Misunderstandings of Science
The No Challenge Theory
The no challenge theory is a projection of pride onto scientist by creationist. Creationist are an egotistical lot that believe that it is self evident that the whole universe was designed for the sole benefit of humans and that human beings are living proof of a perfect God.
With all this hubris about humans it is interesting as well as amusing that they also see all humans as sinners and imperfect. But according to them we were designed perfect but exercised our freewill so are now sinners and the flaw in our design is by our own choice.
It is like a perfectly designed robot with a self destruct switch. Activating this switch doesn't turn the robot off or make it explode. The switch simply initiates a self destruct sequence called sinning. Although the robot has no freewill and can only do what is programmed to do it is given the illusion of freewill in the following way.
The designer gives the robot the choice to activate it's own self destruct mechanism or to continue to accept its programming.
If activated this robot will no longer have to follow its programming but any alteration in the programming will result in the robot's self destruct sequence. Here is the key. The entire perfect program initiated by the designer is dependent on that switch remaining neutral. So the second it is activated the activation itself is an alteration in the original program.
So now we have a perfect design by a perfect creator and life begins with complexity. First there was nothing. Then there was creation with no steps in between. Nothing could have evolved on Earth because everything alive simply appeared in all the complexity we see now from nothing.
But these creationist say that life arising from non life is impossible.
That simple organisms evolving into more complicated organisms by natural selection is also impossible.
According to creationist science denies complexity in biology. To quote The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science...
“Ever since Darwin , the tendency has been for scientist to regard biological systems as simpler than they really are. (That is why it is not so difficult to believe that they were assembled over millions of years by trial and error.)”
But how do creationist know anything about the obvious complexity of biological systems? From studying biology!
A branch of science! Does the bible describe biological systems? Does theology offer evidence for the complexity of organisms?
Finally is natural selection considered trial and error?
First we must ask what is trial and error? One method of trial and error is random. That is no actual method is used at all. If science used this method we would have no technology beyond mechanical devises. We would have no computers, X rays, MRI Scans Microwave Ovens etc. We would still be using leaches in hospitals.
Clearly the method of randomly putting various objects together to see if we can get anything useful out of them is not the scientific method used to advance technology.
Anyone that knows the history of computers for instance knows that it was natural selection not random trial and error that allows today's computers to be so good at what they do.
Our technology evolved over a period of about a hundred years or so from trial and error but it wasn't random. We used what we knew about physics and mathematics to select what methods to use. In the same way over millions of years simple organism evolved into complex organisms through a process of natural selection. Whether this selection was guided by gods, faerie, aliens, or DNA mutations the evidence is still out.
But using Occam's Razor we can rule out spontaneous creation from nothing.
Or even Jealous Angry Gods having a tribal turf war.
Appeal to ignorance does not advance knowledge!
The appeal to ignorance argument goes something like this. Not only do we not know exactly how life evolved but we may never know every intricate detail.
So you should accept a primitive document put together before science was even in it's infancy about magical jealous angry beings that created our world out of nothing for their own amusement.
Even though there is no evidence of these beings existence any more than myth based on ignorance. And even though there is no evidence of spontaneous creation of anything out of nothing since the beginning of time.
Even if you take all this into account you must accept the following. If you do not know the answer you should accept the most popular answer based on emotions passions and ignorance.
Again to quote The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science
“They do not know how the body is assembled into an organism of 100 trillion cells, starting with a single fertilized egg, when all the cells contain the same DNA-the same genetic instructions. “
Again creationist use the same arguments against genetic engineering as they do against evolution. If we don't know exactly how it is done then God did it. They focus on cloning because that science is in it's infancy.
They can not claim that medical science has not advanced or produced technology based on our understanding of biology or genetics. If Science were ever to be able to give us immortality then the game is up. Religion will have nothing to sell. Without fear of death religion is nothing. Science has greatly weakened the threat of disease and death and religion has fought this advance of civilization every step of the way.
The idea that science gives man the power of God because the mystery of life is simple and therefore no challenge is the essence of the creationist misunderstanding of science.
This no challenge theory of science does not hold up in any branch of science including biology or genetics.
Science unlike religion is not based on an arrogant deity.
Am I saying that God is arrogant? No I am saying nothing about what God is or isn't. So far there is no evidence for a God of any kind let alone whether such a deity is arrogant. Religion invented a God based on man's pride specifically related to the importance of his creation.
This assumes both that man is a creation by a perfect God and the assumption that petty emotions such as jealousy and anger make this God no less perfect.
Remember arrogance means unjustified pride or confidence. So the religious concept of God can make this God full of pride or even jealousy and anger as long as all these petty emotions can be justified. This system of justification is known as Apologetics.
Since creationist worship their own ego and call it God they assume that the scientific method is based on the same ideology which I call the no challenge theory. For the creationist there is no challenge to answering all the questions of philosophy and science because if you get stuck all you have to do is use God in a sentence.
Since human beings are God's special creation then all you need for a little insider trading in the mystery of all that is ...is to be part of the “one true religion”. Once you are one of the elite,the religious cult of creationism, then you are one of God's special pets.
You do not need to think anymore for any other reason then the entertainment value of debate. Because now all is “revealed” to you. With revelation no thinking is required.
By contrast the scientific method is based on doubt and reasoning. Because of doubt and ignorance we must use what knowledge we have to draw up theories and then we must watch these theories evolve and be replaced with no faith to keep them alive. Theories in science must be proven. Not just once but over and over. Faith must never enter into it.
The most simplistic explanation of life is first there was nothing then out of nothing life was spontaneously created out of nothing with not only all its complexity but built in meaning as well.
Talk about no challenge. A snap of theologians fingers and all is explained with the simple idea God did it. Nothing else need be said.
Science has always been a challenge. The no challenge theory of science is based on the assumption that since religion is as easy as make believe based on a child like desire to get what you want without having to work for it, then science must work the same way.
Science has spent centuries bringing us advances in both knowledge and technology. Theologians by contrast have been using the same arguments since religion began and have not advanced civilization one bit since the dark ages. Any advancement in our society by religion was totally dependent on freethinkers and heretics.
The reason for our advancement ironically is because the no challenge theory can only be applied to theology not science. Theology is the only example of no challenge theory in practice. Theology has spent most of its history defending the no challenge theory. That life is simple and all you need is a God to snap his fingers and everything falls into place both life and the meaning of it.
They then must assume that science must work on the same principle. Only when science does this it is hubris. But the truth is religion is based on The No Challenge Theory and it is hubris. Science on the other hand has had to struggle which is why it has advanced or evolved and why religion is still stuck in the dark ages with only Theological Fluff known as Apologetics to defend it.
The Book of Genesis certainly doesn’t talk about trillions of cells or of biological complexity. This is because today's religions were taken from primitive creation stories such as the Epic of Gilgamesh in Babylonia. These stories were invented when we had no idea of the complexity of life.
Now that science reveals more and more just how complex life is the creationist who once claimed God as a simple creator must change their tune and call God a designer of complexity. Then they have the audacity to suggest that it has been science holding us back by finding no challenge in the complexity of life when science is what opened our eyes to this complexity in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment