Art of Reasoning

Last week in my lecture, I used an example of what I would take as a falsification of a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis (which, I said, would actually have huge, sweeping implications throughout the Bible). I said that if life were actually discovered on Mars (not just “evidence posited”), I would consider that a falsification of the sort of special, literal-seven-day creation of Genesis. I then said something like, “Perhaps that wouldn’t do it for you, but you should ask yourself in the spirit of intellectual honesty what could in principle act as falsifying evidence for you.”

I then got an email from one of our listeners who suggested reasons why the discovery of life on Mars should not act as a falsification, and this person went on to say, “I cannot hang my hat on one scientific item causing me to lose faith in God. Eventually a new scientific explanation will emerge as the previous one is ‘falsified’.”

So it seems that I should provide a more thorough explanation of how falsification and intellectual honesty work together.

First, the discovery of life on Mars would not be a “scientific explanation.” It would simply be a fact. That fact would have to be interpreted in some way, and an account of it would need to emerge. But the fact is what it is. There is no “falsifying” such a fact. Again, I say that actual life (the fact of it) is discovered, not just some postulations based upon micro-fossils or that sort of thing. And facts are pesky things, just being what they are!

Next, as I said, perhaps the discovery of life on Mars would not be as troubling to you as it would be to me. I am not suggesting that you each need to have one thing or even the same thing as another person that could falsify Christianity for you. Hence, I am not suggesting, as this listener says, that there must be “one scientific item” that would do the job.

That is actually very rarely the way falsification works in empirical investigations anyway. Usually this or that particular evidence initially acts as a “troubling” thing, and more research is done to see if the evidence can indeed be integrated into the prevailing paradigm. How “seamlessly” it can be integrated determines how “troubling” the evidence remains. If it can be “fairly well” integrated, but more and more “troubling” things emerge, and a pattern of such “troubling things” emerges, then the paradigm begins to appear more and more rickety, and perhaps (a la Kuhn) a scientific revolution is in the offing. But most of the time each “one thing” is just a tiny hiccup, and the paradigm rolls along on its way.

The listener also wrote to me suggesting that meteorites (especially huge ones) could blast Earth materials out into space with enough velocity to defy both the Earth’s and the Sun’s gravity wells and happen to intersect Mars’s orbit, depositing single-celled or very simple life onto Mars, which also could have happened to get deposited into a life-friendly location, such that these cells could have colonized and reproduced long enough to finally be discovered by human probes.

I have a number of problems with this sort of account, and I say the following to illustrate some important points about falsification in general.

I’m going to call this theory of life being blasted from Earth out onto Mars via meteor the “transplant theory.” And, yes, the transplant theory is a logical possibility. It is not like a spherical cube, which is a logically impossible entity–a contradiction in terms. No, the transplant theory is not a spherical cube. But taking a step back from mere logical possibility, the question really is: How plausible, how likely is it that such an account could describe what actually happened to explain discovered life on Mars?

There are huge piles of problems with the transplant theory.

First, the vast, vast majority of planetary material ejected by meteorites remains captured by the gravity well of the original planet and ultimately falls back to that planet’s surface. Of the tiny proportion of material that is ejected with enough velocity to not return to the planet, the vast majority of that goes into orbit around the planet. Of the tiny proportion that achieves a velocity sufficient to entirely escape the gravity well of the planet, the vast majority of that material is in turn captured by the Sun’s gravity and moves “inward” toward the Sun. Thus, probes have discovered what is believed to be material from Jupiter and Venus on Mars and the Moon (small amounts on the Earth). But that is material that has moved “inward” toward the Sun and that happened to intersect the orbit of an “inner” planet (which is itself more likely, due to the increased orbital velocity of “inner” planets).

For the reasons mentioned above, it is believed to be very, very rare that material is ejected with enough force that it can move “outward.” And of that material, it would be even more rare that it would in turn intersect with the larger, much slower orbits of outer planets. The amount of “surface area” covered by the orbit of an outer planet increases exponentially the further away from the Sun that orbit is, and the orbital velocity of the planet decreases. Both of these factors make a planetary intersection with ejected material exponentially more unlikely.

So, if anything, we would expect Earth material to be found on, say, Mercury rather than Mars. The odds are astronomically (no pun intended) lower that Earth-ejected material would end up on Mars than on Mercury (thanks to the powerful gravity well of the Sun and the other factors mentioned above).

Beyond all of these odds, we have to add in other problems, such as these.

What are the odds that the ejected material would happen to come from a spot on Earth that happened to contain life that could in principle cling to such material? What, then, are the odds that such life could withstand the forces and heat of being literally blasted back out of the atmosphere into space (the velocities needed to get such material out of Earth’s and the Sun’s gravity well to move “outward” toward Mars would be very large)? I say again, heat, because we know what happens to material that is drawn into the Earth through the atmosphere: most such material literally burns up due to the friction of the air molecules at such high velocities. So we need life that could attach to ejected material “firmly” enough to not be dislodged by the impact and sudden velocity… velocity that would, in turn, heat up the outer layers of such ejected material to temperatures in which Earth life as we know it cannot survive.

Now, we have some pretty “hardy” life already. But it’s troubles have only begun!

It now has to survive an airless, brutally cold environment for months. So, this is life that was doing just fine in a very narrow range of conditions on Earth, and it now has to survive blazing heat, followed by brutal cold, including an utterly airless environment for months.

Now, after all of this, what are the odds that a particular piece of ejected material that happens to have picked up some Earth life, that happened to cling to the material, that happened to survive the impact forces, velocity, heat, cold, and airlessness… that very ejected material also happens to intersect Mars’s orbit and land on Mars? What, then, are the odds that the material happens to land on a spot on Mars that has liquid water (because ultimately all Earth life survives only in the presence of liquid water)? And then, after all of this, what are the odds that this small colony happens to be just where some Earth probe happens to be searching?

You get the point. The odds are infinitesimally tiny that everything goes just right for Earth life to actually make the transplant successfully and then be detected!

Of course, as the person writing to me seemed to suggest, time can solve all odds! But you don’t get time from the early chapters (and the rest of) Genesis. So the “old Earth vs. young Earth” issue comes to the fore yet again. And finding enough time for the transplant scenario to have any realistic, plausible chance of playing out strains credulity unless you are back into talking about billions of years with relatively frequent ejection events taking place.

Now, here is the overarching point. Try turning the odds game on its head. Christians decry evolutionary theory for the exact same reasons that I find the transplant theory to be highly implausible! Christians love to argue the odds game when it comes to evolutionary theory. And “intellectual” Christians have even accused evolutionists of positing an unfalsifiable theory because they appeal to vast amounts of time to try to resolve the odds problems. So, I don’t see the intellectual honesty in rejecting evolutionary theory over the odds, while then clinging to the same sorts of odds (and related time game) to prop up something like the transplant theory. In both cases, what ought to act as at least “deeply troubling” evidence, if not outright falsifications, is instead “worked around” like the shipowner in Clifford’s article until a “sincerely held” belief can be maintained in the face of the evidence.

If you don’t think that science is always intellectually honest, then I challenge each of you to “look to your own house.” Are you being intellectually honest? And, if you think you are, then you should understand your own paradigm well enough that you are able to come up with possible evidences that would be at least “troubling” to you if not outright falsifications of your paradigm.

So, if the transplant theory works for you, and life on Mars would not be the falsification for you that it is for me, you are not yet off the hook. You are still responsible to know your paradigm well enough that you can (and do) think through what could in principle act as falsifying evidence for you.

“There is none,” you say? The person writing to me even suggested: “Do not forget the supernatural too. Satan is the God of this world and he loves to play games with our minds, hearts and attitudes. Could Satan have done something or planted an item on Mars? There are alternate explanations but none of them change the creation history to fiction.”

But I find such a response quite troubling! The suggestion is that any falsifying evidence can be accounted for as nothing but a “plant of Satan” to “play games with our minds.”

But wait! We Christians fully expect people from other religions (and non-religions) to detect the falsifications we would offer them! We fully expect them to be intellectually honest enough to both seek for and recognize what could falsify their paradigms so that they enjoy the paradigm shift needed to bring them into our paradigm. What entitles us to such smug arrogance that our own paradigm is not falsifiable in principle?

Just as soon as we pride ourselves on having “gotten it right” when we “know” that everybody else has it wrong, we have descended fully into the pit of Phariseeism and are at our greatest danger of being lost! As Christ Himself said, “The heathens are entering the kingdom ahead of you!”

There is absolutely nothing more important than intellectual honesty! All your privileges, all of your knowledge, and all of your “understanding” cannot take the place of intellectual honesty. And the entire process of the Holy Spirit leading you into all truth, as is promised, presupposes that you are intellectually honest!

So, I say again, if you cannot even dream up anything that could in principle falsify your theories and put your paradigm into crisis, then you either do not understand your own paradigm or you are simply not being intellectually honest.

Religion, like science, is an inductive, empirical enterprise. There is in principle no certainty to be had! Doubts and questions are that name of the game. And if you interpret all doubts and questions, including contrary evidence, as all the work of Satan, then I would put it to you that your “certainty” is a mirage. As Clifford well argues, you have purchased it by expending the limited currency of your integrity.

Having confidence based on the evidence before you is fine! But smugness that cannot be shaken by any possible contrary evidence is, flatly, intellectually dishonest and is a terrible form of spiritual pride that we do not tolerate in any other religion, much less in science! So, again, if you don’t like my Mars falsification, then find your own. But you had better be able to come up with multiples, because your paradigm has many facets, and all of those facets must bash against upon real-world evidences.

You do not really know what you believe and why until you have intentionally and systematically tested it in the crucible of questioning and possible contrary evidence. As we take science down a few notches and outright attack evolutionary theory, you should also examine your own intellectual honesty with a clear, steady gaze. Otherwise you are guilty of the very sins you decry in others.