Section 1, Chapter 2 of the Logic of God
If unlimited uniformity of natural law and natural causes and effects cannot be sustained – in other words, if the laws of nature are not eternal, but valid only over a limited time span and in an open system subject to modification – then inferences about the distant past based on the assumption of unlimited uniformity are not justified.
Much of the Hypothesis of Evolutionary Naturalism – the meta-narrative aspects – depends on inferences based on the assumption that natural law is uniform throughout eternity or at least indefinitely long ages of time. This epistemological assumption concerning which types of inferences are valid depends on metaphysical assumptions concerning the duration of natural law. If natural law has not existed from eternity (or at least indefinitely long eons of time, then extrapolations about events purported to have occurred eons on the past based on current natural law lacks epistemological2:1justification.
Such extrapolation is common in evolutionary theories and theories that posit an extremely old Earth. Because we cannot directly observe events millions and billions of years into the past, inferences based on understanding current natural laws and rates of change are read back into the past as if they are constant. If these are not constant or if the natural laws as we understand them are not representative of the whole, then the inference will be off base. Examples of such inference include the fossil record, dating methods, comparison of genetic similitude, and snapshots of starlight.
Fossils with structures that match the scientist’s interpretation of a transitional form are presented as proof of transitional forms. However, without a baseline of observed live transitional forms, there is no way to objectively test whether the scientists’ interpretations are correct.
Alldating methods assume constant rates of natural processes throughout eons of time. Natural processes, however, may occur at different rates in the past. Radiometric dating, in particular, assumes an initial combination of mother-daughter elements. Even isochron dating cannot escape these assumptions; it simply shifts the assumptions from mother-daughter to mother-sister isotopes2:2.
Genetic comparisons assert similarity or common patterns amongst genes as proof of common descent. The concept that similarity proves causation, however, is an informal logical fallacy. Valid inferences from genetic comparisons require baseline observations of a mechanism that establishes a connection. Genetic comparisons within a species are valid, as baseline observations of the genetics of reproduction allow for valid inferences about a mechanism based on comparisons. No mechanism explaining the alleged relations between major branches of the evolutionary tree has been observed sufficiently to serve as a baseline to justify inferences based upon its existence.
Snapshots of starlight are commonly asserted as pictures of the past. Assumes that cosmological constants have always been what they are today. The fact that light was the first of God’s creations means that this constant was set early in the history of the universe.
Special relativity puts a strange wrinkle in the interpretation of snapshots of starlight. Special relativity asserts that time is relative to the reference frame of an observer (time dilation2:3). As one moves closer to the speed of light, time dilates so that billions of years in our reference passes in only seconds in the reference frame of the near light speed traveler. At the speed of light, all travel is done in zero time or instantaneously. What this means is that light from the galaxy Andromeda requires a travel time of two million years to reach us, according to our reference frame. If you were a “human quark” ready to surf the wave of a photon using a “god-particle” sized surfboard, however, the trip would be over instantaneously. According to relativity, there is no conflict between the six days of Genesis 1 and the long eons of contemporary cosmology, as these are calculated using different reference frames. Scripture supports this, as the markers of our current reference frame for marking time – the sun, moon, and stars – were not created until the fourth Genesis day. God created using a different reference frame than man currently does.
Even when one takes into account the early creation of light in the Genesis narrative and the wrinkle in relativity, the use of starlight to infer the age of the universe is just an inference that is based on an assumption. Pictures of starlight are not “time machines” or time portals” as some declare them. The images of distant stars on photographic canvas cannot, by themselves, tell us anything about how long or how far away they are; they are only a snapshot of the state of a star at a particular point in time. One must use inferences from what is observed by using things like parallax reading and red shifts to infer distance and time. The inferences depend on assuming a constant rate for the speed of light and the rate of cosmic inflation. Because they depend on such assumptions, using them to prove the speed of light or the rate of inflation commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.
When inferences are made concerning geological and biological events millions and billions of years old based on limited observation over the past few hundred years, the fallacy of insufficient statistics (hasty generalization) is committed. There is not sufficient reason to believe that current observations are representative of the entirety of natural history. Because unlimited uniformitarianism has been falsified, it follows that current scientific understanding is not necessarily representative of conditions eons into the past.
The logical demarcation between uniformitarianism and hyper-uniformitarianism
There is a logical demarcation between unlimited and unlimited uniformitarianism that manifests as an ontological difference and an epistemic difference:
The ontological difference stems from the fact that unlimited uniformitarianism has been falsified. This falsification is done using models that have the assumption of unlimited uniformitarianism as a feature of the models; these models lead to conclusions that show the necessity of an absolute beginning. These conclusions, by the nature of the assumptions that underlie the logical structure of the models, put a demarcation between the world that is governed by a uniformity of natural law – uniformity of causes and effects – and a transcendent realm that does not operate by these natural laws.
There is also an epistemic difference between limited and unlimited uniformitarianism. This difference allows us to have an epistemic demarcation. The demarcation concerns the boundary between where non-circular falsification is possible and where attempts to assign specific dates to uniformity of natural law involve circular reasoning2:4.
The epistemic demarcation is human history. Natural law is constituted in such a way that any minor discontinuity during the course of human history would have produced consequences that would have left major clues. Major discontinuities would have ended the world as we know it and would have wiped out everything before the discontinuity. Therefore, inferences of uniformitarianism concerning events within human history are generally valid. Before human history, anything could have happened, and we have no non-circular way to draw any conclusion about the uniformity of natural law other than that there is a necessity of an absolute beginning to the uniformity. Dating methods of events before human history depend on the principle of uniformitarianism, so attempting to prove uniformitarianism by resorting to dating methods is circular reasoning. Inferences of uniformitarianism within human history are the only reliable inferences; anything else is a wild guess.
Why limiting uniformitarianism is not anti-science.
A common reply to the argument that limiting uniformitarianism is that it is science denial, anti-science, or otherwise anti-intellectual. This is a fallacy for three reasons: it is a false dichotomy, there exist alternate models that explain the data, and models with potentially false premises is not objectionable in science.
It is a false dichotomy because it assumes that uniformitarianism must be total or nothing. This has been demonstrated to be false. Limited uniformitarianism can exist where supernatural processes produce natural law.
Models with potentially false premises are not objectionable in science. This is because science, when properly done, does not prove anything true. Science tries to approximate a true model of physical reality by proving alternative models false. This is often called Popper’s falsifiability criterion because it was named after philosopher Karl Popper. In his book,Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), Popper gave two main arguments why induction as science failed. One was there is no logical demarcation between reasonable leaps of faith that resulted in commitment to belief based on the likelihood of being true and unreasonable leaps of faith. The other is that the logical structure of science does not allow for verification. Science works this way:If a proposed hypothesis is true, then specified falsifiable consequences must be true.
In this logical structure, the ” specified falsifiable consequences ” can be tested to see if they are false. If they are, then the hypothesis cannot be true. The truth of the hypothesis, however, cannot be validly tested. Attempts to do so commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It can be shown that this is fallacious.
Consider the equivalent logical structure in this statement:If you get straight A’s, you will get a scholarship.
If one fails to get the scholarship, then one did not get straight A’s, as straight A’s guarantee a scholarship. If, however, one gets a scholarship, then it does not prove that they made straight A’s. They could have acquired the scholarship based on musical or athletic ability or need. In other words, there are multiple possible models or pathways for getting the scholarship. Science cannot prove any hypothetical model true because there could be other models that can account for the data that is being tested.
If science cannot prove anything to be true, then it can only approximate or presume truth. For example, science can approximate proof that cigarette smoking is unhealthy by testing hypotheses that cover the whole range of logical possibilities. The truth about the dangers of cigarette smoking can be approximated by ruling out alternative possibilities
This approximation fails when there exist alternate models that explain the same data. There are two classes of frameworks on origins. One is the class of frameworks known as Evolutionary Naturalism, where nature produces the world that we see through evolutionary processes that conform to natural law. The other class of frameworks asserts that supernatural or transcendent cause(s) produced the laws of science- including any evolutionary processes – that operate within a creation narrative.
One such Creation framework can be found in Genesis. The Genesis account, when viewed as a framework2:5, asserts that a transcendent cause produced natural laws and the uniformity of causes and effects that operates within those laws. This transcendent cause is, by definition, supernatural, because it is outside of the system of the uniformity of natural causes and effects. The Creation Framework allows for a very robust scientific method, limited uniformitarianism, and limited evolutionary processes. God created natural law and set it up to behave uniformly over a limited time span in an open system2:6.
The Genesis narrative asserts that God did six days of relative work. During this time, He gave commands that instantiated natural laws and natural processes. Phrases like “let the land produce” and ‘let the waters teem” suggest that God has embedded what Augustine called seminal principles – these principles instantiated evolutionary processes on a limited scale – “according to their kinds.” These processes occur within a creation framework and are limited by that framework.
Concerning that which has actually been observed, the Creation Framework makes the same predictions as the prevailing Evolutionary Naturalist Framework. Concerning that which has actually been observed, the Creation Framework has the same applications as the Evolutionary Naturalist Framework. Where the Creation Framework differs from the prevailing evolutionary naturalist narrative is in relation to implications concerning which world-view is correct. The Creation Framework differs from the prevailing evolutionary naturalist narrative in areas that involve inferences based on assumptions concerning natural processes rather than inferences based on evidence. The assumptions that distinguish the evolutionary narrative from the creationist narrative have been falsified (see last chapter). The Genesis Framework, which asserts that a transcendent cause created the uniformity of natural causes of effect in an open system, makes fewer assumptions (parsimony) about reality than evolutionary frameworks. Evolutionary frameworks make lots of assumptions about natural laws, natural processes, and constants, whereas the Creation framework requires only that there exists a transcendent cause to account for the existence of the uniformity of causes and effects we see in the natural world.
God engaged in relative rest on the seventh. From the perspective of an Infinite-Personal God, it takes no more effort to speak during the first six days than it did to bless the seventh day. The relative rest is a relative easing of supernatural intervention in the natural world. The first six days of creation were days of heavy supernatural intervention that brought forth the natural world and set in place natural law and fundamental cosmological constants. The seventh day would be marked by an increased role for the natural forces (though not a complete absence of supernatural events). Natural causes would be at work in the creation – even evolution – albeit evolution is bounded by a creation framework produced through supernatural intervention of God.
Chapter 2 References
1. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. Epistemology is not concerned with how we learn things, but with how, or whether, we can prove something. Epistemology is the study of the nature of proof – how we can justify our knowledge claims.
2. Isochron Dating as a Scientific Clock,Age of the Earth and the Formation of the Universe Honors Seminar, Professor Timothy Heaton, University of South Dakota (Fall 2005).
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/isochron_dating.html<Back to text>
3. Time Dilation, Hyper Physics Lab, Georgia State University
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c2
4. Circular reasoning is a method of reasoning that argues something like this: A is true because of B, B is true because of C…Z is true because of A. The very thing that needs proof is assumed. This is fallacious because it results in a variation of an infinite regress. There is ultimately no sufficient explanation that supports the proof, only an infinite series of insufficient explanations.
5. The Genesis Account is much more than a mere scientific hypothesis; it is also (primarily) a narrative that informs a much larger meta-narrative that affirms the existence of God as a Creator and lays the foundation for the overriding theme of redemption. The argument I am making is focused on the implications of Genesis as presenting a creation framework – that a transcendent cause has produced limited uniformity of causes and effects that have only operated for a limited period of time in an open system.
6. An open system simply means a system that is subject to outside influences. According to quantum mechanics, classical physics breaks down at the smallest scales, suggesting that the natural world is porous, allowing for interruption of the uniformity of cases and effects by God and man. For more information on quantum mechanics, read chapter 12,Quantum Mechanics as God’s Signature.