The Challenge of New Theories

When a new scientific theory emerges that challenges an existing model, it usually has less evidence to support it than the theory it seeks to replace. When Einstein presented his theory of relativity it contradicted existing theories and had less evidence to support it. If we take evidence as the benchmark for rational choice, new theories would die at birth. Einstein, the rationalist, would have known that there was more evidence for a traditional Newtonian view of the universe and he would have never published his work.

This is the kind of argument given to defend faith against contradictory evidence. A belief in creationist theory is defended as a theory whose evidence is still to emerge.

Einstein’s theories were not accepted immediately. Very few important scientific theories are. New scientific theories usually emerge as a result of a two stage process. Stage one is creative in nature, not evidence based. New theories emerge from a creative process to help explain gaps in old theories or as explanations for new evidence. At this point they are often rejected by the wider scientific community. The process that sees them becoming accepted is the second stage, which is validation. Theories are tested and measured. If the testing is successful, the new theory gradually becomes accepted as it is repeatedly validated.

A map of the world is not the world. It is simply a representation of the world which helps us move through it. All theories are like maps. They are not reality or truth, they are representations of reality. It is often the case in scientific theories that there are gaps in the theory, blind spots that we do not yet know. When a new theory emerges, it is a new map. It can be judged by its use. Does it help us understand more or less than we previously did? Does it help us more accurately predict results? Are there less gaps.

When we accept religious beliefs such as creationism over evolution, what we are doing is moving to a position of having less knowledge. We are giving up tools that are not perfect, but help explain and predict outcomes and which are building blocks upon which new knowledge is constantly built. We are replacing these tools with older less reliable tools, that allow us to do less, understand less, develop less. A theory which reduces knowledge is a very strange theory indeed.

When faith is belief in something against the evidence it is a rejection of the possibility of finding a means of comparing or judging competing beliefs. You either accept a belief or reject it. You do not compare or judge. As a creationist you simply accept creationism because you accept it. Beliefs are often chosen on the basis of intuition. They are, however, usually tested. Imagine a world in which beliefs in all areas of life were accepted on the basis of non-judgement. Most people would believe that the world is flat, because it is counter intuitive that it is round. For much of human history it was accepted that the world was flat. For the Roman Catholic church it was once heresy to say otherwise.

Belief against evidence creates blind faith and belief without testing creates blind faith. Science is not truth, it is a method of creating better maps of the world. The religious fundamentalist rejects the better map and lives in a smaller world as a result.