Question:

Do you know that a theory scientifically is a fact? Don’t confuse theory’s perjorative and colloquial use with its actual definition.  Also, just to state the obvious, referencing your q&a on evolution… Introducing supernatural forces makes everything easier. duh. That fairies took my box of halloween decorations and hid it underneath a box of old clothes in the basement is simpler and easier to describe how it happened rather than trying to remember why { put it there when I last reorganized the basement. However this neither makes it true or reasonable. An easy explaination is a cop out. Sorry.

Response:

I am a professor who teaches the philosophy of science, and I need to inform you that your understanding of what science is is not completely accurate. Anyone who says that a theory is a fact is clearly not well-versed in scientific thinking. Like Robert Boyle said, any scientific theory is “The best we have, but capable of improvement.” Karl Popper, the most famous philosopher of science of the 20th century pointed out that experimental verification of a theory is literally impossible. It is debatable whether there are any “facts” in chemistry. Some may use the word theory in a colloquial way, but as a scientist I certainly hope that I do not!

Now, some scientific theories are so well supported and have such broad predictive powers that it is reasonable to proceed by assuming that they are for all practical purposes “true” but in science there is no “Truth” (with a capital t). I do not know what you mean by the “perjorative” meaning of the word theory, but I can assure you that a scientific theory is not a fact.

Like I tell my philosophy of science students, those who say “Evolution is a fact” are either ignorant of scientific thinking or are simply manipulating their hearers. What I the do is provide a much better statement. I tell them that “Evolution is the only successful theory to explain both the fossil and genetic evidence with regard to the origin of all species.” I would say that the theory of evolution is one of the most successful theories in science for its broad predictive power and its consistency with nearly all of the scientific evidence. Evolution happens, but evolution is not a fact. It is NOT a fact that all changes of all species at all times occurred by a natural process. It is literally impossible for experiment to establish this as fact.

Whether introducing supernatural influence in the progress of evolution is “easier” or not is really irrelevant. The question is not whether it is easier. The question is whether it is true. By definition, any supernatural proposal is not scientific. A scientific explanation, by definition, can only resort to natural things, governed by natural laws. I would never defend the claim that supernatural intervention is scientific or is even supported by experiment. Nevertheless, there is significant evidence that the supernatural is real. I will be happy to discuss that if you like.

Your analogy to fairies is really just a red herring argument. It amounts to rhetoric, not a rational argument. By stating that fairies are not real, this does not disprove the existence of God or of the supernatural. Obviously you know this. As far as I know, no rational person believes in fairies. On the other hand, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Faraday, Maxwell, Francis Collins, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur and a large proportion of all working scientists believe in God in miracles.  I would include myself in that number.  In my chemistry department, four of the seven professors are believers, one is a non-believer and the other two are ambiguous.  To say that belief in fairies is equivalent to belief that God might have intervened in the natural process of evolution is to make a fantastically weak argument.

I am sorry, but your claim that belief in the supernatural is a “cop out” is disrespectful and amounts to mere rhetoric. So, frankly, is your use of the word “duh.” Apparently you believe that all events in the universe have a “natural” explanation. This is a philosophy. It might even be true. I certainly will not call your belief a cop out. But simply declaring it to be true does nothing to make it true or to demonstrate that it is true. Science, by definition, cannot disprove the supernatural because, by definition, it only deals with things which are natural. I believe that the reality of God is the most rational explanation of the existence of the universe, the existence of life, and the existence of anything at all, for that matter. It is the most rational explanation of the fact that humans can understand the universe. I believe that the evidence for design of the universe is overwhelming. Belief in the supernatural is not a mere convenience. It is rational. This being true, to propose that the Creator intervened in the natural process of evolution is not a “cop out” as you say. It is consistent with everything I know about the universe. In my opinion (and I respect that you may not agree) it is the most reasonable explanation of the data.

That is my perspective. Do you have evidence to support your particular view other than rhetoric?

John Oakes