Faith and Science: What is Considered Evidence?

In recent times the advent of the internet has led to a plethora of new and previously non-discussed views in the public arena. One sector where this is evident is regarding religion. Due to the anonymity of the internet free thinkers, agnostics, atheists, non-believers, or simply the irreligious or non-practicing religious have been forcefully and aggressively attacking or rebutting claims made by the religious. In the US for example sites such as youtube and other file sharing media have been used very effectively to get this message across to the extent they have been dubbed the “neo-atheists” and seen as a threat to the cherished religious views. In Pakistan for example youtube has been blocked by the government because of the airing of what is considered views questioning the authenticity of Islam. It appears this debate is slowly reaching the shores of our dear Africa also. This very website for example has a religion section and it has generated many vigorous sometimes even :”heated” debates on religious issues such as dogma, faith, science versus faith, morality, and the accuracy and veracity of holy texts.

One issue that constantly arises is the demand for evidence to back up claims. This is a particular demand of the non-religious as they review, assess or vet biblical passages and the consequences some of them have on our lives as 21st century citizens in a computer aged world. The purpose of this article is discuss what is evidence, what forms of it are acceptable and how peer-review of evidence works in the scientific as well as legal sectors, but are considered non-applicable in matters of faith.

In general evidence can be d defined as everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an claim. Others define evidence as the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof. In other words claims and assertions are made and the person making them is then obliged to provide the proof. This is the foundation of western legal systems where suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Suspects are not considered guilty and then required to disprove the allegation, no, they are innocent until the claimant (accuser) provides the proof (evidence) that they are indeed guilty. If that burden of proof is not met the accused is discharged and free to go. It is no one’s responsibility to disprove a negative. One makes a claim, and then provides the evidence to back it up. For example a driver may be arrested for running a red light, and then the officer is asked to provide the proof which could be video evidence, photographs, corroborated accounts of other witnesses etc. We however do not accuse driver of not proceeding on green light and then asking the accused to disprove the allegation. That is not how evidence works, and that is why our legal system is not based on that premise.

In science evidence is obtained by observations, experiments, inferences from other established evidence and other forms. Scientific evidence is purposely to support the acceptance of a claim (called a hypothesis). If the evidence is not provided the hypothesis is rejected. In consistency with the burden of proof idea from our legal system, the person presenting the claim must then present the evidence. It is not the claimant’s responsibility to disprove negative claims about their work. For example Charles Darwin presented his claim of evolution, he then presented the evidence to back it up. He was not required to present evidence to disprove the six day creation myth. Another example, Galileo Galilei presented evidence that the earth is a sphere and travels around the sun. He did not provide counter evidence to disprove that the earth is flat, has four corners or is like a tent, as the bible claims, because none of those were his claims. Similarly Albert Einstein claimed the universe is static and eternal, yet his evidence (mathematical equations) did not support it so that claim was rejected. It was not rejected because he failed to disprove others who said the universe was expanding.

So where evidence does not work we call it faith. For example, the six day creation story of the hebrew religion that has been adopted by christianity and islam has never been proved. Those who question it are rather asked to disprove it. The story of the great flood and Noah for example is not supported by any scientific evidence yet it is a strong belief of Judeo-christian religions. That is because it is believed by faith. In other words it is accepted simply because it is written in the holy texts based on an assumption that holy texts can never be wrong..

Another observation on the Ghanaweb religious forum is where religious contributors use circular reasoning and special pleading to say certain scientific claims have been disproved by other claims. This is incorrect. Again the only reason why we reject a claim is because no evidence has been presented to support it. This is a common modus operandi of US creationists who are seeking to curtail science education in favor of religious indoctrination. For example mention big bang theory and they tell you , well some other scientists researching something else found something so the big bang could not have happened. Again if you are refuting the big bang in favor of creationism you are to tell us the evidence for creationism. For example show us the evidence for the firmament god said he placed over the earth. Show us the evidence that male rib was used to fashion the female body etc etc. We are not asking for anything to be disproved. Just back up your own claims with proof.

The next issue I will touch on is peer-review. In the western system of law that we have adopted in Ghana also by the way, justice is delivered based on a trial and jury of one’s’ “peers” in other words your “co-equals” so to speak. Again science is no different. Claims are judged by a peer-review process. In this process the claims are assessed checked, and verified by persons of similar training and background, and level of education and professional knowledge. This is the process by which we award professorships, Nobel Prize, National Medal (US), Grants and multi-million dollar funding to institutions to perform specific research or development of some new technology or the other. It is the reason why we attend professional job interviews and are vetted by people of similar profession. That is why scientific claims are not reviewed by professors of sociology and vice versa, or string theory research not vetted by journalists or high school drop news anchors. But of course in a democratic society all opinions are welcome but only those of qualified experts are valid on the subject matter in peer-review. That is why journalists, preachers, evangelists, politicians etc etc who claim there is no evidence for say evolution are simply expressing an opinion but that opinion s not valid in terms of scientific peer-review because those individuals simply do not have the knowledge to assess the subject matter. The fact that somebody may be a graduate in say environmental science does not make them an expert in meteorology so their opinions in that case are like all other uneducated non-valid ones. The experts are those with the qualifications and a track record of knowledge and expertise in those fields, and there are many of them.

One more point. When providing evidence you do not quote your own book as evidence. For example when challenged Christians will tell you the bible is correct because it says so. This is not acceptable. Would you allow a doctor to inject you with an unknown or unheard of substance just because he said so? No, I am sure you would want further information to corroborate the claim, right? We are not to take anybody’s word simply because they say so but because it can be demonstrated to be correct. And this demonstration must include third party evidence of some form or reference. For example if I was tell you a new scientific law contradicts trigonometry (or any other branch of math) then we would all know there is s problem because trigonometry has been applied in many fields e.g. gravity, mechanics, geometry, fluid dynamics, electrical circuits, optics etc etc, and in each case it has shown beyond all reasonable doubt to be correct, and all those other theories are consistent with it. This is how we judge a theory. We don’t say it is correct because we feel like it, or because it itself claims so. That can be done in Alice in Wonderland but not in the real world. In the real world we judge a claim by its merit and how it is demonstrated.

And so with that I would like to admonish contributors on this forum who quote evangelists websites when attempting to refute issues of pure science. For example in a previous article on evolution on this website, this author was referred to: Worldwide Creation Ministries website, Creation Ministries International website, as well as quotes from Discovery Institute ( a well known creationism outfit), and a popular US TV preacher Harun Yahaya. The problem with such organizations is they present themselves as experts, yet they are not qualified, and to this date none of them has presented a single publication that has cleared the peer-review process, absolutely none. Instead of presenting their views to the peer-review they engage in obfuscation to deceive their uniformed supporters. They emphasize gaps in current knowledge or yet to be researched fields as evidence that no one can understand anything because it is all too complicated, therefore the theories are all wrong, and yes, g-o-d did it. The fact that you don’t understand some math equation or chemistry is too complicated for you does not prove anything. Yes there are major challenges but with more work and education more knowledge is gained. 50 years ago if that was the attitude we would never have discovered and unraveled DNA. Today we take it for granted when asked to provide our biometric documents or asked for paternity test etc. 70 years ago nobody heard of virus, so since it was too complicate then to understand we may well have continued having polio and smallpox killing our babies like they used to . Today those same religious are the first ones to run to get vaccines as soon as they hear of some sickness on the news. And yet they turn round and scorn all science work out of ignorance. They seem to be unaware that the knowledge that gave them vaccines is the same knowledge that proves that evolution is real and happening live. Ignorance is very painful, but add region to the mix and it hurts like surgery with anesthesia or even worse.

This type of arguing they use has been dubbed the argument by authority. Because some respected figure said something, then it is true. For example I saw on youtube someone claim Bill O’Reilly (US conservative talk show personality) said evolution is not valid, so therefore it is not valid because O’Reilly is a great guy (to him), Christian and would not lie. What a pathetic state of mind. When we hear such things we must immediately find out what that person’s qualification is and what publications they have on such subjects that have cleared peer-review. It is easy to find this information in the age of internet. If there is nothing, their claim is as valid as illiterate ancient Hebrews claiming the tower of Babel incident gave us all the different languages in the world. Bollucks.

At this juncture I will turn it back over to those claiming six day creation, worldwide flood etc to provide some evidence.

Peace.

kwaku ba ©August2010