2008 Woodie Awards
The problem is history, not science
FREDERICK AREHART
Opinion Writer
Issue date: 4/5/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
“Science” is a discipline of objective thought that requires “the evidence to speak for itself.” The scientific method of research requires that an event or series of actions (such as an experiment) be based upon actual observation and be repeatable under controlled conditions. Outcomes are assessed based upon hypothesis and the result. The key phrase in the scientific method is “testable results.”
The question of where we came from tickles our frontal lobes. In the search for our origins, we would all like to have answers free of bias and opinion. We just want the facts. Science, with its scientific method, would seem to be a straightforward means of determining facts but unfortunately it is not.
You see, the question of where we came from cannot be analyzed and answered through repeatable observation. There is simply no way to go back and review the event(s) or to repeat them in the here and now. No matter how much we wish it were so, no amount of sophistry or wishful thinking can change these facts. Thus, any conception or theory on origins cannot be tested and by definition are not verifiable through the scientific method. An example of this confusion is the bumper sticker, “Evolution is just a theory, just like gravity.” The words are implying that both are equally verifiable scientific facts of life. But are they? Gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated at will and tested under controlled conditions.
Can the same be said of evolution or any theory of our origin?
Unfortunately, it cannot.
Much of the discord over origins today is a result of researchers confusing their artifact interpretations and demonstrable technology with the scientific method. It doesn’t matter if you favor neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, special creation or intelligent design; you are all not working within the scientific method or the realm of science at all.
You are instead working within historical interpretation. The artifacts are all the same, but what they mean is in the eye of the beholder; a fossil bone is no different than a shoe from a Civil War soldier. Answering the questions of our origins is subjective and, alas, not provable. Fossils and other artifacts are items of historical (not scientific) significance. So where does this leave us? Well, first of all it leaves us with a level playing field. Only when we accept that theories of origins are based upon historical interpretation of the same data can we debate on merit. If evolutionists expect creationists to be open to questions about their literal interpretation of the Bible, they should be equally open to questions about the many inconsistencies in radiometric dating results, the fossil record, the geologic column and genetic assumptions. There should be no yelling, name calling, blackballing, interrupting or disinformation allowed; please leave these at the monkey bars on the playground (pardon the pun).
There should be only respectful debate on the merits of the arguments that are presented. No theory should be
accepted on blind faith and no theory should dominate through political correctness. I, for one would like to see such debate on campus.
The question of where we came from tickles our frontal lobes. In the search for our origins, we would all like to have answers free of bias and opinion. We just want the facts. Science, with its scientific method, would seem to be a straightforward means of determining facts but unfortunately it is not.
You see, the question of where we came from cannot be analyzed and answered through repeatable observation. There is simply no way to go back and review the event(s) or to repeat them in the here and now. No matter how much we wish it were so, no amount of sophistry or wishful thinking can change these facts. Thus, any conception or theory on origins cannot be tested and by definition are not verifiable through the scientific method. An example of this confusion is the bumper sticker, “Evolution is just a theory, just like gravity.” The words are implying that both are equally verifiable scientific facts of life. But are they? Gravity can be repeatedly demonstrated at will and tested under controlled conditions.
Can the same be said of evolution or any theory of our origin?
Unfortunately, it cannot.
Much of the discord over origins today is a result of researchers confusing their artifact interpretations and demonstrable technology with the scientific method. It doesn’t matter if you favor neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, special creation or intelligent design; you are all not working within the scientific method or the realm of science at all.
You are instead working within historical interpretation. The artifacts are all the same, but what they mean is in the eye of the beholder; a fossil bone is no different than a shoe from a Civil War soldier. Answering the questions of our origins is subjective and, alas, not provable. Fossils and other artifacts are items of historical (not scientific) significance. So where does this leave us? Well, first of all it leaves us with a level playing field. Only when we accept that theories of origins are based upon historical interpretation of the same data can we debate on merit. If evolutionists expect creationists to be open to questions about their literal interpretation of the Bible, they should be equally open to questions about the many inconsistencies in radiometric dating results, the fossil record, the geologic column and genetic assumptions. There should be no yelling, name calling, blackballing, interrupting or disinformation allowed; please leave these at the monkey bars on the playground (pardon the pun).
There should be only respectful debate on the merits of the arguments that are presented. No theory should be
accepted on blind faith and no theory should dominate through political correctness. I, for one would like to see such debate on campus.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 8
Tim
posted 4/05/07 @ 5:05 AM MST
The problem is that Frederick Arehart knows nothing about science.
His claim that "the scientific method of research requires that an event or series of actions (such as an experiment) be based upon actual observation and be repeatable under controlled conditions" is UTTER BALONEY -- try repeating the Big Bang, a supernova or an earthquake under controlled conditions. (Continued…)
Tom von Alten
posted 4/05/07 @ 9:30 AM MST
Yes, this sounds so reasonable and civilized, but it's a profoundly disturbing pattern I've seen too often now. "Keep an open mind" we're admonished, by people's whose minds are utterly closed to the possibility of scientific inference challenging their dogmatic belief systems. (Continued…)
John Stockwell
posted 4/05/07 @ 10:35 AM MST
Unfortunately for Mr. Arehart when physical evidence is available, there is no difference between "historical science" and any other type of science. It is when historians rely
only on accounts written by people (eyewitness or not), which is to say "anecdotal evidence," that "historical interpretation"
comes into play. (Continued…)
themard
Martee Ortiz
posted 4/07/07 @ 9:53 AM MST
The majority of you seem so ready to attack the writer of this piece, and I wonder how many of you are attacking him because he has a valid point. This is an OPINION article, and he obviously has the authority to write his opinion - It's not a SCIENCE page or a HARD NEWS article - He's not claiming to be an expert. (Continued…)
Leon Broioks
posted 4/09/07 @ 3:42 PM MST
Commenters, many of you have an odd opinion of "hard" evidence. "Hard" does not mean stiff like rocks or fossils, it means that the interpretation can't be argued. (Continued…)
Post a Comment