.
Whenever science attempts to understand and explain an
observed, natural phenomenon, it must always begin with certain
assumptions. For example, scientists
assume, as a default paradigm, that nature is orderly, that it acts according
to underlying principles which can be elucidated by research. If the default assumption were that natural
principles are purely random and capricious, then science would be deemed a
futile endeavor. There would be no point
in attempting to understand the physical world.
Therefore, we accept the idea that the universe is, as Einstein put it, “comprehensible.”
Default assumptions, however, are not always correct. For example, it was once thought by
scientists that lightning was due to the explosion of atmospheric gases, and
that the sun burned due to chemical reactions.
These initial assumptions were proved wrong. Lightning is an electrical phenomenon, and
the sun’s radiant heat is due to thermonuclear fusion.
But the point is that, in order to correct a false
assumption, one requires compelling evidence, what nonscientists refer to as
proof, that the assumption was wrong.
This usually means that the old assumption has been replaced by a better
model, one that more accurately and more fully explains what is seen.
Default scientific assumptions are not arrived at frivolously. One might attribute certain events to
leprechauns, but while some people may fervently believe that, the idea does
not meet the requirements of science. A
scientific assumption must be a plausible explanation of observed events, and
more than that, it must be the most plausible explanation available at
the time.
We can apply all of the foregoing to the assumption that physical
reality (the universe) is intelligently designed. The theory is abbreviated as ID.
The arguments for that theory may not rise to the level of
proof, but they do establish, quite firmly, the most plausible and most
explanatory paradigm for the structure, order, and behavior of physical
reality.
ID does not invalidate science. Physics, chemistry and biology continue to be
among the rock-solid foundations of understanding the particulars of nature. Relativity and quantum physics (despite their
problems of coherence with each other) remain necessary to modern technology.
What ID does, is to challenge the underlying paradigm which
many scientists use as their default assumption. ID explains the big picture. Most scientists, however, accept the
physicalist paradigm, also known by such names as natural materialism. Described briefly, physicalism asserts that
there is nothing other than the physical, or if there is, it never impinges on physical
nature. That paradigm is not a
scientific one, but a philosophical assumption, an unproved metaphysical
explanation of the physical.
Physicalists will argue otherwise, but there are many
important questions which physicalism fails to properly address. It attributes the observed order and
consistency of natural law to purely random fluctuations in an unseen, greater
reality that some call the multi-verse.
Furthermore, physicalism fails on many fronts. It has no explanation for consciousness,
which by the way, is the only observed phenomenon which observes itself. One of the common dismissals of consciousness,
according to many physicalists, is the circular (and silly) idea that
consciousness is an illusion. What is it
that has the illusion? Can an illusion
have an illusion? Can we explain to the proverbial
little man that isn’t there, that he isn’t there?
Another major problem for physicalism is that it is
incompatible with the notion that we have free will. If we have no free will, then we can never be
scientific about anything, because we would never have any choice in anything,
including what we think. A whole host of
absurdities arise from such a notion.
However, all that having been said, we can abandon the
foregoing arguments, on the basis that the burden of proof is not on those who
dispute physicalism; it is on those who dispute ID.
ID has been criticized by physicalists as a dishonest “wedge,”
a pseudoscientific way of trying to insert God into science, and to do so in a
way that circumvents the legal theory of separation of church and state. How dare you try to teach science students
that the God of Abraham is of any consequence to science?
Guilty as charged, except for the “dishonest” and “pseudo” accusations. The law does not forbid the teaching of
religious principles, it simply forbids their being forced on people who have
other principles protected by law. See
the First Amendment. It restricts only
the government.
But physicalists are even more guilty. Physicalism is no more scientific than
ID. On the contrary, ID is clearly in
evidence, so much so, that to reject it requires extraordinary alternate theories,
such as the multi-verse theory, now proposed by premier scientists. Ironically, if one follows the reasoning of
multi-verse theory to its conclusion, it actually reinforces ID theory. In attempting to explain how one universe
arises without intent and purpose, it then fails to address the even more
difficult question of how myriads of universes (perhaps infinite numbers of
them) arise, and do so without intent or purpose.
A common answer of physicalists is that multi-verse theory
accounts for vast numbers of metaphoric dice rolls, so that eventually, one of
them produces life. They ignore the more
fundamental principle that, in order for randomness to operate, there must be nonrandom
parameters that define the probabilities.
If the universe is the product of metaphorical dice rolls, then what
produces (and defines) the dice?
Physicalists will continue to struggle to reject the idea
that physical reality is the result of divine creation. They will do so on unscientific grounds that propose
the improbable, while dismissing the obvious, the more probable, and doing so
without any compelling reason.
We are not happenstance byproducts of a mindless nature. That is the more reasonable paradigm, and one
which motivates us to a purposeful, and accountable, existence.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment