Today’s New Reason To Believe

One of the crucial tests in science (or any field, for that matter) for the validity of a theory or explanation is how well it stands up to the test of time. As more evidence is gathered, does this evidence support the theory (requiring only minor modifications), or does the evidence undermine key elements of the theory such that it is best abandoned altogether.

This testing—a cornerstone of Reasons To Believe’s creation model—is a vital step in evaluating both the facts of nature and our interpretation of the words of the Bible. It is our contention that as more discoveries are made, these two areas of knowledge will completely harmonize with each other, and we will see, in particular, a growing body of evidence supporting the uniqueness of life here on Earth.

RTB has recently reported (skip down to the August 29 entry) on various research papers that established the importance of Jupiter as a protector of Earth from long-period comet and asteroid collisions. This protective position has also been one component of the Rare Earth hypothesis as espoused by Donald Brownlee and Peter Ward in their book, Rare Earth. The idea is that without a Jupiter-sized planet in a solar system, any earth-like planet would suffer too many collisions to provide a long-term safe haven for advanced life.

Not surprisingly, however, not every discovery will appear, at least on the surface, to provide evidence for the uniqueness of our solar system. A recent report presented at the European Planetary Science Congress in Potsdam gave results that seem (at present) to contradict RTB’s model. This new study by Jonathan Horner and Barrie Jones of the Open University in the UK shows that for the class of comets called the Jupiter Family of comets (JFCs, which are short-period comets), the presence of Jupiter in the solar system does not necessarily reduce the number of impacts on Earth. This discovery contrasts with earlier studies based on long-period comets. In fact, the recent study showed that “no Jupiter” results in the same number of hits to Earth as does a solar system with a Jupiter. And, a Jupiter half its present size actually increased the number of hits to Earth. This work is based on a computer model that tracks the paths of 100,000 JFCs over a period of 10 million years.

Some astronomers conclude that these results damage the case for the Rare Earth hypothesis. However, this judgment is perhaps a little premature, since it is ultimately the asteroids and larger long-period comets that provide the greatest threat to life on Earth.

Before we jump ship on the importance of a Jupiter-like planet for a life-sustaining planet, RTB would like to see the Horner and Jones study expanded to include the effects from these larger objects and, simultaneously, the effects of the other gas giants in our solar system. It is our belief that when all the variables are taken into account, Jupiter-like planets will prove to be critical for Earth-like planets to sustain life.

The Fact and Theory of Evolution

You don’t need to be a scientist to know that there’s a big difference between physics and biology. But you probably do need to be a scientist to be familiar with a subtle, but critical distinction between these two disciplines.

Physicists are very quick to challenge the central theories and assumptions of modern physics. Biologists, however, are unwilling to do the same.

As Jeff Zweerink described yesterday in his TNRTB entry, physicists recently tested one of the fundamental assumptions of general relativity, the Lorentz Invariance principle. Even though general relativity is considered by many to be one of the best-established principles in all of science, physicists seem to delight in any opportunity to prove it wrong.

This situation stands in sharp contrast to the way that evolutionary biologists interact with the theory of evolution. They steadfastly refuse to even entertain the possibility that this paradigm for life’s origin and history might somehow be unfounded.

Evolutionary biologists, in order to avoid any critical evaluation of the validity of biological evolution, hide behind the statement attributed to the famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky that

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Yet, one could maintain that nothing in physics makes sense except in light of general relativity (and quantum mechanics). Somehow this doesn’t prevent physicists from ruthlessly pursuing ways to falsify one of the cornerstone ideas in their discipline.

Evolutionary biologists, most certainly, would protest any characterization that intimates at their reluctance to test biological evolution. They maintain that the theory of evolution is subjected to ongoing, critical evaluation.

Evolution is both a Theory and a Fact

In his book, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism paleontologist Niles Eldredge represents most evolutionary biologists when he states that

The common expression ‘evolutionary theory’ actually refers to two rather different sets of ideas: (1) the notion that absolutely all organisms living on the face of the Earth right now are descended from a single common ancestor, and (2) ideas of how the evolutionary process works…Creationists love to gloss over this rather clear-cut, simple distinction between the idea that (1) life has evolved, and the sets of ideas on (2) how the evolutionary process actually works. (page 24)

In other words, Eldredge and other evolutionary biologists maintain that evolution is both a fact and a theory. That it occurred is the fact. How it occurred is the theory. Biologists actively debate and critically assess evolution’s mechanism, but they insist this debate shouldn’t be interpreted to indicate that the fact of evolution is on uncertain footing. They see no reason to test that evolution occurred.

Generally, evolutionary biologists point to two main lines of evidence to support evolution’s status as fact. The first is the shared anatomical features possessed by organisms. Biologists use these common characteristics to group organisms into nested clusters or hierarchies. Evolutionists take this pattern to indicate that life descended with modification from a common ancestor. In other words, they take this to indicate that life evolved. The second line of evidence is the fossil record, which shows that different life-forms existed on Earth at different times in its history and reveals a progression from simple to complex organisms.

But does this evidence necessarily compel evolution? It is a far cry from the quantitative certainty that physicists have about general relativity.

The nested clusters could easily reflect the handiwork of a Creator who chose to employ a common blueprint and reuse many of the same design elements. Accordingly, evolution’s common ancestor is replaced by an archetype that exists in God’s mind. As for the fossil record, again this finds ready explanation. As indicated in the Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 creation accounts, the Creator transformed the planet and brought life into existence in a purposefully progressive fashion. This progression includes the creation of different life-forms at different eras in Earth’s history. Hence, the fossil record’s features find explanation.

If other models can logically account for the data from the fossil record and the patterns observed among living organisms, then why does a segment of the scientific community view that evolution occurred as fact and not a theory? Philip Johnson, one of the founders of the Intelligent Design Movement, argues that the contemporary scientific enterprise is inextricably intertwined with the philosophical position called naturalism. According to this system of thought, reality exclusively consists of the physical, material universe. Nothing exists beyond the universe. In other words, naturalism rejects the possibility of the supernatural and miracles. This means that science in the naturalistic framework must explain the universe and all phenomena within it exclusively through natural-process cause and effect.

If science is cast within the naturalistic paradigm, then the fossil record, which shows different life forms at different eras and a progression of organisms from simple to complex, must mean that life transformed from one form into another through natural means alone. It means that evolution is a fact. The philosophical assumptions of contemporary science force the fact of evolution, not the evidence at hand, necessarily. Natural process evolution must be a fact, since the philosophy of naturalism, by definition, will not allow supernatural explanations. No other choices are philosophically permitted. Evolution is a fact only if naturalism is embraced.

Other philosophical and theological positions allow for the fact of evolution, but also keep open the possibility that supernatural explanations may account for features of life and aspects of its natural history. For biologists to establish evolution as a fact within this broader context, the theory must withstand the rigors of scientific testing. Within a framework that allows for supernatural causation, that evolution occurred, like all scientific ideas, is provisional and must be constantly evaluated with each new discovery and in juxtaposition to alternative theories.

An approach to science that leaves open the possible involvement of a Creator aligns much more closely to the exemplary practice of physicists in their unending quest to falsify general relativity. A theistic paradigm applied to science spawns an intellectual milieu that allows both the fact and the theory of evolution to be analytically gauged.

Imagine an architect sitting down to design a building and starting the process by verifying that all objects fall to the ground. Then the architect engages in numerous detailed tests to confirm gravity’s action. Why bother? It sounds ludicrous to test such an obvious and essential assumption.

However, scientists continue to perform a similar kind of testing on arguably the best-established scientific theory—the theory of general relativity. When Einstein first developed general relativity, he started with two fundamental assumptions. The first, which seems self-evident, states that the laws of physics do not depend on location or motion. Scientists refer to this principle as Lorentz invariance. The second assumption, which is not so obvious, was that the speed of light is the same regardless of one’s frame of reference.

At least in modern times, it seems ludicrous to think that the laws of physics change based on where you are or how you move. Yet scientists continue to search for evidence of such changes. The most recent example of such a search was highlighted in the Physical Review Letters. Using two different setups, one in Perth, Australia, and the other in Berlin, Germany, a team of scientists performed sensitive experiments to detect any hint that the laws of physics might change based on how the detectors moved. No changes were observed. In fact, the constraints on 14 different parameters characterizing Lorentz invariance were tightened anywhere from a factor of 3 to 50!

While it might seem strange to those outside physics, such testing of fundamental assumptions is commonplace within the physics community. In fact, many scientists hope for some evidence indicating general relativity is wrong, because such evidence would open up abundant avenues for research. Until such evidence presents itself, the scientific evidence for general relativity’s validity continues to grow stronger. And so does the case for a supernatural Creator, which derives from general relativity’s implications.

For a related discussion of testing fundamental assumptions, see Fuz Rana’s TRNTB entry tomorrow.