Restrict Supernatural

Why Restrict the Supernatural from Scientific Investigations? Because the Supernatural Completely Lacks Evidence and Verification

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

July 8, 2014

Miracles Might be Possible, but Are They Likely and How Would We Detect Evidence for Them in the Geologic Record?

Oard (2009b, p. 138), Oard (2009a, p. 113, etc.), and elsewhere in Oard and Reed (2009) commonly complain that restricting scientific hypotheses to the natural realm “equates atheism with science” and that such a restriction is a non-objective "bias" against the supernatural. Now, many people have great difficulty believing that the natural disasters on Earth and even the supernovas in deep space are all due to a curse that resulted from a couple of humans listening to a talking snake 6,000 years ago and eating the wrong magic fruit. However, the omission of the supernatural from actualistic Earth history is, in reality, ultimately due to the inability of scientists to find any evidence of the supernatural or distinguish any supernatural event from natural ones in the geologic record. Although no one can absolutely rule out the existence of miracles, scientists haven't had any success in detecting and measuring the supernatural with our current technologies. Despite spurious young-Earth creationist (YEC) claims about miraculous polonium halos and false conclusions about helium in zircons (also here) detecting accelerated radioactive decay rates, the fact remains that if any remaining effects of past miracles exist in the geologic record, they are too perfectly camouflaged to be distinguished from the strong geologic evidence for natural processes that often acted over long periods of time. So, unless God walks into a modern laboratory and submits to examinations or shows us how he specifically performed miracles on the various rock formations during the Flood or Creation Week, we have no ability to detect any role that the supernatural may have had on the origin of the geologic record. Because of our inability to distinguish natural from any supernatural processes that may have formed the geologic record, we must, at least for now, concentrate on natural explanations for the geologic record. Not only are natural explanations adequate, testable and successful in explaining the geologic record and finding important resources, natural explanations without any contributions from the supernatural are also successfully applied in courts, hospitals and throughout our daily lives (see “A Geologist’s Biases are Your Biases”). That is, from our daily lives, we know that the natural exists and we know that past superstitious cultures have commonly misinterpreted earthquakes, lightning, and other natural phenomena as the work of the gods. So, advocates of the supernatural and not the skeptics have the "burden of proof" and must demonstrate that their miracles and magic even exist.

Contrary to Oard (2009a, p. 113), Scientists do Openly Admit to Rejecting a Role for the Supernatural in Scientific Research

According to Oard (2009a, p. 113), YECs “openly admit” to relying on the supernatural in their worldview, but actualists supposedly refuse to admit to their reliance on the anti-supernatural. As discussed in “Actualism (Modern Uniformitarianism) and its Assumptions” and contrary to Oard (2009a, p. 113), science philosophy and geology textbooks are not shy about rejecting the supernatural and the chaos and subjectivity that it would inflict upon scientific research. For example, Strahler (1999, p. 62) states the following about modern uniformitarianism (actualism) and the supernatural:

“Uniformitarianism should be viewed as antithetic to any and all theories invoking supernatural forces for the origins of things geologic or biologic or of any other natural-science phenomena.”

Strahler (1999, p. 194) also concludes:

“Under the updated statement of a useful principle of uniformitarianism it boils down essentially to affirmation of the validity of universal scientific laws through time and space, coupled with a rejection of supernatural causes.”

In my 1999 essay, I also clearly stated that under actualism geologists reject the supernatural as a viable explanation for the geologic record:

“Contrary to YEC misconceptions, actualism does not demand modern analogs for dolomite formation, only that any explanations not violate the laws of chemistry and physics by invoking the supernatural.”

So, if Mr. Oard really understands actualism and the literature on actualism “quite well” as he implies in Oard (2009a, p. 113), how can Oard (2009a, p. 113) accuse geologists of being unwilling to admit that their worldview rejects the supernatural in scientific investigations? In contrast, I have not been able to find any example in Oard and Reed (2009) where they show their acceptance of the supernatural by using it to explain Flood geology (see “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”).

When it comes to investigating the supernatural, the best scientists have to offer is to test individuals that currently claim to have supernatural powers, such as psychics, dowsers, and astrologers. However, if they fail their tests (they always do), they can simply move the goal posts by invoking untestable claims that the scientists' skepticism was putting out “negative energies” or that a “lack of faith” interfered with their powers. Psychics, astrologers and other advocates of the paranormal have just as many imaginative excuses for their failures as YECs have to explain away Bible contradictions. Although science has failed to prove the existence of the supernatural, the possibility of supernatural events has not been entirely ruled out.

Like astrology and other claims of the paranormal, young-Earth creationism is popular in American society, but has few adherents among scientists. Why? This is because advocates of the paranormal utterly lack the hard evidence that scientists demand of all ideas. Astrology and young-Earth creationism simply cannot provide the level of evidence that supports plate tectonics, biological evolution and Einstein's Theories of Relativity. Furthermore, scientists are trained to be skeptical. It is difficult for scientists to turn off their skepticism when listening to preachers, politicians, astrologers and their children.

Now, if God exists, by definition, he is powerful enough to overcome any natural law at any time. The real question is: Even if God exists and can easily perform miracles, does that mean that he has? Over the centuries, there have been countless manuscripts claiming to be history that are often full of unsubstantiated accounts of supernatural events (for example, Herodotus' history of the Persian Wars, mentioned in Carrier, 2010). Yet, if there is any credence to any of these accounts, why can't 21st century scientists find a single contemporary prophet, healer or other individual that can be shown to have miraculous powers? Also, how likely is it that an avowed miracle actually occurred in a given situation? As many have argued: “Which is more likely: that a virgin birth actually occurred or that someone lied about the identity of the father?” Perhaps after looking at the evidence, it’s no wonder that many Baptists and other anti-Pentecostalist fundamentalists conveniently claim that all miracles ceased when the last apostle died about 1900 years ago. It’s much easier to make groundless claims about miracles thousands of years ago, if you don’t have to provide evidence of them in the present.

Although science can't answer all of these questions about the existence of miracles, science still manages to effectively explain the geologic record without invoking the supernatural at all. In the process, solely natural explanations allow scientists to find and recover valuable materials from the Earth. So, unlike young-Earth creationism, our approach to the Earth must be basically correct. While actualism bears valuable fruit in environmental cleanup, Earth history and resource exploration, young-Earth creationism with its reliance on unproven miracles does not. (Also see: “Young-Earth Creationists Beg for Money without a Track Record of Success.”)

Who Needs to be There?

YECs, like Ken Ham, are fond of challenging the claims of geologists about past events by saying: “How do you know what happened? Were you there?” Since YECs believe that their biblical interpretations are an infallible “eyewitness” record from God on how the Universe was created, they believe that they have a better understanding of the Earth's past than any geologist actually studying the rock record. Yet, the YECs’ reliance on dogma and their dismissal of careful scientific investigations of past unwitnessed events are rash and without merit. Forensic scientists often present DNA, fingerprint and other evidence from unwitnessed and unrecorded murders at criminal trials. Now, if a forensic scientist presented evidence for the prosecution in a criminal trial, a shoddy defense attorney might respond: “How does this forensic scientist know what happened during the crime? Was he there?” Such a flippant and shallow cliché would probably not convince a savvy jury even with just a moderate amount of forensic evidence. Although no science is perfect and there are good arguments against the death penalty, forensic evidence (fingerprints, DNA, blood splatters, fibers, etc.) from unwitnessed crimes is often so convincing that juries convict and courts could send the defendants to death row (as examples, here and here). No one can get more confident about interpreting past unwitnessed events than putting a convict’s life on the line! Similarly, paleontologists and other scientists also have had numerous successes beyond a reasonable doubt when they decipher unwitnessed past events from remaining evidence. This is why geologists are so successful in locating petroleum, gold and other natural resources. In contrast, Genesis 1-11 and its Flood geology remain unsupported by any archeological or geological evidence despite the best efforts of Dr. Reed, Mr. Oard, and other YECs (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001; Dever, 2005). A jurist evaluating overwhelming forensic evidence for an unwitnessed crime or a paleontologist studying fossil assemblages are not going to accept any YEC claims that deciphering “unobserved past events” without the Bible is necessarily unreliable. YECs also do not help their plea for scientific respect by relying on interpretations of Genesis that are so weak, dogmatic and unverified that even many of their fellow evangelical Christians at least question them, often consider them unnecessary, or openly reject them.

Is Methodological Naturalism an Unfair Monopoly or Is it that Supernaturalism Just can't Compete?

Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 12) complain about the “monopoly” that anti-supernatural naturalism has in science. In reality, many actualists are theists, including old-Earth creationists. However, there is a difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism (see “Mr. Oard Confuses Methodological Materialism with Philosophical Materialism”). Also, the same non-supernatural approach to solving problems (actualism) occurs in medicine, car mechanics, plumbing and practically every other occupation except faith healing and psychic readings (see “A Geologist’s Biases are Your Biases”). Would Dr. Reed and Mr. Oard ever advocate prayer as the sole solution to a clogged septic tank? Also, would Dr. Reed and Mr. Oard assume that their mechanics are “atheists” simply because they only rely on natural solutions to explain any problems with their cars running? I would argue that methodological naturalism has a “monopoly” in science and every other respectable profession because it achieves results and advocates of supernaturalism have been totally ineffective in scientifically demonstrating their claims (see “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”). Citing verses out of Genesis 1-11 doesn't produce practical and reliable results in a laboratory or at a field site. Saying “God did it!” doesn’t provide a useful explanation for the origin of a thunderstorm or a rock. In contrast, actualism does achieve results and provide useful information. This is probably why the authors of Oard and Reed (2009) repeatedly appeal to natural processes (actualism) rather than the supernatural in their ineffective attempts to explain Flood geology (see “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”).

It's the Lack of Evidence

Although Oard (2009a, p. 114) recognizes that I'm willing to accept natural catastrophes, such as meteorite impacts and the Lake Missoula Flood, he believes that I “draw the line” on catastrophes in the Bible. No, Mr. Oard, I draw the line on groundless supernatural speculation either in or out of the Bible, especially when adequate natural explanations are available. I draw the line on twisting the evidence in the geologic record to support biblical stories that have no historical or scientific support (e.g., Oard 1997; 2009a; 2009b). I have no problem supporting the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and other biblical catastrophes if there is archeological and geological evidence for their existence and rapid destruction. However, that doesn't mean that God supernaturally zapped them. It's entirely possible that a natural catastrophe occurred (such as an earthquake or volcanic eruption) and through some oral exaggerations and superstitious god-of-the-gaps speculations, God improperly received the credit or blame for the disaster, depending on your point of view. No one should take any accounts from a manuscript (whether it is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Iliad, or the National Enquirer) and simply believe it at face value. We need evidence and geology can identify reliable natural explanations for past events.

Why do YECs Deserve a Pass into Geological Research?

Since YECs want the Bible to be introduced into laboratory and field research, how could they consistently say no to others that want their scriptures and supernatural beliefs to also be admitted into scientific investigations, such as the Book of Mormon, the Koran, YEC defenders of biblical geocentricism, Voodoo rituals, astrological charts, divining rods that supposedly find petroleum and water, etc.? Why do YECs deserve a pass for their unsubstantiated supernatural claims, but not any of their competitors that advocate different supernatural processes? Scientists rightfully recognize that all of these advocates of the supernatural have many more excuses for their failures than viable and useful hypotheses. Although old-Earth creationists and some theistic evolutionists agree with YECs about the inspiration of the Bible, they recognize that the Bible can be interpreted in a number of different ways and that European history has shown that mixing religion into science is fruitless, counterproductive and dogmatic.

References

Carrier, R. 2010. “Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable” in J.W. Loftus (ed.) The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, pp. 291-315.

Dever, W.G. 2005. Did God have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 344pp.

Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, The Free Press, New York, 385pp.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

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. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 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. 11-17.

Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History- The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 552pp.