COMMONLY, IN THE UNENDING Creo-Evo debates, we are confronted with those who (when they’re not denying that any evidence for evolution exists) claim that it’s the “interpretation” of the evidence that counts. That, given the same evidence, one can interpret it to come to differing conclusions, and therefore come up with a “theory” that is of equal validity. They then go on to explain that this “equally valid” theory should also be taught.
This tactic fails on multiple levels.
Consider this case…
A murder has ocurred. the police arrest a man for the crime. He has motive, opportunity, and means. His DNA is found at the scene of the crime. He is captured with the victim’s DNA on his person. He is in posession of the murder weapon, confirmed through ballistics and DNA. he has “trace” from the fired weapon on his hands. During the course of the investigation, he makes contradictory, incorrect statements to the police. He is shown to be lying about his whereabouts at the time of the crime. He has no alibis to speak of. Finally, he is captured with property belonging to the victim, and known to be in the victim’s possession at the time of the murder.
Any reasonable person interpreting this evidence would conclude that the suspect was, in fact, guilty in the crime. Indeed, no other interpretation of the evidence appears even possible. Any police officer would agree, as would almost any district attorney.
Of course, one other possible interpretation is that he was the victim of a massive frame-job; the police or others having “planted” the physical evidence.
Now, are these two theories (1. that he comitted the crime, and 2. That he was “framed”) of equal validity? Of course not.
To believe theory 2, we have to ignore some of the evidence (motive, opportunity, means, the inconsistant and misleading statements, etc). We also have to ignor ethe way the totality of the evidence fits together. Finally, we have to ignore the fact that theory 2 has no supportive evidence of its own.
When you advocate an “interpretation” of evidence that completely flies in the face of the one that explains all of the evidence, and contradicts or ignores none of it, you must then present evidence of your own…questioning or “poking holes” in the prevailing theory won’t cut it. To present theory 2 as equally valid as theory 1, you must obtain independant, supportive evidence for that theory. Evidence such as that which might show the police had a “grudge” against the suspect, for example, or evidence that he was not, in fact, at the scene of the crime. Absent that new evidence, no amount of twisting or “reinterpreting” the existing evidence will do.
Obviously, in real life courtrooms, raising reasonable doubt can, in fact, aquit a suspect despite the evidence. Key word…reasonable. Un-reasonable doubts introduced into court will be struck down by a competant judge. You can’t, for example, suggest that the crime was the work of space aliens!
Furthermore, in regards to the Theory Of Evolution, we are talking about science, not criminal law. Simply “raising doubt” is not enough…evidence in support of the alternate theory is required, particularly if the alternate theory requires, as both creationism and theory 2 above do, a deux ex machina for which no evidence actually exists.
I write this because very few creationoids seem to understand what evidence really is, how it is interpreted, and how it is used in science. Many seem to think that it works like the O.J. trial…introduce the slightest doubt, and you win!
Not so much. And the foregoing is offered as “food for thought” the next time you confont someone who wants to convince you that HIS “interpretation” of the evidence is just as valid as those of scientists.
In the case you consider — the Creationist insisting on a different “interpretation” of evidence– rarely is a different account of the data presented, but a denial of the evidence. In other words, a refusal to look at anything which hasn’t first been sorted by Morton’s demon.
In creationism, it suffices to state that “other intepretations exist.” No need is felt to present or defend any particular one.
Such a rebuttal has a nice, all-purpose quality to it. Any preponderance of evidence may be airily waved away thereby with as little futher explanation as desired. Twenty paragraphs of text with 15 pictures of fossil evidence go away with “Just your evolutionist assumptions … blah! blah! blah! … and other interpretations exist.”
In the first place, such crime scene investigation definites aren’t altogether common. Shows like CSI give bereaved kin of murdered individuals false hope that every case can be solved in an instant and incontrovertibly. This is not the case; REAL crime scene investigators have been quoted on Fox News explaining the microwave mentality that has been exacerbated by the popular network crime show.
Many crimes remain unsolved for years. Those “Have You Seen Me?” cards you get in the mail are rarely less than five years old.
As the scene grows old, the trail grows cold.
The nature of the evidence is the rub, both in crime scenes and in crevo debates, and the situation is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as it is painted here. The trail (according to evolutionists) is eons old. According to creationists, much chaos has taken place to disrupt the scene. Evolutionists agree, although they disagree the extent and cause of those disruptions.
Thus, sticking with the crime scene analogy, it is like trying to discern footprints in the dirt after a hoard of horses have galloped through. There are many assumptions, and assumptions based on assumptions.
Science that deals with the past cannot make direct observations, but merely read a difficult and vague record in the geologic record, ice cores, tree rings, carbon dating, etc. They INFER from the evidence they observe.
Answers.com defines “inferred†as “The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.â€
So interpretation and framework come into play; the “premises known or assumed to be true†can be either evolution (old earth naturalism) or creation (young earth creationism) and then the data can be interpreted through each different framework. Both frameworks begin with a premise that, to mortal minds, seems strange. Evolution, that the world evolved through billions of years of natural selection operating on random copying errors after spontaneously generating from a warm pond of goo. Creation, that a special creator used intelligence and abilities outside of human intelligence and understanding to create the world.
The question is how well the evidence fits which model. Poking holes is taking weights off the scale which seemed to make it lean in favor of evolution, thus swaying the scale back towards special creation.
I grant that alternate theories cannot be formed simply on the basis of holes in another. Creationism, frankly, was here before evolution, and people decided that they didn’t want to believe in God. So they poked holes in it and started evolution.
Creationism does not rest with simply firing darts at evolution’s foundation; they also add weights to their own side.
Don’t expect my appearance here to be a regular occurrence.
Dave, the problem is that Creationism posits an interpretation for which it provides no evidence; at least, evidence that is objective and scientifically sound. It claims that life was “created”, but provides no evidence of any creator.
And, people didn’t “start” evolution because they “didn’t want to believe in God”…the TOE was developed using verifiable, subjective evidence that was, and is, available.
Dave: I think you should reconsider your analogy of “Thus, sticking with the crime scene analogy, it is like trying to discern footprints in the dirt after a hoard of horses have galloped through. There are many assumptions, and assumptions based on assumptions.”
Any good paleontologist can tell much from one bone or shell and it’s not guess work. And while some sites are clearly “messy” many others are quite clear. The amount of information is overwhelming. It’s something you would do well to familiarize yourself with.
To quote a paleontologist at Dinosaur National Monument “We have so many fossils we couldn’t study them all in a thousand years.”
All scientific inferences come with the proviso that should a better explanation come along the inference is change, updated or tossed in the scrap heap. It is science’s greatest strength and Creationism’s greatest weakness.
>
That’s not true; there is ample evidence for a created earth and a young one. It’s actually the same evidence, interpreted according to a different framework. It may not be evidence that you agree with, but you would then be falling into the same trap of uninformed people who say “there is no evidence for evolution.”
>
“Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however implausible, must be the case,” as Holmes was fond of saying. Living matter from non-living matter is impossible.
>
Which came first?
>
I agree. But age is not something readily apparent. It is inferred.
>
Many of them have jumbles of bones thrown together, which indicates chaos and disaster overtook them.
Others are quite clear. Such as Mary Schweitzer’s find. “No clear-thinking scientist would have done, what she did.” And voila, scientific breakthrough. Breaking out of evolutionary paradigm can be handy once in a while.
>
I knew by trespassing on neo-Darwinian turf would be inviting insults, but I’m still a bit tired of this condescending crap.
>
This is a catch-22. Creationists are accused of not changing, of staying stubborn. Then when they make allowances for different discoveries, they are mocked for changing. However, this is not “science’s” (read: evolution’s) greatest strength. It is no great high mark that textbooks must continually be revised and updated to account for every new find. There are few tenets of creationism that require(d) an absolute overhaul. Whereas evolution has itself evolved far beyond its own origins.
Delete that last comment, the formatting turned out wrong. Let’s try again.
That’s not true; there is ample evidence for a created earth and a young one. It’s actually the same evidence, interpreted according to a different framework. It may not be evidence that you agree with, but you would then be falling into the same trap of uninformed people who say “there is no evidence for evolution.”
“Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however implausible, must be the case,” as Holmes was fond of saying. Living matter from non-living matter is impossible.
Which came first?
I agree. But age is not something readily apparent. It is inferred.
Many of them have jumbles of bones thrown together, which indicates chaos and disaster overtook them.
Others are quite clear. Such as Mary Schweitzer’s find. “No clear-thinking scientist would have done, what she did.” And voila, scientific breakthrough. Breaking out of evolutionary paradigm can be handy once in a while.
I knew by trespassing on neo-Darwinian turf would be inviting insults, but I’m still a bit tired of this condescending crap.
This is a catch-22. Creationists are accused of not changing, of staying stubborn. Then when they make allowances for different discoveries, they are mocked for changing. However, this is not “science’s” (read: evolution’s) greatest strength. It is no great high mark that textbooks must continually be revised and updated to account for every new find. There are few tenets of creationism that require(d) an absolute overhaul. Whereas evolution has itself evolved far beyond its own origins.
“…there is ample evidence for a created earth and a young one. It’s actually the same evidence, interpreted according to a different framework. It may not be evidence that you agree with…”. Would you like to restate this so that it is not contradictory? And while you’re at it give us some evidence for a created and young Earth.
“But age is not something readily apparent. It is inferred.” If you understand geology, chemistry and nuclear chemistry, age is “apparent” and easily calculated. Again I ask what positive evidence you have for a created young Earth?
There is no condenscension in my remark. Based on what you say I conclude that you are very unaware of the mountains of evidence that exist. The reasons for this ignorance are, however, none of my concern.
And the last statement – Creationists have not changed their basic tenents since well before Darwin. All I have seen from them is the ignoring of facts. Science always adjusts and updates because every one of us knows that we are in the middle of something and we have much to learn. Creationists say the same tired old things, no matter what the circumstance.