You've heard of the new "Ark Encounter" monument to ignorance to be built (tax-free) in Kentucky, right? Well, in reading the latest on this I came across some elements it will likely draw from, stuff from that other childish defiance of scientific progress. I'm talking, of course, about Ken Ham's sanctuary from facts, the creation museum. Below is an authoritative little placard--because if it's on a placard, it's automatically authoritative, right?--from the Creation Science Museum (also in Kentucky) explaining why every scientist in the world is deeply biased and will stop at nothing to destroy jesus...eerrrr...I mean, this is how they explain why only their select few, fringe scientists who support Young Earth Creationism are correct in contrast to the overwhelming (and international, and both atheist and theist) majority who do not think children walked Velociraptors on a leash just 500 6000 years ago.
Notice how the term "starting point" comes up a total of six times. It is a clever rhetorical ploy by euphemism. After all, who would challenge the mere existence of different "starting points?" Sounds harmless enough. But by inculcating this into the discourse, they aim to imply that the scientific method--with it's evil policy of not starting with the assumption that the Christian Bible is literal truth--is no better than any other "starting point" that there is to choose from: e.g. Islam, Hinduism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism...
So are all "starting points" equally plausible in the search for scientific knowledge? Is there any merit in what they're saying? Well, the two "starting points" in question most definitely do consist of differing sets of assumptions, but only because creationists operate by ADDING MORE ASSUMPTIONS into the mix. Despite this, they imply that the fundamental assumptions necessary for rationality itself can be completely abandoned for religious dogma, leaving them no linguistic or philosophical basis from which to offer any argument for their god. Hey, the laws of logic merely represent an arbitrary starting point, right? Yeah, now pass the bong...
IDers will actually say with a straight face that for science to work you have to "assume" that the laws of physics will remain constant, that human beings are capable of rational thought, that the universe is real, etc. (I bet you didn't know you were such an over-assuming asshole, huh Hawking?) Here's some more of the bias-drenched assumptions of science from prominent Australia-based ID proponent John Mackay:
"[science requires] a faith position that whatever the world is doing now, it's always done."
"When you deal with scientific evidence, you first have to believe things like 'man is rational,' 'the world is real,' and 'for every real and rational question there's a real and rational answer.'"
"If I'm going to be a scientist I have to believe that the world's real, that I'm real, that we ask real and rational questions."
[from the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU&feature=player_embedded]
Does this mean that creationists don't have to utilize these presuppositions? Of course not. But they don't want you to ask this question. So please do, at every opportunity.
But even if we forgo the preceding point, which renders their entire argument moot, their bias becomes glaringly obvious as soon as we examine the extra assumptions that they are proposing. For example, creationists dodge the problem of radiometric dating by assuming that the half-lives of the isotopes used have adjusted themselves throughout history, decaying much more rapidly at the start of creation and decelerating to the observed constants since. Is this more parsimonious? Is there any good reason to stubbornly assume that all applicable physical constants have varied throughout time to make the age of the Earth (surprise..) equal exactly what creationists are taught in church? Hmmm...suspiciously convenient for their position, huh? And regardless, if the physical constants are so 'UN-constant' and infinitely flexible, then why couldn't they just as likely slow down as we move back in time, yielding an Earth with an age of hundreds of billions or trillions of years? Hell, any timeline is possible when you free yourself of science--perhaps the universe itself is 50,000 septillion years old? And why not? All we need is a different starting point!
All of this is part of the IDer's elaborate "Worldviews" fallacy, a kind of polylogism, which I've detailed in a previous post. To strip away the rhetoric, when a theist says that scientists arrive at "different conclusions" because they begin with a "different starting point," which they claim has to be taken on faith, they are essentially saying:
"If you just begin by assuming that the claims of your religious text are infallible, then you will find a way to make the evidence align with them." [see note below]
Simple confirmation bias, couched in specious philosophical rhetoric. And the bitter irony is that they are accusing the entire scientific community of deep bias.
In order to have their "starting position" seen as on par with the scientific method, creationists must employ a false dichotomy. They fallaciously imply that the fundamental "assumptions" of science (that 'the world is real,' 'we are capable of rationality,' etc) are one option and believing the Bible at face value is another, separate and mutually exclusive option. Well, I certainly agree that belief in the Bible is a great argument against human rationality. However, this false dilemma would only be relevant if creationists did not also assume these fundamental "presuppositions" they so cheerfully bring up, things like the laws of logic, upon which any reasoning they can offer must be built. Since they can't claim to operate independent of the laws of logic, and their position would be irrelevant without assuming that "the world is real and man is real," then they are (obviously) using the same assumptions as science and adding their own. This is a form of special pleading to get around any common standard of truth. "What's that you say? The evidence is against the Bible being true? Well! You just forgot to first assume that the Bible is infallible and any evidence that contradicts it is necessarily suspect!!"
To summarize, the "assumptions of science," as described by the ID camp, (1) do not show any bias whatsoever, as opposed to the extra assumptions proposed by creationists, and (2) are necessary for any critical thought or rational investigation--any rational discourse, not just that of science.
So, Banana Man, Behe, Dembski, et al: why should we ever begin scientific research with the injection of any unfounded assumptions? Why have you and your supporters resorted to attacking logic itself as your primary strategy? The entirety of creationist argumentation reeks of ad hoc desperation through and through. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's famous evasion, "that depends what the definition of 'is' is."
[Note: IDers (but not Y.E.C.'s) will nearly always avoid giving away their own religious belief and instead use more "scientific" sounding euphemisms, for the sake of political advantage]
[Note: IDers (but not Y.E.C.'s) will nearly always avoid giving away their own religious belief and instead use more "scientific" sounding euphemisms, for the sake of political advantage]
