Specimens courtesy of Andrew Snelling
How objective are scientists?
Are scientists always objective? Do they always interpret the evidence with an open mind? Some time ago I experienced first-hand how a scientist’s beliefs affect the way he looks at the evidence.
Whilst a geology student at university, I needed to identify a fossil. After consulting the Atlas of Invertebrate Macrofossils1 I had tentatively identified it as a belemnite2 of the genus Hibolites. However, paleontology was not my specialty so I sought advice from an expert.
The research paleontologist at one of the major universities in our state was the obvious choice.
I had always found him helpful even though he was unimpressed by my ‘young earth’ stand. For over 30 years he had written extensively on paleontology, and was now the only lecturer on the subject at that university.
I wanted to be sure I was not making a wrong identification. I also wanted to be more specific in my classification.
I showed him the belemnite and explained that it was found near Warwick, U.K. (In hindsight I must not have made it clear that it was from the U.K. There is also a town called Warwick in the state of Queensland, Australia.)
He looked carefully at the specimen using his hand lens.
‘No, this is not a belemnite,’ he announced, ‘it is an iron concretion.’
I was amazed. It looked like a belemnite to me. But then, he was the expert.
‘Iron concretions can do funny things,’ he explained. ‘People who are not experienced in this field can be easily tricked by them.’
Well, he was the authority, so I reluctantly accepted his assessment. We talked a bit more. I showed him the diagrams from the Atlas that looked like my specimen. I then mentioned afresh that I was talking about Warwick, U.K.
‘U.K.!’ he exclaimed. ‘Let me have a look at that again.’ A second time he looked carefully at the specimen.
‘Yes, it is a belemnite. When you look carefully you can see the way it is formed on the edges here. I thought you were talking about Warwick, Queensland. It is actually a very nice specimen. Some of the markings on the guard are preserved.’
The confusion occurred because he knew the local geology of Warwick, Queensland. He did not think that belemnites could come from the area because the outcrops were the wrong ‘age.’
His geological knowledge was impeccable. But his wrong identification of the fossil illustrates how the geologic age system can be self-reinforcing.
There may well have been fossils found in the ‘wrong place’ but even so, not necessarily recognized as such.
We talked some more. I thanked him for his assistance. However, I don’t think he realized what an amazing demonstration he had provided of how his preconceptions affected his science. Even careful observation of a hand specimen under a magnifying glass can be wrongly interpreted if it does not fit one’s preconceptions. And preconceptions are so strongly linked with one’s worldview.
That is why creationists must not be deterred when apparent conflicts arise. They simply signal that we need to ‘dig deeper.’
We should not rule out the possibility that the data itself was wrongly recorded as a result of pressure from evolutionary preconceptions.
References and notes
- Murray, J.W. (ed.), Atlas of Invertebrate Macrofossils, Longman, Essex, 1985. Return to text.
- An extinct squid-like creature. Usually only the guard (one part of the two-part internal skeleton) is fossilized. Return to text.
That's quite disappointing. If he had inspected it closely and seen good signs it did look like a belemnite he should have at least asked something like "Where exactly did you say you got this from, again?"
These older 'scientists' have decided long ago that there is no supernatural nor any God, and no amount of evidence makes any difference. However, there seem to be many younger 'scientists' who haven't decided this, and although they truly believe in billions of years, they do so mainly because they have been conditioned into it.
Creation.com's excellent resources are a good way to break that conditioning and allow them to process natural history more fully, which usually results in abandoning billions of years....
Thanks Tas, a nice easy to understand article. A great example of what happens with raw data before the peer review filter gets hold of it. In an interview on Medscape posted in May 2013, evolutionist & genome guru Craig Venter said in regards to agendas; peer review is like ‘the prisoners running the prison’. In relation to origins, Darek Isaacs, author of ‘Dragons or Dinosaurs?’ points out the effect this has on the secular world when enough data is filtered in this manner, he calls this ‘poor compilation scholarship’. They adjust their own data (like individual pixels in a big picture) to fit in with their peers, but all their peers are doing the same.
We don’t have deity detectors or miracle meters, so deities and miracles are not allowed to exist, therefore all conclusions regardless of the data MUST support the paradigm of pure naturalism. Didn’t Dr Scott Todd teach something like that?
Thanks Mr. Walker, nice job exposing that the intellect is ethical.
The professor must hold as true that there is no purpose and direction to anything thus that anything can happen
Yet at the same time the fossil could not have been found in Queensland
And he could not come to this conclusion if nature were not uniform, logic was not universal, invariant and immaterial, that all "facts" are connected by an overarching plan / direction / purpose to the universe thus that not anything is possible
As if we could answer how do we know without first answering what do we know
We all must believe in a comprehensive framework of the nature of reality within which to sort, filter, categorize our experience of reality, as the professor so aptly demonstrated in response to your question.
and the only way to have this framework is by revelation of the one who does not lie
anyone denying this clear revelation is lying as the professor so aptly demonstrated
i thank God that He made it so plain for all men (Romans 1:19)
keep up the good working, testifying to the truth
Thank you, Tas, for a great article. Perceptual errors of this kind seem to happen quite automatically without malice of forethought. The fake reality of the paradigm seems more real than reality itself. And it is self-protective and self propagating. The problem of paradigms is not found among unbelievers only. It's been said that the "world" that Christians must most be concerned with overcoming is that "world" that we carry about in our minds. One can only wonder how much we ourselves filter the Creation and the Bible by our own paradigms and how much division that causes in the Church. I praise God that we have the sure promise of a Paraclete Who is revealing real reality to us as we submit to Him.