Dear Ken, Thanks for your note. I appreciate your respect …

Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by Paul Giem.

Dear Ken,

Thanks for your note. I appreciate your respect for those who don’t believe as you do, and even your willingness to learn.

I agree with you that Sean needs to be a strong personality to do what he needs to do. It is much more difficult to swim against the current than with it. I encourage him in this endeavor; indeed, as i think he would tell you, I am one of his fellow swimmers. All i was doing was asking him to be careful with his criticism of people in the GRI.

My own personal view is that the theory of evolution has serious weaknesses, but that these are hard to see if one starts with an evolutionary perspective. For this reason I don’t usually use the theory itself as my first target when arguing against naturalism. The origin of life itself is much more obvious as a target. We know that intelligence can produce long strings of DNA, long enough, complex enough, and specified enough, that they can serve as the data repository for cells. We know of no natural process (meaning a process not involving intelligence) that can create such long strings of DNA. Therefore ID seems like a slam dunk for the origin of life.

If there is such an intelligence, then when it comes to creating entirely new enzymes, entirely new body plans, etc., the question then becomes, why should we believe that unguided processes must have created such things, when there is an intelligence that has intervened at least once? Why should we believe that there is a step-by-step process that produced the new enzyme or regulatory protein, or in some cases the whole suite of proteins, when we cannot find such a pathway and we know there reasonably must have been an intelligent designer who could have done it? Why should we believe excuses about the lack of hard body parts to fossilize (especially when ediacaran fossils without hard body parts fossilized well enough) to show intermediate steps to trilobites, starfish, hallucinogenia, or chordates? The just-so stories will only work when we know that intelligence was not around to help the process along.

On the issue of the young age of life, I agree with you that reproducible (i. e., scientific) empirical evidence is important, particularly if Adventism is to be an evangelistic, as opposed to merely a protective, faith. That is one reason why I wrote my book Scientific Theology (available on the web for free at http://www.scientifictheology.com ), as well as two articles in Origins on carbon-14 dating, which called for further experimentation, some of which has been done and which backs up my hypothesis (which then becomes a theory?). You may want to look into those resources.

But again, I appreciate your graciousness. Hopefully we can all learn something from the subject and maybe even wind up someday in substantial agreement.

Paul Giem Also Commented

La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Sean,

I, like you, disagree with what appeared to be Professor Kent’s picture (but apparently is not), where we have evidence for the general reliability of the Bible, but no extrabiblical, and particularly no scientific, evidence for the reliability of Genesis 1=11. A couple of points might be helpful.

As I’m sure you’re aware, we don’t have extrabiblical evidence for a six-day creation, or for the length of time between creation and the Flood. We do have some evidence regarding how long ago the Flood was, and it can be reasonably dated to no more than 3,500 years ago by Mesopotamian records. (There are arguments for putting it around 2300 to 2500 BC, but they are long, involved, and not well-developed yet. And they are not necessary for the historicity of Genesis 1-11 to be accepted. So, although it is an area of interest for me, I do not put this to the fore in a discussion.)

In discussing with people like Prof., it is important to understand their terminology; otherwise we can spend too much time talking past each other. You and I do not see a bright line between science and the rest of life, and we have the support of most philosophers of science. On the other hand, many scientists, partly from ignorance of philosophy and partly from a desire to see their profession as somehow better than others, believe that there is such a bright line; that scientists are somehow fundamentally different from and better than everyone else. When we discuss issues such as scientific evidences for creation, it is worth our while to find out what they mean by “scientific”. Even if we choose not to use their terminology, it is worthwhile understanding it so as not to talk past each other. If we do choose to use their terminology, we have to carefully explain where we differ with some of the assumptions they make when using it.

More importantly, scientific knowledge is not vital to either salvation or to our confidence in scripture, or our hope. It only becomes important if science is apparently raising challenges to the historicity of the Genesis account. One can believe the creation account was historical (and all the Christians on record before about the 18th century did except Origen and Augustine) without any recourse to modern science. Thus a position that “I believe in a recent 6-day creation and a worldwide Flood but have no scientific evidence to back it up” would have been appropriate for everyone before the 1700’s, and is reasonable for scientifically uninformed people today.

It only becomes a serious problem when science seems to say that long ages for life on earth preclude the Genesis account from being historical, and when people such as PhD’s and MD’s cannot ignore other aspects of science. That is when we have to decide what to believe and why. Do we give up on the Biblical story? Do we try to reinterpret it to fit, or partially fit, “science”? Do we ignore “science” and take the Bible without any scientific evidence? Or do we argue that there is a difference between the current scientific consensus on long ages and evolution without design, and the actual data and rational inferences therefrom? You and I , and Prof. if I understand correctly, do not have the option of throwing out science altogether. We have to accept some aspects of science. Therefore, IIUC, Prof. picks option 3 an you and I pick option 4.

It would be appropriate for Prof. to be familiar with the evidence that persuades us to pick option 4 before criticizing us for doing so. But many of his colleagues have poisoned the well so that he thinks we are crazy (at least judging from his remarks). At least initially we have to be careful how we react to him on blogs like this. (If we are on hiring committees, that is an entirely different matter. We can protest that he doesn’t understand short-age creationism well and can’t properly teach it, and that is part of the job description at an Adventist university.) We have to keep in mind that before we looked at the data we have, we had to pick option 3.

But there is also a very subtle nuance with position 3. Some would say that they simply don’t know enough about the subject to mount an active defense of short-age creationism, but it looks promising that there might eventually be a short-age explanation for the data. Some would say that they don’t know enough, and have no idea whether a short-age explanation will ever appear in this life. Some will say that in principle science cannot deal with origins (but the scientific community surely tries). Some will adamantly maintain that science, by its very nature, will always be against the Biblical account, and we are foolish to try to reverse that. When discussing with someone, it is appropriate to find out where he or she is coming from before arguing. There is no point in producing evidence to convince someone who has chosen the last option, until that person is willing to consider the possibility that there might be evidence. That is, the theory must be discussed before the evidence will even be considered.

Part of the confusion is the definition of the word “science”. It is used for the study of the reproducible, the study of nature (whatever that is), the process that demands methodological naturalism, and the current scientific consensus. When someone uses the unqualified word science, it is probably a good idea to understand, and if necessary to ask, in what sense he or she is using it. In fact, many who argue for “evolution” (another word with multiple meanings) do not see the distinctions, and before we even begin the discussion, it might be usefulful to help them to see those distinctions.

We need to be careful about labeling historical evidence as scientific evidence. They are in some senses different. If you want to establish the witness of the 12 apostles, you have to look at old manuscripts, or trust that their transcriptions and translations are accurate. If you wish to check on carbon-14 dating, you can build your own machine, or pay someone who has a machine, to repeat the tests. That is the difference between historical and scientific evidence. (The line gets blurred when you scour the scientific literature for tests that have been run.)

In any case, as I think all of us know, we can never be logically certain that our inferences are 100% correct, or even that the data have been obtained and reported properly. There is always a certain amount of faith involved, whether it be in the scientific, the historical, or the religious realm. In this, there is no qualitative difference between science and religion, that is, unless the religion dispenses with evidence altogether.

I tend to shy away from the idea that the scientific evidence is somehow not relevant to religious belief, and I don’t see how Adventists can make that claim. Ellen White claimed that tobacco is an insidious but deadly poison, and the church accepted her claim based strictly on her religious authority. It has been vindicated, but I am old enough to remember when it finally reached the general public consciousness. However, to people in 1870 it was not obvious what scientific evidence would demand that conclusion. They had to go on faith. We should be careful not to condemn the faith position in a blanket way, and even now, there are questions to which we do not know the answers, and will have to exercise a certain amount of faith.

This is another reason why I am much more unhappy with the refusal of the La Sierra biology department (or at least the controlling part of it) to allow creationist arguments to be discussed than I am with their assessment of the scientific evidence. On the latter, they could theoretically be correct (although I don’t think so), but the former is downright unfair.


La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Professor Kent,

Apology accepted.

Sean (and others as it applies),

Professor Kent has turned out to be much more reasonable than it sounded to most of us (myself included) at first. I admit that I haven’t read all of his comments on other threads, so perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised. But i think that a careful approach that seeks to understand people is sometimes more effective than simply “standing up for the truth”. There is truth to be found out about people as well as the truth about the way reality works (including God).

I think that it is pretty evident that Prof. is not in fact operating on blind faith. He and I do disagree on some issues, although we may be able to narrow our disagreements with the appropriate dialogue. And I do agree that those Mormons who base their religion on a warm feeling are exercising blind faith are not using sound reasoning. But Prof. is not in that category, and it is appropriate for us to acknowledge that.

I was intending to comment on Prof.’s charges, the most salient one of which was that

So if you believe, then, as I do that all faith is based on some form of evidence (not necessarily “falsifiable” scientific evidence), then please tell Sean to stop labeling as “blind faith” anyone whose views on scientific evidence differ from his own. It’s mean-spirited, uncharitable, and dishonest.

He wrote a further clarification:
Okay, let’s be more clear. Sean has belittled my faith; he has belitted Ben Clausen’s faith. He has belittled the faith of other denominations, including Mormons, by declaring all of us adherents to “blind faith.” So perhaps I overgeneralized, which makes me mean-spirited. And what does this say of Sean?

I had intended to find where you had called Prof.’s faith “blind”. On careful review, including word searches, I cannot. In fact, in a later post I found where you conceded that his faith was not blind:
The question is, if all that one does appeal to is emotion or feeling to support one’s faith, where then is the basis to reliably detect the difference between the credibility of the Book of Mormon vs. the Bible? vs. The “Flying Spaghetti Monster”?

The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” challenge is only in reference to those particular people who appeal to their “faith” without regard to any empirical evidence or falsifiable rational whatsoever. It is not a challenge to those who actually believe that their faith is based on at least some kind of superior weight of empirical evidence (as in the case of your own appeal to the historical fulfillment of certain Bible prophecies)…

That leaves me with one of two choices. Either you said it on another thread, or Prof. is exaggerating again. I am not reading all the threads to try to find if you called his faith “blind”, so I will allow you to deny it and Prof. to prove it and if you can and he can’t I’ll accept your version.

I can find where you called the faith of some in the GRI “blind”. I don’t think (for reasons I explained above) that Jim Gibson fits into that category. Tim Standish and Raul Esperante definitely do not fit into that category. I don’t have enough information to say anything about Ronnie Nalin. Ben Clausen may or may not; you have to have some skepticism about the source if it is Spectrum or Adventist Today. In these situations, it is probably best to be careful about what we say. Ben may turn out to be similar to Prof., believing the Bible on other grounds but unable to make a good scientific case for short age. I don’t think that is ideal; it is obviously not where I am at. But it is not a complete sellout of Adventism.

The problem is not so much new hires. New hires can be scrutinized as to their beliefs and, since nobody has promised them anything, the church is almost completely free to choose people who share its beliefs. But for people who have changed on the job, the situation is more delicate. These people did once pass muster, and so dismissal can be perceived as acting as thought police. With a ham-handed approach, the impression can be given that the GRI is hopelessly biased, and should be ignored, something like what is happening (in reverse) to those who question long ages and Darwinism in the secular universities (or at least some secular universities). We don’t want that to happen if we can avoid it.

A former head of the GRI faced this very problem. He had an employee who was convinced that short-age was wrong, but who showed no intention of leaving the GRI over it. What the head did was ask the person to write articles on various topics in his field of expertise. The person couldn’t, or wouldn’t, in any case didn’t, and he was given 6 months notice and helped to find a job, and then finally fired. But the way it was done it was obvious to reasonably informed and objective observers that there was no attempt to control the person’s thoughts by financial incentives, and the reason he was fired was that he couldn’t do the work, and therefore shouldn’t be paid for it, not that he had aberrant ideas.

When dealing with people like Prof., be careful. He apparently likes to be provocative; at least he often is. Before you had said anything about it, he quoted me,

Trial first, verdict afterwards.

and said,
I take it Sean is opposed to this?

Of course, this could be taken as insulting, and of course, you actually agreed with me on this. You can’t let Prof. get under your skin.

Prof again stirred up trouble. Another commenter stated,

On that point I agree with you 100%. Frankly I can’t see how Elder Wilson can sanction the science of the GRI and maintain FB# 6 on an absolute basis. To me the two seem incompatible.

To which you said,
I agree…

Sean Pitman


Prof. quoted you, and said,
Thank you, Sean, for informing us that the GRI’s science can no longer be sanctioned or tolerated by the Church. Poor Elder Wilson, to think the good man was hoodwinked all this time as chairman of the GRI board, and it took a humble physician like you to expose what the GRI staff (Clausen, Nalin, and Gibson) have been along: nothing less than liars (about the “evidence” for SDA views on origins that is so obvious to all) and thieves (for stealing money from the Church for promoting belief in the Bible rather than the evidence from science). Will Elder Wilson have the backbone to act on this and either replace these errant men or dismantle the GRI altogether? This remains to be seen.

I nominate you, Sean, to be the one to visit the GC headquarters and present this proposal in person on behalf of us all. Anyone second my motion? Ron?


He then further pushed the meme:
Thank you, Bob, for reminding us that Elder Wilson’s duty is to immediately fire three of GRI’s staff who refuse to claim there is abundant proof of creation. Or, better yet, he can dismantle GRI altogether. Let’s get with.

This had the effect of making us (at least unless we rejected the gambit) look like witch hunters even in the GRI, and of distracting from the main point, which is what is happening at La Sierra.

Prof. continued to press the point. Speaking of belief in “the creation of all life forms in only 6 days, the creation of all life forms no more than 6100 years ago, the creation of a human from a pile of dust, the instantaneous appearance of a flock of sheep on a verdant mountain pasture, and the personal role of Jesus himself in this creative act”, he said

I gather that you say “yes,” and Sean Pitman says “yes, and David Read says “yes,” and Roger Seheult says “yes,” but not one of you can point to a shred a physical evidence–not one shred–that offers any tangible evidence for these fundamental SDA beliefs on origins. You all subscribe to these beliefs for reason only (just as I do): the Bible says so, and you have faith in the Bible’s validity (not “blind” faith; and we don’t need any more rants about “blind” faith).

He finally goaded you into saying,
Paying people as employees, regardless of their support or non-support of, or even active rebellion against, the organization’s stated goals and ideals, does not an organization make…

He then moved in for the kill:
As I have shown, the GRI staff scientists have not undermined any SDA fundamental belief. In calling for their dismissal, you have undermined SDA civility and church unity.

You can rationally argue your way out of it, but you come across as insisting that everyone view things your own way. Some people will even disingenuously argue this way just so they can ridicule you afterwards for this.

What you have to realize is that the argument is not just about what is most accurate; it is also about what spirit is being exhibited. That’s why how you say things can be as important as what you say. If you say something negative, make allowances for all the positive that can otherwise get swept under the rug in the heat of the moment. When we are discussing La Sierra, pointing out that they don’t even allow the church’s position to be presented scientifically is far more effective than arguing that they disagree with the majority church position. The latter is true, and in an ideal world wouldn’t be, but the former is obvious even to fence-sitters.

More thoughts on faith, evidence, and science later.


La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Professor Kent,

I am glad that the Mormons you have met uniformly have other evidences they cite in support of their faith. At another time it would be interesting to explore what those evidences are.

But when you quote me, it would be appropriate to use the proper antecedent. Your quote,

The only thing that matters [to Mormons] is that you have this warm feeling in your heart. Calling that faith “blind faith” doesn’t seem that far off. A faith without any evidence except a warm feeling seems pretty close to blind to me. I am not saying that all Mormons have this faith, but for the ones that do, Sean is not belittling their faith so much as accurately describing it.

has an insertion [to Mormons] which is not what I meant, and is not the antecedent for the statement. The original quote said “At least some Mormons”, which is much more cautious. You have set up a straw man with your quote, a straw man that I specifically disavow. Please be more charitable in your quotations.

Thanks for the clarification as to the basis for your belief in a recent 6-day creation. If I hear you correctly, your reasons are indirect; the 12 disciples would vouch for Jesus, not creation directly, and prophecy would argue for the validity of Old Testament (and a few New Testament) prophets, not Genesis 1-11 directly. Changed lives simply says that something in the theory works, not necessarily that Genesis is true. Thus if I understand the logic, it goes something like this: There are evidences that parts of the Bible are reliable. The Bible is best viewed as an integral whole, and the evidences support the validity of the whole, including Genesis 1-11.

Fair enough. In that case your faith is not blind. I hope Sean will recognize this. I think all of us need to be careful to really hear other people, and not overstate their views, even as we dispute points with them.

In fact, if I understand what you are saying, you have another point of agreement with Sean and myself (and others on this comment thread). You say, “There is some scientific evidence for a relatively short age”, and this is where I am focused regarding the scientific evidence, and I suspect Sean is too. So if I understand correctly, when you said that “I haven’t denied evidence for short-age creation”, you actually mean that there is some scientific evidence for it, perhaps just not enough in your mind to outweigh the evidence for long ages for life on earth. So what we are arguing about is not an absolute in either direction, but rather the degree, or if you like, the weight of evidence. In fact, we are not even arguing about the weight of evidence, but the weight of scientific evidence.

My own view is that the weight of evidence is towards short age, which is compatible with although not probative of a 6-day creation. This was not always the case; there are several evidences that have been developed within the last 20 years. And the mainstream scientific community does not recognize much of these evidences, so if one took one’s information, and especially one’s opinions, only from the mainstream scientific community, one would conclude that the scientific evidence supported long age more than it did short age. One of the things we have been reviewing in our Sabbath School class is the evidences most commonly used to support long and short age. You might find some of the videos interesting.

I appreciate having you as an active participant. It helps us to have someone point out where we go overboard. Yes-men are not all that helpful.

Just be careful not to overstate our positions. Your comment

Perhaps I’m wrong, Paul. Perhaps most readers here truly believe that SDA beliefs–especially those regarding origins–are backed by solid scientific evidence, and that the beliefs of all other Christians and non-Christians are no more useful than those of the Pastafarians (who “believe” in the Flying Spaghetti Monster; readers can Google these terms if they are unfamiliar with this “religion” that Sean is so appreciative of). Are you in this crowd?

seems to imply that we are willing to denigrate “the beliefs of all other Christians” in addition to non-Christian beliefs. I am far enough from that position that I have actively collaborated with the ICR and have gotten my name favorably mentioned in their RATE books, especially the second. I happen to believe that my beliefs on the Sabbath are more in accord with the evidence than theirs, but even if (as I think) I am right, this does not mean that all their beliefs are no better than those of the Pastafarians.

As a matter of fact, if one took a poll of the posters here, I think that virtually all of them would agree with me on this issue. So the “crowd” you refer to would be pretty sparse. So the belief system you outline seems to be a straw man. Perhaps (referring to your first sentence) you are right after all, and not wrong.

I hope to be able to turn my attention to Sean shortly, and I hope you will stay engaged and help us with the issue of evidence and what should be expected.


Recent Comments by Paul Giem

Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
Paul,

Thanks for noticing the Nineveh paper. You said,

I am not sure how this is relevant to the arguments since it does not at any point invoke magic but is as far as I can see completely methodologically naturalistic.

The background for this paper is somewhat involved. Probably the best way to approach the possible supernatural dimension is to look at this reference, especially prediction #2:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm
You will notice that the editors of Origins felt the need to put a black box warning at the end of the article. As you can see, I live dangerously.

I hope that helps.


Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
Paul,

Thanks for the clarifications. (And it’s nice to be full width.)

I agree that at present, I do not know of any reproducible reasonably provable miracles, and therefore that category, although theoretically present (and perhaps practically present in Jesus’ day), is not, to my knowledge present now except in a very weak way. The prayer studies are controversial, and although theoretically if they had “worked” would have been remarkable, the consensus is now that they didn’t, so they are not enough of a case to force a change in your practical definition. I have my own personal prayer stories, that have become reproducible, but certainly are not good enough quality to publish. For now let’s just leave that question alone.

You go on to say,

Your 3 examples of miracles in science actually have nothing to do with miracles.
Oh, but they do, and you seem to have missed that point. Let me explain.

1. There is currently a controversy surrounding the Turin Shroud, quite apart from any miracles possibly caused by viewing or touching it. Again, I don’t know enough to know whether the claims are true, but it is claimed that there is an image, of a person, that has unusual if not supernatural features, and some claim that this is because it is the actual burial shroud of Jesus. That, if true, could point to a supernatural event.

It is also claimed that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. If true, this would destroy the value of the Shroud as a witness to the Resurrection. Thus, the carbon-14 date might impinge upon a possible witness to a miracle. This is not repeated miracle, but could be reproducible evidence tending to support a miracle. You seem to think it is science, even though the possibility exists that the carbon-14 date could point in the direction of the supernatural. So your criterion of methodological naturalism is under a certain amount of strain.

2. The scrolls of Daniel and Leviticus, if dated earlier than 168 BC and 600 BC respectively, would destroy the Maccabean theory of Daniel and the Documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch, and strongly suggest that Daniel made accurate prophecies, and that the writer of Exodus was an eyewitness, who in fact witnessed a miracle. In that case, what you would consider science would support supernatural events.

3. You are apparently not familiar with the data on carbon-14 dating. You write,”But try to explain that results that are within the noise of an assay provides any evidence for the young age of your object and you will as you should be heavily criticised by your peers in the review process.” True. But quite a bit of the data, not cherry-picked, is well outside the noise of an assay, so much so that one of the founders of the method has confessed that it exists (see TalkOrigins, of all places!). His explanation is that carbon-14 is being made by neutrons underground. I can give you references if you wish.

But even more important than the actual results, for our purposes, is the theoretical question, if these results were accurate and reproducible, would they be science? I think so. Do you?

I am glad that you do not require mechanism before declaring something science. I do agree with you that if we understand the mechanism, it is better. But if we do not understand the mechanism, it does not disqualify a subject as science, or we would have to disqualify quantum mechanics, the most successful physical (and maybe scientific) theory ever.

________

You write,

My definitions are not at all meant to be theoretical positions but are operational definitions describing what I do as a scientist publishing in the literature of science.
I like that. You are certainly correct that your views are not idiosyncratic, but AFAICT, are the vast majority view. That, of course, does not make them right, but does make them respectable. (You may be wrong, but you are not an idiot, and I’ll say that to my colleagues who try to imply that you are.)

You write,

It makes absolutely no assumption about whether or not there is a supernatural or miracles but says we can operate and understand the physical structure of the natural world without including these as causalities.

It is not clear what “It” is, but presumably you mean either methodological naturalism (MN), or science that includes MN. And by MN, I assume you mean the strong form.
I see two problems with that: 1. If we insist on MN in science, and we do not have a procedure for stating what is outside science, we are in fact operating under a de facto philosophical naturalism (PN). For PN is empirically indistinguishable from the proposition that MN applies in all places at all times. That is, the insistence on MN is in fact PN.

2. The cases above seem to be perfectly legitimate, at least theoretically, but they could at least theoretically point to the supernatural. Do we just keep doing the experiments until we realize where they might be pointing, and then try to expunge them from the science journals? In this regard, it is interesting to read the following article, that made it into Science (!):
Gentry RV, Christie WH, Smith DH, Emery JF, Reynolds SA, Walker R, Cristy SS, Gentry PA, 1976: “Radiohalos in coalified wood: New evidence relating to the time of uranium introduction and coalification.” Science 194:315-8.
Should Science retract this article?

That is why I prefer the softer form rather than the strong form of MN. Do you see the point, and if so do you agree? Or do you prefer to defend the consensus at this point? If so, what do you do with the above data?

Your point 2 is uncontroversial, as you noted. I agree that it usually excludes miracles, but not always, at least theoretically. The manna that fell every morning to the Israelites could have had several tests done on it, and apparently had a few crude tests done on it, including whether it kept overnight (of course, if one doesn’t believe that manna ever existed, the illustration is not convincing). I would rather not exclude the supernatural by definition, but rather (the vast majority of the time) practically.

Your point 3 is desirable. You say,

3] Publication in the peer reviewed literature of science. This is not at all a capricious criteria I have invented but describes the way science has been done for more than 200 years.

That’s not quite true; Darwin didn’t publish his theory in a journal, and that was closer to 150 years ago. But I agree, in general. While it may be science before it is published, if the experiment or observation is repeated, it is strongly desirable that the results be disseminated to where all scientists can obtain them, and possibly attempt to reproduce them. And peer review, done properly, helps correct errors before publication.

I don’t think communication is irrelevant to science. It is important. I just don’t think it should be part of the definition.

On reading your (second) post, I think that we need to be careful to distinguish between the definition of science, how science ideally should be done, and how science is in fact done. In a way, citations are a non-thinking man’s proxy for judging the value of a publication personally. The more citations, the more other people felt the paper was important, so the administrator or granting institution doesn’t have to make his/her/its own independent judgment (and impact rating is just a more refined measure of citations). And considering that the judging person or agency may not be able to make that judgment, it may be the only measure available. But we shouldn’t deify those shortcuts. They are shortcuts, not the ideal. The same goes for funding.

So, as requested, I will give my definition of science. Science is the study of the reproducible. If magic or miracles are truly reproducible, then they qualify. One-off episodes of magic or singular miracles do not qualify.

Mechanism is desirable, but not mandatory.

I don’t exclude peer review from science; I simply exclude it from the definition of science. I hope you see the difference. It definitely is desirable to publish, and it is desirable to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. YouTube videos under the proper circumstances could inform science. Personal communications often get cited (!). However, a single YouTube video is not yet reproduced, and is in the same category as a single miracle or magical act. If you want more on my philosophy of science, go to Scientific Theology, chapter 1.

Does that help?


Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
@Pauluc:
You say,

… I think I can distil your detailed response down to conclude that you think miracles are and should be part of science.”

I’m sorry if you got that impression. Science, in my mind, is (or should be) the study of the reproducible. Miracles should only be considered part of science if they are reproducible. The aftereffects of miracles, on the other hand, can easily be reproducible.

You then go on to describe your concept of the scientific method:

1] From an observation construct an hypothesis for causation and mechanism based on methodological naturalism that is amenable to experimental testing,

So your science has methodological naturalism built into it.
2] Do experiments to test the hypothesis.

Here we agree.
3] Report those experiments in the peer reviewed literature which is the canonical repository of scientific information.

Be careful of the word “canonical”; it smacks of religion. 😉 But I am worried more about the concept than the word used.

It seems that this concept is not strictly necessary to do science. For using this concept means that Isaac Newton did not do science, which seems preposterous. Neither did Charles Darwin. He didn’t publish in Nature. He wrote a book.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is a desirable goal. I have done it. But science shouldn’t be defined that way.

You write,

Much better to clearly articulate the domain of science and accept that there is much beyond science including miracles that are best analysed by alternative mechods.

I will agree that the miracles themselves are usually beyond science. However, if they become reproducible, various physical and theological hypotheses can be tested. And their aftereffects certainly can be tested.

Just to give you three examples, the Shroud of Turin was claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. Multiple tests have been done, including carbon-14 tests, which apparently indicated a late date. Claims have been made that these tests were on a corner patch from later. I do not have direct evidence that can make me reasonably sure one way or the other. But the tests were published in scientific journals. Were they not scientific? Would they not be scientific if they had come out matching the first century AD?

There are also all kinds of carbon-14 dates done on manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If they dated a manuscript of Daniel to before 168 BC, or a manuscript of Leviticus to before 600 BC, would the results be scientific? Should they be published in Radiocarbon? (Those dates were scheduled, but never done, according to what A. T. Jull of ASU told me.)

Finally, suppose we were to find, consistently, small but measurable (above background) amounts of carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, dinosaur bones, etc. Would those results be scientific? Should they be published in scientific journals? If you were editor, would you reject them because they might point to a miracle?

You don’t say so specifically, but I get the idea that everything published in scientific journals should have a mechanism. Would you agree with this proposition?

Before you answer, ask yourself these questions. Do we have to have a clearly defined mechanism before we publish a study on the efficacy of metoclopramide for migraine headaches? Did Radiocarbon err when it published and article reporting a statistically significant offset between the carbon-14 dating of bones from the city of Nineveh and the standard calibration curve without giving a mechanism that the authors deemed probable? (See
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3674/pdf )
(I have a certain interest in the subject: See the acknowledgements)

And finally, if mechanism is required, can you explain the mechanism behind the double-slit or ghost pathway experiments in Quantum Mechanics? Have you ever seen a mechanistic, as opposed to a mathematical, explanation of quantum mechanics? Should it be excluded from the realm of science?

It seems like your definition of science could use some work. Just for what it is worth, multiple philosophers of science have worked on defining science, and the consensus is that there is no currently satisfactory answer to the “demarcation problem”, and may not be in the future. If you don’t believe me, read the philosophy of science literature.


Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
@Pauluc:
Paul,

As I was composing my answer, I was notified of your clarification, and thank you very much. It helps.

Here it is again from Wikipedia:

It [methodological naturalism] is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed.

The exception of “the genesis of nature” is an odd exception. Interpreted one way, it would take the creation-evolution controversy out of the reach of methodological naturalism. I suspect that the definers did not wish to do that. Rather, they wished to take the moment of the Big Bang, and its possible cause(s), out of the discussion.

As I read this, it seems to say, that we must pretend that philosophical naturalism is true, and act accordingly, in all cases but the Big Bang. This would be what I would characterize as the strong form of methodological naturalism.

Because of its lack of any exit clause, people following it are forced to deny any evidence for miraculous events. Not only is the creation at stake (unless one takes the exception for the genesis of nature literally), but the Flood must be completely discounted unless one can find a mechanism, as must the Exodus (but not the crossing of the Jordan (!) ), the slaying of 185,000 men of Sennacherib’s army, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s visions, the 3 Hebrew worthies and the fiery furnace, the incarnation, Jesus making water into wine, most of the healing miracles of Jesus, the raising of Lazarus, and Jesus’ own resurrection. And I’m afraid that the resurrection of Jesus will not in our (natural) lifetime be able to be explained as a naturalistic event.

So, to make a direct answer, No, I do not believe science should be practiced according to the premise of naturalism. It often is, and that is too bad.

Now, there is a softer form of methodological naturalism. That says, when observing an event, look for a naturalistic cause. If it seems reasonable, accept it. Supernaturalistic causes should only be assumed if (1) they make sense, (2) naturalistic causes have been investigated reasonably thoroughly and found wanting, and (3) they are accepted tentatively, with the realization that they may be invalidated by further evidence of a natural cause. This form of methodological naturalism I can accept, and find useful in life in general and in medicine.

What does one do if the evidence currently points to the supernatural? One can deny it, like a true believer in naturalism. One can say that this is an area where the truth is beyond science, which means that science is deficient, and specifically in this area, as a total explanation, and we shouldn’t attempt any study of this area using scientific procedures. One can say that the edge of science is precisely where the inference to the supernatural is made, so that the inference is scientific, but all further inferences are forbidden. Or one can say that the effects of the supernatural are also a legitimate subject of scientific study, as long as the results are reproducible. The latter is my present position.

Since I’ve given my position, may I ask you whether the more nuanced alternatives would change your answer of “yes and yes”?

There is one other point that I should touch on, as you asked it earlier and I haven’t answered it. It regards evidence-based medicine.

I think evidence-based medicine is a good-sounding idea. We should all strive to practice medicine based on the best available evidence, and if that is all that evidence-based medicine means, then I certainly don’t object. However, I have 3 problems with how it has been practiced.

The first is the sometimes wooden application of cost-benefit ratios. There was a furor in California when dental caps were rated more cost-effective than appendectomies by Medi-Cal (the incident seems to have gone down a memory hole). Now, maybe dental caps are so helpful to human health that they should be rated that highly. But I would submit that any health plan, including a government one, that would condemn people to either death or a prolonged convalescence in the name of saving money is wrongheaded. Before there was any insurance whatever, ethical doctors would not allow patients to die needless immediate deaths simply because they could not pay.

The second problem is when category 3 evidence is ruled out of bounds, one sometimes gets strange results. Medi-Cal actually tried to take nitroglycerin off of the formulary, as there were no double-blind placebo-controlled studies that showed it worked. No, and there are no double-blind placebo-controlled studies that show that jumping off of a cliff is dangerous to your health, either. Two questions come up: How would one maintain blinding in the proposed study, and how would one ethically sign patients up? After an uproar from doctors, the medicine found its way back on the formulary.

The final problem is that knowledge is limited, and sometimes there are particulars that override the (known) general rule. Viagra was first tested for the treatment of angina. It was not until patients insisted in staying on it that it dawned on the investigators that it could be used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Similarly, Compazine, and now Reglan, are often effective treatments for migraine headache, although they were not initially studied in this regard. Physicians are supposed to use their own judgment in this regard. That’s why physicians go to medical school for 4 years, then residency for another 3-5 years, instead of taking 1-2 years like a physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner. Evidence-based medicine, if not done carefully, can amount to a state committee making pronouncements that are supposed to be slavishly implemented, as if the committee had all wisdom and the individual doctors had none. Otherwise we might as well all just be physicians’ assistants, supervised by the committee.

So to answer your question,

Do you accept it as the basis of evidence based medicine?

I am cautious about approving evidence-based medicine without qualifications.

To save us some time, I will rephrase the question: Do I accept methodological naturalism as the basis for medicine, the answer is No for the strong form of MN, and Yes for the softer form.

I hope that helps.


Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
@Paul Giem:
You ask if I accept methodological naturalism. I am not sure what you mean by that term, and am short on time right now. If you have time to clarify before this afternoon (Pacific Daylight Time (LA)–I realize yours is different) I will try to answer the clarified question. If not, then I will give some meanings that have been given to the term, and outline my position. Talk to you later.