For over the past 150 years, there has been vigorous debate concerning whether creation or evolution are better narratives for explaining origins. During this time there have arisen a plurality of views on the subject.
The Genesis Hypothesis is God's answer to this question. Genesis 1 is a straight forward account of creation. It is written in natural language rather than the technical jargon of modern science. There are, however, testable consequences to the Genesis Hypothesis. To better understand how the Genesis hypothesis can be tested, I will explain how the scientific method works, define the Genesis and Evolutionary Hypotheses, and then compare the Genesis Hypothesis and the Evolutionary Hypothesis.
The three step scientific method
The scientific method involves three steps. The best explanation can be found by Dr Richard Feymann. According to Feymann, testing scientific hypothesis involves three steps.
1. Make guess of hypothesis.
2. Compute consequences of guess. This done by constructing an if..then statement. If evolution is true…then…
3. Try to falsify consequences. This can only be done by trying to falsify the then part of the consequent. Drawing a negative conclusion about the hypothesis or antecedent is a valid logical inference, called modus tollens. Confirming the consequent and then inferring a positive conclusion about the hypothesis is the logical fallacy of confirming the consequent. Technically speaking, science can never prove anything true, but only false.
The Genesis Hypothesis
The Genesis Hypothesis predicts three basic things about origins.
1. The material universe, with its natural laws, was brought forth by supernatural processes - not explainable through natural law. The phrase "And God said" was uttered eight times to describe God's creative acts. The theologians call this concept creation ex nihilo. God speaks forth objects in the material world into existence, and because he is absolute truth, they exist at His command.
2. This process produced what we call natural law. The phrase 'let' appears numerous times in the narrative. Five times it is "let there be." Twice it is used in action sequence: 'Let the earth bring forth," and "Let the waters bring forth." These phrases imply that God is embedding natural causes into nature within a framework. This framework can be called natural law. Augustine called these seminal principles. Genesis was not meant to be an exhaustive account of creation, but a brief description of a creation framework.
3. These seminal principles also imply LIMITED evolution within a creation framework. The phrase "let the [ earth|sea ] bring forth after their kinds, implying that the basic architecture of the biosphere is embedded into natural law rather than produced by evolution. Evolution occurs as a product of, and in relation to, a creation framework rather than creating the framework.
The Evolutionary Hypothesis
There are three basic implications of the Evolutionary Hypothesis.
1. Unlimited uniformity of causes and effects without exception or discontinuity.
2. Evolution is the narrative, with all diversity of life emerging from a singular source which itself evolved through abiogenesis.
3. Extrapolation concerning billions of years of time and distance based on the limited observational base of modern science are justified.
The Genesis and Evolutionary Hypotheses Compared
Both of these hypothesis have three major premises that can be tested. The table below has a condensed analysis of these. Below the table is a detailed analysis.
Consequent
|
Genesis (G)
Hypothesis
|
Evolutionary (E)
Hypothesis
|
Falsified?
|
Origin of
Natural Law
|
Created by
supernatural
act of God
|
Eternal natural
Law - unlimited
uniformity of
causes and
effects
|
G=not falsifiable;
Approximately
proved by
falsification of E
E=yes
|
Nature of Evolution
|
Relative to natural
law
Established by
supernatural
act
|
Creator of or
Equal to natural law
|
G= no
E=unsubstantiated
|
Limits of natural law
|
Limited-time span
in open system
|
Unlimited
uniformity
allows
Unlimited
extrapolation
|
G = no
E=yes
|
Concerning the origins of natural law, the Genesis Hypothesis asserts that natural law was created by God, and Evolutionary Hypothesis assumes an unlimited scope and unlimited time span for natural law. Natural law is viewed as eternal or at least the foundation point. The meta-narrative dimension of the Evolutionary Hypothesis depend on the validity of that assumption as these conclusion are based on inferences rather than direct observation. Because the Genesis Hypothesis and the Evolutionary Hypothesis are cover the whole range of logically possible hypothesis*, falsification of one approximates proof of the other.
There are three proofs that will show that the implication of the Evolutionary Hypothesis concerning the origins of natural law is false. It can be conclusively demonstrated that natural law is neither eternal nor the ultimate foundation using The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Pasteur's law, and Aristotle's proof of the Unmoved Mover.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the principle asserting that the amount of energy available in a closed system decreases over time, resulting in increased entropy or disorder. Evolution acts in opposition to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, implying that current natural process did not always apply that or apply universally. Evolutionists respond to this charge by saying that we live in an open system that allowed for energy to come in from outside to prevent the dissipation of energy that causes entropy.
If evolutionists mean by this that the universe is an open system, then they would be affirming something compatible with the Genesis Hypothesis; that is, the material universe is an open system with attributes and properties (natural law) set by causes outside the system (supernatural).
If evolutionists mean by this that the domain in which evolution is occurs is a local system within a closed universe. This would imply that the domain in which evolution operates behaves according to different laws than the universe as a whole. If the scope of Evolution is global, then the material universe is an open system whose natural laws are the product of causes outside the system (supernatural causes) . If the scope of evolution is local, then natural laws defined by evolution are limited by the scope of evolution, themselves being defined by causes outside the system.
Unlimited uniformity of natural causes and natural law is incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy decrease that accompanies the development of life can only occur in open systems that operate under natural laws that do not operate outside of the scope of the open system. The Genesis Hypothesis predicts an open system of natural causes and effects whose laws were set in place by God's creative act. The processes that produces the natural laws operate differently than the processes governed by those natural laws. Unlimited Uniformitarianism is falsified.
Pasteur's law asserts, that under natural law, abiogenesis (or creation of life from non-life) is impossible. No one has even seen or accomplished a violation of this law. Pasteur's law presents a difficulty for unlimited uniformity of causes and effect or eternally existing natural law. Unless the biosphere is eternal, then logic dictates that at some point in the past a non-biological cause(s) brought forth a biological effect. It can be expressed through this conditional argument.
1. IF natural law uniformly governs all of reality, THEN biological effects cannot arise from non-biological causes.
2. Biological effects DID arise from non-biological cause (as conclusion of the following conditional subargument)
a. If Pasteur's law is extended indefinitely into the past, then the biosphere is eternal
b. The biosphere is not eternal
----------------------------------------------
Pasteur's law does not extend indefinitely into the past
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural law DOES NOT uniformly governs all of reality. (Modus Tollens). Unlimited Uniformitarianism is falsified.
Aristotle's proof of the Unmoved Mover presents an objection to unlimited uniformity of natural law causes and effects that is based on the logical structure of reality. The following is my interpretation of this argument.
1. Something cannot come from nothing, as that would imply that something was derived from nothing and that something is equal to nothing, which is a contradiction.
2. All temporal effects came into existence, that is, far enough into the past and they did not exist.
3. All temporal effects must have a cause (to avoid something coming from nothing). If the cause if temporal, then it must have a cause, and so on.
4. An infinite regression of temporal causes is logically impossible, because in the eternal past nothing would exist, and the present temporal effect would be the result of something coming from nothing - which is logically impossible.
5. Therefore, it is necessary that there exist a First Cause who is not temporal. This first Cause is an Uncaused Cause and an Unmoved Mover.
This First Cause is not merely first in line, but of a qualitatively different nature than the effects produced. The temporal causes operated under one law of causation, but the First Cause is not subject to those rules. Natural laws that govern casualty in the natural universe have a limit. These laws require a First Cause to act as an Unmoved Mover to bring forth the space-time universe with natural laws as its attributes. This is consistent with the Genesis Hypothesis. The natural universe can only exist in its present form through a supernatural act. But which Supernatural Actor is responsible for the universe?
If unlimited uniformity of natural law and natural causes and effects cannot be sustained - in other words, if the laws of nature are not eternal, but valid only over a limited time span and in an open system subject to modification - then inferences about the distant past based the assumption of unlimited uniformity are not justified.
Much of the Evolutionary Hypothesis - the meta-narrative aspects - depend on inferences based on the assumption that natural law is uniform throughout eternity or at least indefinitely long ages of time. This epistemological assumption concerning which types of inferences are valid depends on meta-physical assumptions concerning the duration of natural law. If natural law has not existed from eternity ( or at least indefinitely long eons of time, then extrapolations about events purported to occur eons on the past based on current natural law are not justified.
Because we cannot directly observe events millions and billions of years into the past, inferences based on understanding current natural laws and rates of change are read back into the past as if they are constant. If these are not constant or if the natural laws as we understand them are not representative of the whole, then the inference will be off base. Examples of such inference include the fossil record, dating methods, comparison of genetic similitude, and snapshots of starlight.
Fossils with structures that match the scientists interpretation of a transitional form are presented as proof of transitional forms. However, without a baseline of observed live transitional forms, there is no way to test whether the scientists interpretation is correct.
All dating methods assume constant rates of natural processes throughout eons of time Natural processes, however, may occur at different rates in the past. Radiometric dating in particular assumes an initial combination of mother-daughter elements.
Genetic comparisons asserts similarity or common patterns amongst genes as proof of common descent. The concept that similarity proves causation however is an informal logical fallacy. Valid inferences from genetic comparisons require baseline observations of a mechanism that establishes a connection. Genetic comparison within a species are valid, as baseline observation of the genetics of reproduction allow for valid inferences of a mechanism based on comparisons. No mechanism explaining the alleged relations between major branches of the evolutionary tree has been observed sufficiently to serve as a baseline to justify inferences based upon its existence.
Snapshots of starlight are commonly asserted as picture of the past. Assumes that cosmological constants have always been what they are today. The facts that light was the first of God's creation means that this constant was set early in the history of the universe. Special relativity puts a strange wrinkle in interpretation of snapshots of starlight. Special relativity asserts that time is relative to the reference-frame of an observer. As one moves closer to the speed of light, time dilates so that billions of years in our reference passes in only seconds in the reference-frame of the near light speed traveler. At the speed of light, all travel is done in zero time or instantaneously. What this means is that light from Galaxy Andromeda requires a travel time of two million years to reach us according to our reference-frame. If you were a "human quark" ready to surf the wave of a photon using a "god-particle" sized surfboard, however, the trip would be over instantaneously. There is no conflict between the six days of Genesis 1 and the long eons of contemporary cosmology, as these are calculated using different reference-frames. This is supported by Scripture, as the markers of our current reference-frame for marking time - the sun, moon, and stars - were not created until the fourth Genesis day. God created using a different reference-frame than man currently does.
When inferences are made concerning millions and billions of years based on limited observation over the past few hundred years, the fallacy of insufficient statistics (hasty generalization) is committed. There is not sufficient reason to believe that current observations are representative of the entirety of natural history. Because unlimited uniformitarianism has been falsified, it follows that current scientific understanding is not representative of conditions eons into the past.
The Genesis Hypothesis is not falsified by these limitations on the scientific method; it allows for a very robust scientific method and a limited uniformitarianism. God created natural law and set it up to behave uniformly over a limited time span in an open system. Inferences about the past where a baseline of observed uniformity of natural law are valid, though weaker than direct observation. Such inferences concerning events within the history of the human race are valid because the baseline can be established through testimony or indirectly through the that that the human race did not get suddenly wiped out by disruption of one of several cosmological constants that would quickly wipe out the human race. If the law of gravity, chemical valences, or strong nuclear forces were to be modified for even a brief period of time, all life would abruptly end. Beyond the written history of the human race, such inferences become exponentially weaker. Inferences about millions and billions of years and light years is pure speculation.
The Genesis narrative asserts that God did six days of relative work, and God engaged in relative rest on the seventh. From the perspective of an Infinite-Personal God, it takes no more effort to speak during the first six days as it did to bless the seventh day. The relative rest is a relative easing of supernatural intervention in the natural world. The first six days of creation were days of heavy supernatural intervention that brought forth the natural world and set in place natural law and fundamental cosmological constants. The seventh day would be marked by an increased role for the natural forces (though not a complete absence of supernatural events). Natural causes would be at work in the creation - even evolution - albiet evolution bounded by a creation framework produced through supernatural intervention of God.
Christianity and the Historical Development of Science
The Genesis hypothesis influenced the development of modern science. Early scientists were Creationists who believed that God created nature and set up natural laws in a systematic way through the supernatural action. These early scientists also believed that created man with the categories of reason and cognitive structure that is compatible with the laws of logic and the laws of nature. There are multiple scientistsa wqho believed this, but I will focus in this brief piece with a few quotes from Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler.
Isaac Newton is considered the father of modern science. Newton's achievements led the way to the development of modern science. Isaac Newton believed God "built" the natural world and that he created us and the natural realm in such a way to allow the possibility of knowledge.
"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκρατορ, or Universal Ruler…
…We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is, we know not. In bodies we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known, either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds; much less then have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; …
…Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find, suited to different times and places, could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build. For all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind, by a certain similitude which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."Principia Mathematica, General Scholium, pages 504-506
Both Descartes and Newton proclaimed that God created man with categories roughly similar to categories that exist in the external world. God created us in such a way that our critical observational and reasoning processes will yield an understanding of reality that closely approximates reality. Newton built modern science within the framework of a Christian world-view.
Newton was not the only one who believed that God created humanity with the categories that are compatible with the mind of God and with the physical world. Perhaps the clearest statement of this idea can be found in the writings of Johannes Kepler,
"To God there are, in the whole material world, material laws, figures and relations of special excellency and of the most appropriate order. …Let us not try to discover more of the heavenly and immaterial world than God has revealed to us. Those laws are within the grasp of the human mind. God wanted us to recognisethem by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts…”Kepler, Letter to Johannes George Hewart von Hohenburg," April 9-10 1599, cited in Johannes Kepler: Life and LettersBy CarolaBaumgardt, 1951, page 50also Kepler's Philosophy and the New AstronomyBy Rhonda Martens, page 79, 2000, princeton University Press.
Science unintelligible without a Theistic foundation
Science is built on two main ideas: the natural world exists as an orderly system governed by natural laws, and the human mind exist in such a way that the categories of perception and reason roughly correspond to categories in the physical world. These ideas are not ideas to be proved by science; they are ideas that must be in place to justify scientific inquiry. As such, they are the product of world views. There are three major classes of worldviews: Pantheism, Materialism, and Theism.
When one considers the fact that unlimited uniformitarianism is falsified, it follows that the natural world exists as an open system in a larger reality. This means that there is a demarc or demarcation between natural and supernatural reality. Materialism and Pantheism become falsified.
Materialism asserts that matter-energy is the ultimate reality. From this follows the idea that the natural world is a closed system and that uniformity of natural claws and natural causes is eternal/indefinite. If materialism is true, then there is nothing behind natural laws and unlimited uniformitarianism is true. The falsification of uniformitarianism is the falsification of materialism.
Pantheism is the belief that all is God. Pantheism asserts emanation as its account of origins. Emanation is the outflow of substance from the ultimate reality to produce "lesser" realities. As the lesser realities share substance with the ultimate reality, there is no demarc between necessary and contingent being or between ultimate reality and particular realities. If pantheism is true, there is no demarc between natural and supernatural reality; if there is no demarc between natural and supernatural reality, then unlimited uniformitarianism is true. The falsification of uniformitarianism is the falsification of pantheism.
Theism asserts that God is self-existent ground of all being. Through God's power, finite, contingent, and temporal creations were produced. the reality of God is not merely of magnitude, but also a qualitative difference from the rest of reality. This can be thought of as the distinction between the supernatural (beyond nature) and the natural. Depending on the interpretation of theism, there may be multiple layers of natural and supernatural reality. Theism is the only class of world-views that is compatible with limited uniformitarianism.
Scientific inquiry can only be justified in a theistic world-view. Pantheism and Materialism pose difficulties in their attempts to justify scientific inquiry.
Pantheism, because it asserts emanation, implied a created reality that is equal to the ultimate reality. This means that mere creature like me can do all of the works of God. If pantheism is true, then I am God. It doesn't take long to falsify that view. The general response in Pantheism, and this is seen in eastern religions that teach Pantheism, is to argue that human experience is largely illusory. According to Pantheism, our sense of limitedness is a delusion. If so, then most of our perceptions are false; the faculties of man have no connection to the real world, meaning there is no reason to conduct experiential observation or perform experiments as the results of these are not likely to yield any information about the real world. Such a view is deadly to science.
Materialism asserts that impersonal matter-energy produced everything that exists. Mathematics, logic, and mind are the product of natural forces. Materialism provides no explanation of how logic and mathematics can be products of natural evolution or how natural law can exist. If material reality is the ultimate reality, how is it that it is governed by fundamental natural law that necessarily contains non-material attributes such as logical an mathematical properties. Materialism provides no explanation for why the categories of the human mind should correspond to the categories of the natural world. If there is no design, then it would be a colossal co-incidence - no basis to justify inferences about the real world based upon the perception of it.
Theism asserts that God created the universe and constructed natural law according to logical and mathematical attributes that already existed in His Mind. He willed contingent material substance into existence and fashioned according the template of natural law He created. He then created the human mind with categories of perception and reason that correspond roughly both to the mind of God and the categories of the natural world. Theology is the study of God, and science is the study of this natural world. This is the only adequate explanation for the justification of scientific inquiry.
No comments:
Post a Comment