Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole (9 page)

So how did creatures get back to their respective newly created continents after the ark was finally deposited on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4)? The marmosets could hardly have walked and swum halfway around the world, across the Atlantic Ocean, to the Amazonian rain forests where they now dwell. I guess Noah must have dropped off the marmosets in South America and the possums in Australia as the waters receded (but how, then, did the ark end up deposited high on the mountains of Ararat?). Or perhaps Noah built them rafts.

So you see: Young Earth Creationists insist they
can
deal with many of these questions! Admittedly, they don't have
all
the answers—and don't claim to. But, as they correctly point out,
who does?
Even orthodox science faces questions it is not currently able to answer, and perhaps never will.

Explanations such as those outlined above are continuously being developed and refined by people describing themselves as “scientists” in multimillion-dollar “research institutes” dedicated to the pursuit of something called “creation science.” These “scientists” insist that, far from falsifying Young Earth Creationism, the empirical evidence is broadly consistent with it. Young Earth Creationism, they maintain, fits the evidence at least as well as its orthodox scientific rivals. Surely, they add, good science is all about developing theories to fit the evidence. But then, because they are developing their theory to make it fit the evidence, what they are practicing is
good science.
Moreover, if theories are confirmed to the extent that they fit the evidence, then Young Earth Creationism, developed and refined in these ways,
is as well confirmed as its rivals.

DOGS ARE SPIES FROM THE PLANET VENUS

To summarize: Young Earth Creationism is supposedly:

1)
not falsified
by the empirical evidence but actually
consistent with it
,

2) at least as well
confirmed
as the theory of evolution, etc.,

3)
good science.

Let's start with claim 2, which is false. To begin to see why, let's start with an analogy.

Dave believes dogs are spies from the planet Venus. He views any canine with great suspicion, for he believes they are here from Venus to do reconnaissance work. Dogs, Dave supposes, secretly send their reports back to Venus, where the rest of their fiendishly cunning alien species are meticulously planning their invasion of the earth. Their spaceships will shortly arrive from Venus to enslave the human race and take over the world.

Unsurprisingly, Dave's friends think he has a screw loose and try to convince him that dogs are comparatively benign pets, not cunning alien spies. Here's a typical example of how their conversations with Dave go.

DAVE: It's only a matter of weeks now! The spaceships will arrive and
then
you'll wish you'd listened to me. We must act now—let the government know!

MARY: Look, Dave, dogs are pretty obviously not space invaders, they're just dumb pets. Dogs can't even speak, for goodness sake, let alone communicate with Venus!

DAVE: They
can
speak—they just choose to hide their linguistic ability from us. They wait till we leave the room before they talk to each other.

PETE: But Venus is a dead planet, Dave. It's horrifically hot and swathed in clouds of acid. Nothing could live there, certainly not a dog!

DAVE: Dogs don't live on the
surface
of Venus, you fool—they live below, in deep underground bunkers.

MARY: But then how do earth-bound dogs communicate with their allies on Venus? I've got a dog, and I've never found an alien transmitter hidden in his basket.

DAVE: They don't use technology we can observe. Their transmitters are hidden inside their brains!

MARY: But Pete is a vet, and he's X-rayed several dog's heads, and he's never found anything in there!

PETE: In fact, I once chopped up a dog's brain in veterinary school—let me assure you, Dave, there was no transmitter in there!

DAVE: You're assuming their transmitters would be recognizable as such. They are actually made of organic material indistinguishable from brain stuff. That's why they don't show up on X-rays. This is
advanced alien technology
, remember—
of course
we cannot detect it!

MARY: But we don't detect any weird signals being directed at Venus from the earth.

DAVE: Of course, we don't—like I said, remember, this is
advanced alien technology
beyond our limited understanding!

PETE: How do dogs fly spaceships? They don't even have hands. So they can't hold things like steering wheels and joysticks.

DAVE: Really, Pete. Think about it. You are assuming that their spacecraft will be designed to be operated by human hands. Obviously they won't. They'll be designed to be maneuvered by a dog's limbs, mouth, tongue, and so on.

You can see how this conversation might continue ad nauseum. Mary and Pete can keep coming up with evidence against Dave's belief that dogs are Venusian spies. But, given sufficient ingenuity, Dave can always salvage his core theory. He can continually adjust and develop it so that it continues to “fit” the evidence.

CONFIRMATION—THE “FIT” MODEL

Clearly, Dave's theory about dogs is not well confirmed by the available evidence. The first moral we can extract from this example is that, whatever is required in order for a theory to be well confirmed, rather more is required than achieving mere
consistency
with that evidence.

As Dave illustrates,
any
belief, no matter how ludicrous, can be made consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity. Believe that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of cheese, that the World Trade Center was brought down by the US government, or that George W. Bush is really Elvis Presley in disguise? All these theories can be endlessly adjusted and developed so that they remain consistent with the available evidence. Yet they are obviously not well confirmed.

The claim that Young Earth Creationism is at least as well confirmed as its scientific rivals relies crucially on what we might call the “
fit” model of confirmation.
According to the “fit” model, confirmation is all about “fitting” the evidence. But more is required for genuine confirmation than mere “fit,” which any theory, no matter how absurd, can in principle achieve. So what else is required?

GENUINE CONFIRMATION

While scientists and philosophers of science may disagree on the details, most would sign up to something like the following.

In order for a theory to be strongly confirmed by the evidence, at least three conditions must be met. The theory must make
predictions
that are:

1)
clear and precise
,

2)
surprising
, and

3)
true
.

Let's unpack these conditions.

Prediction

First off, let's say a little more about predictions. To be strongly confirmed, your theory must allow for the derivation of predictions about the observable. So, for example, from the theory that water freezes below 0 degrees centigrade, we can derive the prediction that if the temperature of this particular sample of water is reduced to below 0, it will freeze. From the theory that all swans are white, we can derive the prediction that the next swan we observe will be white. As a slightly more complex example, from Newton's theory of universal gravitation we can derive the prediction that the planet Uranus will move in a smooth, elliptical orbit around the sun.

Notice that, very often, the derivation of a prediction from a theory involves the use of certain
auxiliary hypotheses.
The reason the above example involving Newton's theory is more complex is that the theory does not by itself directly entail that Uranus will have a smooth, elliptical orbit. In order to derive that particular prediction, we have to help ourselves to certain auxiliary hypotheses, including the auxiliary hypothesis that there are no
other
bodies exerting a gravitational pull on that planet (which might distort Uranus's elliptical orbit).

The fact that we can derive from a theory a prediction about the observable means that the theory can, in principle, be
tested.
We can check to see whether the prediction is true. Let's suppose the prediction is true. What follows?

Notice that confirmation is a
matter of degree
: theories can be
more or less
well confirmed by a piece of evidence. For example, observing a single white swan provides
some
confirmation that all swans are white, but not very much. So what is required for
strong
confirmation?

Clarity and Precision

Suppose the prediction I derive from my theory is ambiguous and vague. Then it won't be difficult to interpret it in such a way that, whatever is observed, I can say, “Hey, my prediction came true!”

Predictions made by psychics often have this quality. Take the claim that you will “soon meet a tall, dark, and handsome stranger.” What does “soon” mean? Today? This week? This year? Is five feet eleven inches “tall”? Does brown hair qualify someone as “dark”? What is considered “handsome”? Because of the usually rather ambiguous nature of a psychic's prediction, it's easy to interpret it in such a way that it comes out as “true.” This ambiguity is also a factor in the prophecies of Nostradamus, the medieval seer whose cryptic prose supposedly predicted all sorts of dramatic events, such as the rise of Hitler and 9/11. Nos-tradamus's writing is so vague that, when some major event occurs, it's not difficult to find a passage that “predicts” it. (I look more closely at the work of Nostradamus in the conclusion to this book.)

For strong confirmation, we need to be able to derive from our theory predictions that are clear and precise, and one very obvious way in which we can do this is if our predictions concern mathematically quantifiable and objectively measurable phenomena. The claim that every dog will be “heavy-ish” is so vague as to be unfalsifiable, while the claim that every dog weighs more than ten pounds can easily be falsified with the aid of a scale.

Surprisingness

However, even a clear, precise, and true prediction is not enough to guarantee strong confirmation. A further, key ingredient is required. The prediction must also exhibit a certain kind of
surprisingness.

Suppose I believe fairies cause trees to grow more quickly during the summer months. From this theory we can derive the
fairly clear and precise prediction that this copse of trees will grow more during the summer months. The prediction, it turns out, is true. Does that strongly confirm my theory that fairies cause trees to grow more in the summer months? Clearly not. For, although it is true that my theory predicts just such a growth pattern, that pattern is to be
expected anyway
, even on more orthodox scientific theories about why trees grow.

Similarly, from Dave's theory that dogs are Venusian spies so ingenious that their devious activities will remain undetected, we can derive the prediction that dogs will be observed to behave like harmless pets. This prediction is true. But while
consistent
with Dave's theory, the observed behavior of dogs in no way
confirms
his theory, as this is just the sort of behavior we'd expect from dogs anyway, even if they
are
harmless pets.

The moral is: if the prediction derived from a theory is something that would
not be particularly unexpected anyway
, even on rival theories, then the fact that the prediction
is
true does not strongly confirm the theory. For strong confirmation, the prediction must be surprising in this sense: if the theory were not true, then what is predicted would not be particularly expected.

Putting these various points together, we can sum up by saying that, in order for a theory to be strongly confirmed, that theory has to stick its neck out with respect to the evidence. It has to be bold, to risk being proved wrong. If a theory either fails to make any predictions, or if it makes only vague and woolly predictions, or else if it predicts things that are not particularly unexpected anyway—if, in short, it takes no significant risks with the evidence—then not only is it not strongly confirmed,
it can't be.

Let's now consider whether Young Earth Creationism and the theory of evolution are, or might be, strongly confirmed by empirical evidence.

STRONG CONFIRMATION BY THE FOSSIL RECORD?

We have seen that Young Earth Creationism can be endlessly adjusted so that it continues to “fit” whatever happens to be dug up. Does that mean that it is strongly
confirmed
by the fossil record?

No. Because Young Earth Creationists
don't predict very much at all about what fossils, if any, will be dug up.
If we find no fossils, they will say, “Hey, this fits my theory—there hasn't been enough time for fossils to form.” If we find, as we do, fossils of only simple marine creatures in the lower layers and larger mammals in only the topmost layers, then Young Earth Creationists will say, “Hey, this fits my theory—this is explained by the differential rates at which corpses decompose and sink” or “This is explained by the fact that different ecological zones were submerged at different times.” But suppose species had been found fairly randomly through the layers? Then Young Earth Creationists would say, “Hey, this fits my theory!—The flood drowned these creatures more or less simultaneously.” Young Earth Creationists fail to make any bold predictions regarding the fossil record. They take no real risks with the fossil evidence. But then their theory can't be strongly confirmed by the fossil evidence.