Biases
A Geologist's Biases are Your Biases
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
May 4, 2014
Brief Overview of the Assumptions of Actualism
As discussed in “Actualism (Modern Uniformitarianism) and its Assumptions”, actualism refers to both the methodology used by 21st century geologists to decipher the geologic record and the natural processes that produced that record. Under actualism, geologists make the following two assumptions to explain the origins of features in the geologic record:
1) Actualism assumes uniformity of natural laws. All hypotheses produced under actualism to explain the origins of features in the geologic record must comply with natural laws and, in particular, the laws of chemistry and physics. The supernatural may exist, but any effects that it may have had on the geologic record cannot be scientifically investigated. Therefore, the supernatural must be excluded from all hypotheses to explain the geologic record at least until if and when scientific technologies are developed to decisively identify the results of any supernatural processes and distinguish them from natural processes. Actualism is non-supernatural and non-theistic methodological materialism and not atheistic philosophical materialism.
2) All hypotheses under actualism should be parsimonious or comply with the guidelines of Occam's razor. No one should invoke unnecessarily elaborate and groundless speculations in an attempt to solve a mystery if a mundane natural explanation will work.
Actualism in Our Society and Daily Lives
If we look at our daily lives, our court systems, medical facilities and other institutions, we immediately see that people (including theists) commonly and often unconscientiously use actualism. Only non-geologists call actualism by different names, such as “common sense”, “logic”, “a rational approach”, “an organized assessment”, Western medicine or the modern legal system.
While there are some people that invoke the supernatural to explain every ordinary event in their daily lives, most Christians and other people do not. For example, when individuals misplace their car keys, how many people in their right mind would blame demons for hiding the keys? No matter what their religious convictions, rational people only consider natural explanations (actualism) for why their keys are missing. Rational explanations for missing keys might include: they were left in the door knob, they fell out of the pocket into the couch, they were left in yesterday's pants pocket, a family member took them without permission, etc. Also, how many theists automatically pray for God to guide them to their missing keys? No doubt, some do. However, if a conservative Christian repeatedly forgets to pray about minor crises in their lives (such as missing car keys) and only look for natural and plausible explanations (actualism) for the everyday problems that they encounter, why wouldn't Mr. Oard accuse them of being guilty of the same “atheism”, “anti-theistic prejudice”, or an “anti-theistic bias” that Oard (2009a, p. 114, 120) and Oard (2009b, p. 138) accuses other geologists and me when we also use the same actualistic approach to solve problems and mysteries in the geologic record? In another common situation, would Mr. Oard assume that his mechanics are “atheists” and guilty of “anti-theistic prejudice” and “anti-theistic bias” simply because they only rely on natural explanations to determine why his car won't start? Who would ever take a garage mechanic seriously if he/she says that a car won't start because it has demons? Do people have to prove their religious convictions to Mr. Oard and his allies by praying over every minute issue and considering the possibility of supernatural involvement in everything? How many YEC parents would believe their children if they claimed that a demon, and not them, broke the expensive vase in the dining room? Which is more likely, that a demon is in the house or that a guilty child lied about breaking the vase? If Mr. Oard was sitting on a jury for a criminal trial, would he really consider a supernatural cause for an unwitnessed and unrecorded crime or would he only rely on natural and plausible explanations (actualism) when evaluating the forensic evidence? Since forensic evidence of unwitnessed past crimes is “historical science” and not “operational science” by bogus YEC standards (e.g., Oard 2009c, p. 256; see critique here and its references), why would Mr. Oard trust it? How many defense attorneys would claim that a demon, and not the suspect, might have committed an unwitnessed and unrecorded murder and how many judges, juries and even defendants would ever accept such a defense? If demons supposedly did supernatural acts in biblical times, why shouldn’t YECs believe that they’re capable of 21st century crimes? Also, would Mr. Oard have been guilty of “anti-theistic biases” and atheism if, as a meteorologist, he only used information on cold and warm fronts and other meteorological data to predict the weather rather than expecting miraculous rainstorms through prayer? If Mr. Oard could only choose one source of information when he worked as a meteorologist, which would he guess would have given him the better weather forecast for two days in advance: prayer without any meteorological data or meteorological data without any prayer? If Mr. Oard somehow insists that he must use both prayer and meteorological data to perform his job well, he only proves that prayer is not good enough.
Do people also have “anti-theistic biases” and are they atheists if they lock their doors at night or perhaps buy a gun if they live in a high-crime neighborhood rather than “trusting God” to supernaturally protect them from threats? Are churches also guilty of “anti-theistic biases” and atheism because they plan budgets and stick with them rather than just trusting the Lord to provide as promised in Matthew 6:25-34? Are churches guilty of “anti-theistic biases” and atheism if they buy flood insurance rather than just trust God to protect their properties from flooding? If someone's child becomes critically ill, do they first take them to the elders of the church and anoint them with oil as commanded by James 4:14-15 or do they immediately go to the emergency room, leave the prayers during the ride in the ambulance, and maybe anoint the person with oil once the doctors are finished? If an emergency room comes first in a medical emergency for conservative Christians, it is clear that anointing the sick with oil and prayer is not the highest priority with them and, by default, neither is taking supernatural healing or the commands of James seriously. By their actions, most people show that they value Western medicine more than prayer.
In geology, do old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists have “anti-theistic biases” and are they “atheists” if they only use natural processes (actualism) to explain the origins of both a modern and a Precambrian basalt flow with nearly the same chemistry and physical properties? Are they guilty of “atheism” because they refuse to consider that the Precambrian basalt was magically created out of nothing during the Creation Week because there is not a shred of evidence to support an ex nihilo creation of a Precambrian basalt? If courts don't blame demons for unwitnessed crimes and if people don't blame supernatural forces for hiding their missing car keys or breaking their vases or cars, why should geologists invoke the supernatural to explain the origin of a rock when natural processes provide entirely adequate explanations?
Now, many anti-Pentecostalist YECs deny that any miracles or other acts of the supernatural occur today. For them, they conveniently restrict the supernatural to untestable remote events in biblical times. They only depend on natural explanations (actualism) to explain events in the modern world. However, this approach only begs the question. Since Oard (2009a, p. 113) and elsewhere in Oard and Reed (2009) admit that the supernatural had a role in the formation of the geologic record, how would any YEC distinguish a supernaturally formed rock from a naturally formed one? So far, YEC attempts to identify “supernatural” rocks with accelerated radioactive decay events or polonium halos have utterly failed.
Just because people only rely on natural processes to explain events in their daily or professional lives that does not mean that they are atheists. In both science and our daily lives, we want elegant, useful and natural explanations and not superstitious, groundless, contrived, worn-out and miracle-based excuses that haven't been widely accepted since 1692. This modern approach is methodological materialism and not philosophical materialism. So, when Mr. Oard in Oard (2009a, p. 114, 120) and Oard (2009b, p. 138) blames me for not invoking the supernatural to explain the origin of an outcrop, maybe he should look at how often he and his neighbors really rely on the supernatural rather than actualism in their daily lives. (Also see: "Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Supposed Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”)
References:
Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.
Oard, M.J. 2009b. “Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?”, chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.
Oard, M.J. 2009c. “Dinosaur Tracks, Eggs, and Bonebeds”, chapter 15 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 245-258.
Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.