|
Feedback archive →
Feedback 2010
Does CMI misunderstand how science works?
Published: 24 April 2010(GMT+10)
Paleontological excavation of Megatherium footprints in South America. Charles Darwin
found fossilized remains of the creature during his famous journey on the Beagle—but
would he have changed his mind about fossilization processes if he had found these
footprints? Image from The Voyage that Shook the World
Roger W from the United States wrote in to claim that CMI misunderstands the way
science works based on our
article on fish-to-tetrapod evolution. His email is printed in full, followed
by a response by CMI’s Information Officer, Lita Cosner.
You wrote about the latest news on fish tetrapod evolution using these quotes to
further your point that science can be wrong.
* “They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental
setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body
fossil record.”
* “[It] will cause a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod
origins.”
* “[They] could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing
and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution.”
* “We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have
to rethink the whole thing.”
* “That’s surprising, but this is what the fossil evidence tells us.”
* “These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition
from fish to land animals.”
But that is the way science works. As they make discoveries wrong ideas are discarded
and the theory improved. If too much ends up being discarded, the entire theory
would be tossed out.If any information contradicts information in the bible would
you change your mind? Nope! What is in the bible is the final word and that is being
inflexible and not good science.
Dear Roger W,
Thanks for your email. Indeed, science works, in theory, by discarding old theories
in favor of new ones which better explain the universe. CMI has even cited this
process defending changes that creationist science has undergone (see for example Arguments we think creationists should NOT use).
A scientific theory has lots of auxiliary hypotheses attached to it, so if something
appears to contradict the theory, the auxiliary hypothesis can be changed, leaving
the major theory virtually unchanged.
But what happens in practice is that a scientific theory has lots of auxiliary hypotheses
attached to it, so if something appears to contradict the theory, the auxiliary
hypothesis can be changed, leaving the major theory virtually unchanged. For instance,
when unfossilized soft tissue/protein in dinosaur bones was discovered, the thought
process could go like this:
Unfossilized tissue was found in a dinosaur bone, therefore;
This dinosaur bone is not millions of years old OR unfossilized tissue can survive
intact for millions of years.
The idea that dinosaurs lived fairly recently would be a serious challenge to the
evolutionary paradigm, so it is comparatively easier for an evolutionist to say
that under some extraordinary circumstances, by some hitherto unknown mechanism,
unfossilized tissue can be preserved. In a few years, we can expect that this idea,
which contradicts not only common sense but the currently known physics and chemistry
of how long the relevant proteins would last, will become common knowledge in scientific
circles, and evolutionist scientists will attack creationists for saying that this
is evidence of dinosaurs living recently, because of course we all know
that tissue can survive for millions of years.
Most evolutionists are totally willing to change their ideas of how evolution may
have occurred in the light of new evidence, but not whether.
So the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable in the minds of evolutionists, because all these auxiliary hypotheses can take the brunt of the force of any new discovery that challenges
it, leaving evolution itself intact. In fact, one could say that they are being
as dogmatic as those who take the Bible’s teaching as the final word. One
of the speakers at CMI has put it this way; most evolutionists are totally willing
to change their ideas of how evolution may have occurred in the light of
new evidence, but not whether. Even Darwin’s mechanism could potentially
be abandoned—but only if a new one was there to replace it. For them, the
‘big picture’ that is not negotiable is a world that made itself,
by its own processes and properties, without any divine assistance. So both creationists
and evolutionists have inflexible ‘big pictures’ (paradigms, based on
axioms or presuppositions), but are prepared to modify the details. Of course, people
are in principle free to abandon their axioms.
Sincerely,
Lita Cosner
Information Officer
Creation Ministries International
Related articles
Further reading
| “One little bit doesn’t make a difference.” It’s a good job CMI didn’t think like that. We had to start somewhere producing information, one word and one article at a time. Similarly, please don’t think your small donation doesn’t help. They can add together to bring a shower of blessings.  | | |
|
