Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Science, How Does It Work

Science, How Does It Work

Last updated on: May 11, 2020 at 12:55 pm by Libby Anne

Science, How Does It Work 2020-05-11T12:55:32-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I’m not sure Answers in Genesis knows what science is.

Here’s how Ken Ham began a recent blog post:

An article appeared recently in the “Space + Science” section of CNN’s website. This piece was titled, “Ancient humans are having a moment—Here are the fascinating things we’re learned this week about our ancestors.” The lengthy article then described a series of discoveries and, more importantly, their interpretations, as it relates to our supposed evolution. Several of these studies change what evolutionists thought they knew about our ancestry. One week and humanity’s evolutionary story is rewritten … again (as it has been again, and again, and again, and again . . .)!

This is how science works. Scientists adjust their hypotheses when they make new discoveries or uncover new evidence. Consider how intellectually dishonest it would be to refuse to change your ideas about how something happened when confronted with evidence that shows the thing you’re studying didn’t happen the way you thought—that it happened a different way. There would be a problem if a scientist didn’t adjust their hypothesis when confronted with contrary evidence.

Ham doesn’t see it this way because, as a fundamentalist Christian, he lays claim to absolute certainty. He believes that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, and that he knows what it says. From that vantage point—the vantage point of absolute certainty—science seems like quicksand.

What are the changes Ham is referencing?

Australopithecus (think “Lucy”) was originally considered an ancestor to humans but now they’ve reinterpreted the evidence and believe her species was living at the same time as Homo erectus, a supposed “early” human.

This really is just how science works.

Ham is not impressed:

What this CNN article really highlights is the shifting sands of evolution—it’s a constantly changing story. Now many evolutionists will say that’s because that’s how science works—old ways of thinking are always being discarded or refined as we discover new things.

Well … yes.

But that’s really not what we see when it comes to evolution. What we really witness is an idea so elastic that it doesn’t matter if the data or a new find totally contradicts everything they thought before—they just fit the story to accommodate the new data. And then they change it again in a year when a new find changes everything.

That’s really just explaining how science works, once again. When there’s a new find, the hypothesis is adjusted to accommodate the new data. When there’s another new find, it’s adjusted again.

The claim here is that the theory of evolution is “so elastic” it can be adjusted to fit literally any data. This isn’t quite true, but there is a piece of it that is. It has long been said that finding a fossil rabbit in the precambrian layers would disprove evolution, but I’ve always been skeptical of that claim. Why? Because if we found a fossil rabbit in the precambrian, the immediate question would be whether the rock layers had bucked or shifted, jumbling the fossils and setting them out of order.

The evidence for evolution is so strong—and so cross disciplinary—that data contradicting it would have to be incredibly, incredibly robust. Imagine if someone told you that there’s a person who can levitate, and that this disproves the theory of gravity. You’d want some pretty serious proof of this, yes? Even if you saw this person in person and witnessed them levitate, you’d still want some pretty solid evidence that it isn’t a trick. Why? Because the evidence behind the theory of gravity is overwhelming.

Yes, the theory of evolution is adjusted to fit new evidence, and not just thrown out, but there are reasons for that—the same reasons that finding an actually levitating person would likely lead to adjusting the theory of gravity, and not throwing it out altogether. There’s also a very large difference between adjusting a theory to fit new evidence and finding evidence that actually contradicts the theory as a whole. Concluding that Lucy was a species living at the same time as homo erectus, rather than an ancestor to humans, does not at all contradict the theory of evolution.

But perhaps the problem is, in part, projection. Ham has decided that the creation stories in the Bible are literally true, and there is literally nothing that would change his mind about that. He claims that the scientific evidence also backs up these stories, but he also states that the science is not why he holds these beliefs—he believes the Bible is literally true for epistemological reasons (this gets complicated, but it boils down to a claim that logic and reason could exist apart from the stories in the Bible).

No evidence will ever change Ham’s mind about young earth creationism. Instead, he will always find some way to fit any new scientific evidence into his young earth creationist model (or simply deny it exists). He believes that scientists who accept an evolutionary model are doing the same thing—that because nothing would change his mind, nothing will change theirs, either.

And then, when they do change their minds about some particular piece of how evolution took place, he interprets that as weakness, holding it in contrast to his certainty.

This is not how science works.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

creationism

Previous Post

May 10, 2020

Lesbian Duplex 271: An Open Thread

Next Post

May 12, 2020 Patriarchal Blogger: Happiness Is a Choice

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Jericho" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Place of salt Place of fragrance Dry ground Mount of olives