He is a scientist, but also a opinion-producer looking for a podium, and as such frequently debates other scientists. This has had an interesting effect on Behe. He has been forced to outline his position rather precisely, for example in an essay called Irreducible Complexity – Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution. In it, he makes clear that according to him, only irreducibly complex systems are an indication of a designer, the rest has evolved. Since the definition of an irreducibly complex system is rather exacting, this means that Behe effectively accepts the majority of evolutionary theory. He does not object to common descent, nor the age of the earth. By defining his position, Behe has shown himself to be only half a creationist, perhaps even less. The good thing about that is that many lay followers of Behe follow his line of reasoning without questioning. Showing where that leads can be a powerful argument.

I would propose a scale for creationism, with normal science at the far left and people like Kent Hovind on the extreme right. On such a scale, Behe would fall somewhere in between the middle and the far left, normal science.

It’s an interesting thought to see where creationists or near-creationists would be positioned on the scale. Closer to normal science, but still with some slight distance, would be Arie van den Beukel, a Dutch author who wrote that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was created because not enough transitional fossils had been found. Squarely in the middle I would put people like Stephen Meyer and William Dembski. To their right come the Old Earth Creationists, the OECs (of whom I cannot name any examples) and the Young Earth Creationists (YECs) who can produce science of they want to, like Andrew Snelling. Beyond that we enter the realm of completely uncontrolled fantasy, with Ray Comfort and eventually Kent Hovind.

My prediction is that any attempt by creationists to enter the realm of serious scientific debate will cause their arguments to move to the left on such a scale. They have to be able to apply scientific methods, define their positions and participate in scientific communication, if not perform actual research. The Dutch Intelligent Design movement, formerly spearheaded by Cees Dekker, is an example of such a retreating creationist paradigm. I will describe it more thoroughly in a later blog, but will point out that Dekker no longer supports ID. This makes him one example of creationism disappearing through scientific debate. Michael Behe presents another example, taking a place on a different area of the scale but definitely showing the same directional trend.

Yes, I’m quite grateful Behe exists. That is, if only I had someone to be grateful towards.

Twice wrong?

Sep 15

Posted by Jonathan in Education, Geology | No Comments

Floating versus pulling and pushing

My first-year textbook on geology contained a picture on convection currents and plate tectonics, something like this:

Convection in de deep earth

Convection in the deep earth

The teacher, otherwise quite enthusiastic about the book, sighed deeply before he started talking about the picture. “This and similar images,” he said, “are well-meant but flawed. There is a fundamental misunderstanding about plate tectonics contained within them.”

He explained. Lithospheric plates move because of convection currents, so much is correct. However, a common mistake apparently made in these pictures is that they make it look like the fluid movement of the asthenosphere drives the movements of the plates floating on it. This is not true, because the plates themselves are part of the convection current. They move because of two mechanisms: ridge-push and slab-pull, the first being the pushing force created by new material created at the mid-oceanic ridges and the second being the pulling force created by a cool slab sinking back into the asthenosphere. In terms of the picture, the arrows should go right through the plates, rather than under them. More than froth on the fluid asthenosphere, the oceanic lithosphere plates are like the upper part of a conveyor belt.

A hot pan

To illustrate the principle of a convection current, a cross-sectional picture of a saucepan with boiling water was given in the textbook. It looked similar to this:

Forced convection in a saucepan

Forced convection in a saucepan

This seemed to irritate my teacher less. It looks like a simple illustration of how a convection current works. No problem, until I noticed something odd when I was making some vegetable stock. The herbs and froth were flowing towards the middle of the boiling water, rather than from the center to the edge of the pan, as the diagram would predict. In fact, they always did in my kitchen, regardless of the size of the pan or the flame beneath it. So were the authors of the textbook guilty of putting two differently flawed pictures right next to each other? In one of the first chapters of a basic introduction?

What is disregarded in the picture, I think, is that the sides of a pan become hotter than the water, which stays 100o C. So the water is heated from the sides and the bottom, and can only cool down at the top. This would cause water at the sides to go up, leaving the water in the center with nowhere to go but down. The resulting convection is opposite to the picture, which is therefore wrong. It has nothing to do with plate motion, giving the impression that the textbook got two things wrong in short succession.

A textbook exemplar

The pan of boiling water is a typical ‘exemplar’, a textbook case illustrating a scientific theory. It’s copied and re-used again and again – apparently without testing it. The examples of convection experiments I found on youtube were either ambiguous or showed a current going up along the sides of the container used:

This seemed like a solved case to me, until I cooked water in a thin-walled pan at a windy campsite. The boiling water promptly behaved as the classic diagrams, partially saving at least one of the pictures in my geology textbook. So the direction of convection currents is perhaps not easy to predict. The exemplar is partially wrong in that it does not really describe the everyday situation. I’ve been thinking about the factors influencing it, but regardless of the correct model, it seems odd that only one current direction is ever illustrated. Perhaps creation of convection models and cooking are done by different people?

Not Real Water

Sep 13

Posted by Jonathan in Education | No Comments

Dutch broadcasting organization the Evangelische Omroep (EO) has a science program aimed at young people. A non-fact, but when you consider that the EO is completely evangelical, one cannot help but wonder how the evolution issue will be presented. The short but clear answer is: it won’t be presented at all: the program is about empirical testing of everyday experiences, not speciation and adaptation. The EO gained infamy for editing evolution out of BBC documentaries. Representing many Dutch biblical literalists, it is unlikely the organization will publicly denounce creationism, flood geology or intelligent design and thus embrace modern science. But anything that promotes good science automatically promotes evolution, right?

Checkpoint is a program where, in a general sense, questions are asked and a team of teenagers perform tests to answer the questions. The formula is reminiscent of programs like Brainiac, Mythbusters, and even a bit of Jackass. A recurring theme is a boys vs. girls contest, where a boy and girl try their hand at a series of tasks centered around a general skill. The skill ‘multitasking’ was a decisive victory for the boys, winning 4-0.

The word ‘science’ never comes up in Checkpoint, even though the program is a rudimentary example of empirical research. It is this element that makes the program interesting, however. A good example is the question ‘Is it possible to walk on water?’, tackled on th 18th of july. Good question, especially for an evangelical. First attempt was by attaching floaters to a boy’s feet. He needed two big, unwieldy Styrofoam blocks to stay upright. The second method was less obvious. By mixing large amounts of cornstarch to water until the mixture was saturated, they could quickly walk over the opaque white sludge without sinking. Applying slow or constant pressure on the mixture causes it to behave like a fluid, hitting it quickly with a hammer or the sole of a foot causes it to behave like a solid. A lot of exclamations in the vein of “Hey, that’s cool!” later, one is tempted to believe the audience has learned something about nature. “So that’s how you can walk on water!” the presenter said. Some doubt crept into his last words, so he quickly added: “But this is not real water, ofcourse.” Don’t worry, we get the picture.

Specifically in this example, the viewer learns to appreciate how different rates of pressure applied to a substance leads to different effects. This is a central concept of structural geology. But more generally speaking, teaching kids to explore questions in an empirical manner, rather than relying on a predetermined authority is good practice in combating creationism. We need that, especially from evangelical circles.

The EO is struggling with evolution. Its director, Andries Knevel, recently made it publicly known that he accepts the theory. This led to an outrage among the EO’s members; like all Dutch Omroepen, the organization is semi-governmental and supposed to represent a significant part of the population, which is justified by having a good number of members who show allegiance to the Omroep’s principles. Those members are generally not yet ready for evolution, while an unknown but significant part of the employees are. Checkpoint is a sign that there is a careful but sensible movement towards proper science education in these circles.