Science based on evidence, not faith

Patrick E. White, Guest Columnist

One of the more common strategies employed by Christian religious fundamentalists to undermine science is to mischaracterise it as a faith-based belief system, the equivalent of religion. This was the main idea in Martin Henry's recent column titled, "Science and Religion: Clash of Two Faiths," (The Sunday Gleaner July 7, 2013).

When the best argument to advance the religious cause is to pretend that science shares its strength, this may be an indication that fundamentalism has run out of ideas. After all, fundamentalists cannot honestly argue that religion leads to better societal outcomes than science. This is not what the record for the past several centuries show. Most people today, including their shrinking base of low intellectual achievers, know that it is science, not religion, that is responsible for humanity's greatest achievements.

They also cannot cite significant accomplishments that are uniquely traced to religion. Even the frequent claim that morality has its roots in Judeo-Christian beliefs, is easily trashed. Prohibitions against murder, theft and adultery, for example, are not restricted to societies with Christian exposure. And all advanced contemporary societies condemn those aspects of biblical culture that seem to tolerate, or encourage stoning, slavery, genocide, plural marriages, and child sacrifice.

Scientific method

Admittedly, Henry and his colleagues are correct when they say that many early advancements were made by scientists with religious leanings. But what they seldom acknowledge is that all of these scientists, like their secular colleagues, relied on the scientific method. None derived their discoveries from religious insight. Furthermore, some of them, including Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin were successful, in spite of, not because of their religious affiliation.

Against this backdrop, most intelligent people would be dumbfounded to see Henry argue that it is science that should be restrained. He believes questions related to natural origins should be off limits. We can only assume this is because the latest scientific findings contradict the Bible's creation myth.

Taking science on its own ground, no hypothesis of origins can be established by scientific method because it simply cannot be tested, a key requirement of validating hypotheses. Origin, whether of matter or of life, is a unique, one-off, non-replicable event of the distant past without human witnesses. Scientific method proceeds by examining replicable phenomena for attaining reliable and valid results. In matters of origins, we all ultimately stand on a platform of faith.

In this argument, Henry is essentially advocating a replay of the medieval persecution of Copernicus and Galileo for daring to disagree with the religious teaching that the earth was the center of the universe. This time, instead of proposing to sanction specific scientists, he proposes to sanction all of them!

If Henry had more than a cursory knowledge of the scientific process that he seeks to criticise or restrict, he would know that when scientists characterise past events, they are applying the same methodology forensic investigators use at crime scenes; that is, they base their reconstruction on the evidence left behind. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether an event is one-off, non-replicable, or has human witnesses. All that matters is whether the evidence exists, and whether the observer has the ability, derived from observation and reasoning, to make a sound inference.

For example, when scientists say that a Big Bang, occurring roughly 14-billion-years ago, triggered the formation of the universe, they do so, not as an expression of a new religious faith, but because they have found evidence that leads them to that conclusion. This evidence includes the continuing expansion of the universe, first observed by the late astronomer, Edwin Hubble. It includes measurements of the concentrations of the lightest elements in the universe that show consistency with a "hot" Big Bang. And it includes the cosmic background radiation, the radiation produced by the Big Bang after it had cooled sufficiently. My former Bell Laboratories colleagues, Arno Penzias, and Robert Wilson won the 1978 Nobel Prize for physics for the discovery of this radiation.

Supporting evidence

Therefore, there is no inherent conspiracy against religion when scientists doubt the creation story in the Bible. Scientists doubt it because there is simply no supporting evidence, and what evidence they do have, points to a Big Bang, a far different account.

The same is true in archaeology. When Finkelstein and Silberman say the Pentateuch is mostly myths and legends (The Bible Unearthed), they do so because there is no archaeological evidence to support important passages such as the enslavement and escape of Israelites from Egypt, the wondering in the Sinai, or the supposed conquest of Canaan.

Why is any of this important? Isn't it the case, as the late palaeontologist, Dr Stephen Jay Gould, theorised that science and religion belong in "non-overlapping magisteria," or non-competing spheres? Why can't we simply live and let live?

Unfortunately, as demonstrated by Henry's column, fundamentalists rarely confine themselves to their sphere, where they are free to engage each other in pointless theological and philosophical debates, searching in vain for "wisdom." When they encroach into areas like science, which are outside their capabilities, the result is often to discourage the development of the technical talent that we need, in addition to promoting social disunity, an us versus them.

And that is not all, by diverting scarce economic and intellectual resources from problem solving into religious activities, religion may be one of the elements retarding our development. Indeed, in countries where religiosity is strong, it is often true that lives remain "nasty, brutish and short." Perhaps there is causation behind this correlation.