Philosophy of the Sciences (PHIL 2130)
Lecture 11:
Mountains, Molehills and
Misunderstandings
1. Distinctive
organisms are deposited in successive strata of rock. At the lowest level are the fossilized
remains of marine invertebrates. In
higher strata we get fish and, higher still reptiles, then birds, then
mammals. The obvious assumption to make
here is that the organisms at the lowest level were the first occupants of
Earth and that the animals fossilized in higher strata are those that existed
on Earth when these strata were added.
This view, though it carries no commitment to the idea that the later
organisms evolved for the earlier
ones, nevertheless comes into conflict with Creationism, because that theory
holds that all organisms were created at once.
2. One of the
`theories' of Scientific Creationism is Flood Geology, which is an attempt to
explain the fossil record. According to
the theory there was on Earth a cataclysmic flood which destroyed virtually all
animals and deposited almost all the fossil-bearing rock. Water came from inside the Earth and from a
vapour canopy (see Kitcher, p.128); Noah saved a pair of each of the
land-dwelling animals in his ark; most of the rest perished. They were drowned, engulfed in mud and
eventually became fossilized. The flood
ended partly through evaporation of the water, and partly because mountains
erupted forming huge basins, so the flood waters became lakes.
3. The story is
certainly charming, but is it plausible?
Well, we know that there is water trapped beneath the surface of the
earth, and it is not inconceivable that some event, e.g. a large meteorite
striking the Earth at great speed, could have triggered its release and perhaps
also set in motion a chain of events leading ultimately to the eruption of
mountains. But this really is a `Just
So' story. And does it square with other
scientific facts? Suppose, for example,
that physics tells us that there just could not have been sufficient quantity of water beneath the Earth's
crust to have produced global flooding.
Then the Scientific
Creationist would have to invent not just an alternative biological theory, but
also a creationist physics.
4. One problem with the
theory of Flood Geology is that it offers no detailed account of any aspect of
the pattern of fossilized deposits.
Morris supplies some details but these are specious and leave many
unanswered questions (see Kitcher, p.131).
5. Kitcher is wrong
though, it seems to me, to dismiss the theory outright, since it does lend
itself to appropriate methods of scientific testing. For example, we have now witnessed and
studied scientifically many floods and volcanic eruptions: We can make rough
predictions of earthquakes and meteorologists can tell when conditions are ripe
for the occurrence of massive storms. So
it is a genuine scientific question whether, under particularly unfavourable
conditions, a global storm could
erupt, resulting in a flood lasting 371 days.
And the meteorite suggestion is not outlandish: it is part of regular
science that one of the historically major climactic changes on Earth was the
result of a mile-wide meteorite hitting with great force, creating dust clouds
which blotted out the sun's rays for a lengthy period.
6. Further, it is possible to produce computer
programs to model a great flood, and this could confirm or falsify the
possibility of the sequence of turbulent events which, according to the
Creationists led to the fossil deposits.
This type of independent check is not available for the alternative
fantasy explanation (`theory-sketch') that Kitcher contrives (p.132) and it is
disingenuous for him to claim that `from
a scientific point of view, my proposal is no worse than Morris' Flood
Geology'.
27.
It
is becoming fashionable to question Darwinism, but few people understand either
the arguments for evolution or the arguments against it. Mary Wakefield explains the thinking on both sides in her
article `The mystery of the missing
links’
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-10-25&id=3647
She writes `Unlike the swivel-eyed creationists, ID
supporters are very keen on scientific evidence. They accept that the earth was
not created in six days, and is billions of years old. They also concede Darwin’s theory of
microevolution: that species may, over time, adapt to suit their environments. What
Intelligent Design advocates deny is macroevolution: the idea that all life
emerged from some common ancestor slowly wriggling around in primordial soup.
If you study the biological world with an open mind, they say, you will see
more evidence that each separate species was created by an Intelligent
Designer. The most prominent members of the ID movement are Michael Behe the
biochemist, and Phillip E. Johnson, professor of law at the University of California. They share
a belief that it is impossible for small, incremental changes to have created
the amazing diversity of life. There is no way that every organism could have
been created by blind chance, they say. The ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe
indicates a creator.’
28.
Mary Wakefield points out that those who believe that
the universe was created by intelligent design take the absence of fossilized
remains of any transitional species of animal to tell heavily against the
theory of evolution which hypothesises such transitional species.
She writes `If we accept a lack of scientific evidence as proof of a creator's
existence, then surely we must regard every subsequent relevant scientific
discovery, each new Precambrian fossil, as an argument against the existence of
God'.
29.
She describes this as a `metaphysical problem
for Intelligent Design', but in fact it is only a fallacious argument by
Mary Wakefield. In order to see this, all you need do is construct an
obviously fallacious argument that has an identical pattern. For example,
`If we accept the lack of anyone else's fingerprints as proof that the dead
person committed suicide, then any subsequent discovery of other people's
fingerprints indicates that it was not a suicide'. The latter
inference is mistaken because obviously somebody could have committed suicide
in the vicinity of other people who left fingerprints, and likewise,
those who favour Intelligent Design can take the existence of Precambrian
fossils as being consistent with their view. A book by the philosopher
Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does
Evolution have a Purpose? published this May is a lucid demonstration of
this consistency.
30.
Mary Wakefield also asserts that Richard Dawkins
regards evidence in favour of evolutionary theory as constituting disproof of
the existence of God. But this is a misrepresentation of Dawkins'
position. What Dawkins contends is that the theory of
evolution is a superior, and scientifically respectable alternative to
the explanation offered by Intelligent Design proponents for the beauty,
complexity and diversity of nature. A refutation of an
opponent's view is not the same as an argument for the
opposite view. Dawkins has reasons for his atheism that are
independent of his commitment to the theory of evolution.