-----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1995 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
by Lane P. Lester, Ph.D.
Creation Research Society Quarterly 32(2)
Each one of us knows lots of things. We know our name. We know our
address. We know the sum of two plus two. We know which political
party is best for the country... hmm. It seems that some people know
things that are the opposite from what other people know. For
example, many people know that evolution is the correct explanation
for the history of life. But many other people know that *creation*
is the correct explanation. How is it possible for different people
to know different things? What does it mean to *know* something?
Perhaps we could agree that to know something is to be personally
convinced of its truth. Notice the personal element here: knowing
something doesn't make it true; it only means that we consider it to
be true. The fact that some people know things that are the opposite
from what other people know means that some people know things that
are false!
Whether true or false, how do we come to know things? There are
really only two ways: personal experience or someone tells us.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
Each of us knows many things we learned on our own. Let me give you
some examples of mine:
-> Stubbing your toe is painful. Knowledge like this we pick up
early in life.
-> Rolling through a stop sign will get you a traffic ticket.
Actually, I had to experience this twice before I really knew it.
-> Accepting Christ provides benefits in this life. I believe it was
a former pastor of mine who pointed out that one of the benefits is
that you associate with a better class of people! More seriously, I
have the benefit of seeing my prayers answered.
-> Passing electricity through water produces both hydrogen and
oxygen gases. Perhaps in some science class, you also performed this
classic experiment with a battery, wires, and test tubes.
SOMEONE TELLS US
If you know something and you didn't experience it yourself, someone
had to tell you. Here are a few examples:
-> The word "cat" is spelled "c-a-t." For the most part, education
involves someone telling you things, either orally or in print.
-> The speed limit on the expressway is 55 m.p.h. If you don't learn
this from the printed sign, a policeman will be glad to explain it
to you both orally *and* in print.
-> Accepting Christ gives me eternal life. I haven't experienced the
full truth of this yet, but God has told me in the Bible that it is
so.
-> Hydrogen is the smallest element. You and I lack the equipment
and knowledge to determine the truth of this scientific fact, so we
have to learn it from a science book.
CAN YOU TRUST YOUR OWN EYES?
In general, we are more willing to believe what we learn from
personal experience than what someone tells us. But can we always
believe what personal experience tells us? Would anything make you
doubt the evidence of your senses? Imagine that you are walking
along a busy sidewalk that fronts a large park. Out in the park you
see a flying saucer descend and land. Would you immediately begin
exclaiming to others about your discovery? I think I would first
glance around and see if anyone else was experiencing the same
thing. On the other hand, if the landing craft were a helicopter,
there would be no reason to doubt what my eyes had told me.
The general principle here is that we expect to see the commonplace
and not the unusual. Indeed, our senses may even lie to us based on
what we expect to be true. A good example of this comes from the
life of Jesus when he cries out, "'Father, glorify your name!' Then
a voice came from heaven, 'I have glorified it, and will glorify it
again.' The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered;
others said an angel had spoken to him." (John 12:28-29 NIV)
WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE?
What about the things we know because someone has told us? Remember
that we're defining "know" as "being personally convinced of the
truth of something." Not everything that we're told is the truth, is
it? What is it that makes you more inclined to believe some people
than others, to add what they say to the things you know? Here's a
short list of pairs of individuals who tell us things:
-> casual acquaintances and best friends
-> philosophy professors and science professors
-> newspaper reporters and television reporters - pastors and God
(Bible)
What determines how readily you would be to believe each of the
above persons when they tell you something is true? Would you be
more likely to believe one member rather than another in each of the
above pairs? How long you've known the person might be one factor,
and you would probably be more likely to believe your best friend
than you would a casual acquaintance. In my case, there would be a
problem because, when I was growing up, my best friend was a
compulsive liar. A really nice guy, mind you, but he had a problem
with the truth.
What about those two professors? If a science professor told you
something about science, and the philosophy prof told you the
opposite, you'd be more likely to believe the scientist, wouldn't
you? So here's another factor in our willingness to believe what
we're told: the expertise of the person making the statement.
Ah, but what if two equally knowledgeable people tell you opposite
things, what then? This is a dilemma with which I often have to deal
in questions about the creation/evolution controversy. Sure, I'm a
scientist, but I certainly don't know all of science! My specialty
is genetics, and I've never even had a course in geology. How do I
evaluate the competing claims of evolutionist geologists and
creationist geologists? Sometimes I have to choose on the basis of
philosophy rather than science: I choose to believe the Christian
rather than the atheist. This is not as nonrational as it may first
appear. We all live our lives based on some set of assumptions of
what is true, and that set of assumptions affects our decisions
about many things. A person with a false philosophy will be drawn
infallibly into false conclusions about important matters.
The pair of reporters in our list brings us to the question of how
does the fact of something being printed affect our willingness to
believe it? It seems that we're more ready to believe something
that's printed than something that is just spoken, so the newspaper
reporter might get more credibility than the TV journalist. Of
course, Peter Jennings does look awfully sincere!
Seriously now, does something being printed mean that it is more
likely to be true? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sometimes all it
takes to get something published is money. We need a healthy
skepticism for both what we hear and what we read.
SCIENCE - A WAY OF KNOWING
Science is a very important way for coming to know things. Some of
this scientific knowledge can come from personal experience, but
almost all of it will come from being told by someone else. Even the
science a scientist knows has come mostly from being told: through
periodicals, books, meetings, etc.
Even though the achievements of science today seem very modern, the
modern way of doing science actually started in the 1600s. Although
it's not mentioned much and maybe hard to believe, most of the
founders of modern science believed in a personal God who had
created the universe. Their belief that the Creation was the result
of intelligent design gave them confidence that they could study it
and discover truth about it.
Because science is such an important path to knowledge and because
science is so intimately associated with origins, it's important to
understand something about it. Plainly stated, science proceeds by
*making* and *testing* hypotheses. Scientists observe things, and
then they try to explain their observations. Those explanations are
called hypotheses. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for
observations, an "educated guess."
Making hypotheses about things is only the first step; much more
difficult is the second step: testing hypotheses. The scientist has
to design an experiment that will indicate whether the hypothesis is
correct or not. Let's look at an actual example.
European eels reproduce in the Sargasso Sea, a part of the Atlantic
Ocean. They migrate to freshwater streams where they spend most of
their lives.. How do they find those freshwater streams from the
ocean? Some scientists hypothesized that the eels are able to sense
the chemical composition of freshwater. They designed an experiment
to test that hypothesis, using bottles of water leading through
tubing to a separate box for each bottle and then to a common box.
Each bottle held a different kind of water: tap, distilled, salt,
fresh (from a stream). Baby eels were placed in the common box from
which they could swim through the tubes to one of the boxes holding
a particular kind of water. The eels showed no preference for tap
water over salt, but most of them swam into the box that contain
natural freshwater. These results supported the hypothesis that the
eels are able to detect the chemical nature of freshwater.
IS THE STUDY OF ORIGINS SCIENTIFIC?
There are hundreds (thousands?) of scientists studying origins: the
origin of the universe, the origin of the earth, the origin of life,
and the origin of species. Surely, the study of origins is
scientific! Isn't it? Well, it depends on what you mean by science.
If you mean the kind of science done by those studying the eels, the
answer is no.
The late Dr. Richard Bliss, a great educator, explained the
distinction better than anyone else when he coined the word
"operation science" to contrast with "origins science." Operation
science is what is done when scientists are trying to learn how
something works, how it "operates." They can gather observations,
make hypotheses, and test those hypotheses with experiments.
Scientists who study origins can also gather observations, such as
studying the stars or collecting fossils. They also can make
educated guesses about what those observations mean in terms of
origins. But, with few exceptions, they cannot design experiments
that will determine what happened in the prehistoric past. This is
the same problem faced by the forensic scientist. He or she can
gather clues: fingerprints, bloodstains, fibers, etc. Using that
evidence, it is possible to suggest what took place, but there is no
experiment that can be done to determine whether or not that
suggestion is correct.
So while scientists can provide us with valuable information about
events that happened a long time ago, they cannot provide us with
answers that are as final as those about things taking place today.
Because of that uncertainty, we can expect the philosophy of a
scientist (Conservative Christian, Liberal Christian, Orthodox Jew,
Reformed Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist) to affect the conclusions
they'll make. Whom will you believe?
FURTHER READING
_Creation Research Society Quarterly_, Creation Research Society,
P.O. Box 969, Ashland, OH 44805-0969, $20 per year, $15 for
students. The Creation Research Society is the international
creation organization for scientists and those interested in
science. Articles range from general interest to highly scientific.
_Acts and Facts_, Institute for Creation Research, Box 2667, El
Cajon, CA 92021, donations appreciated. News about ICR, a group of
creation scientists. Includes articles on Biblical and scientific
topics.
_Creator_, His Creation, P.O. Box 785, Arvada, CO 80001, donations
appreciated. Fine little newsletter including excellent materials
for children.
_Discovery_, Apologetics Press, 230 Landmark Drive, Montgomery, AL
36117, $11 per year. Brief but beautiful 7-page "monthly paper of
Bible and science for kids." Packed with good stuff.
_What Is Creation Science?_, Henry M. Morris and Gary. E. Parker,
Master Books. Good overview of the creation-evolution controversy.
The following are available from the Creation Research Society:
_Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a
Young Universe_, D. Russell Humphreys, Master Books. An exciting new
model for the origin of the universe, which denies neither the
observations of scientists nor the truth of the Bible.
_Science and the Bible: 30 Scientific Demonstrations Illustrating
Scriptural Truths_, Donald B. DeYoung, Baker Books. An excellent
tool for anyone wishing to demonstrate both scientific and
scriptural principles.
_Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_, Duane T. Gish, Master
Books. Creationism's most outspoken proponent examines the claims
and writings of creation's most vocal critics.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Creation Research Society +
+ P.O. Box 969 +
+ Ashland, OH 44805-0969 +
+ USA +
+ (e-mail: CRSnetwork@AOL.com) +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1995 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Creation Research
Society and may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be
reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware."
All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright
notice listed at the beginning of this file [i.e., "Copyright
1995 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc."].
This data file may not be used without the permission of the
Creation Research Society for resale or the enhancement of
any other product sold. This includes all of its content with
the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than
500 words in total. If you desire to reproduce fewer than 500
words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any
other product for resale, please give the following source
credit: Copyright 1994 by the Creation Research Society, P.O.
Box 376, Chino Valley, AZ 86323.
-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/crs/crsq: 32_2a.txt