"The Emperor Has No Clothes"
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
May 2002

Truth, The Scientific Method, and Evolution

What is truth? How do we know what we know? Do we have an inherent knowledge of truth? If so, then we need not learn. If we do find ourselves learning, changing, and growing in our understanding of the world around us, does this not mean that we are subject to that world and to what our senses and reason tell us about it? If we are subjects of our senses, then we cannot know beyond them and what information they give to us. In other words, we cannot know the external world directly (like we know our own thoughts or feelings). We cannot know if we are but in a dream or a computer animation. However, if we wish to survive in this environment, whatever it may be, we must be able to interpret what our senses are telling us about our environment. There has to be some method that helps us decide if our interpretations are correct, incorrect, or need some sort of revision. The Scientific Method has proven to be one of the most helpful ways of sorting out truth from error.

The Scientific Method is very simple. We have all used it since infancy. It is simply a description of the process of learning that involves observation, hypothesis, testing, and revising.1 When we learn something new about our environment, we first observe or sense something through our senses. We then propose a hypothesis in our mind that explains this observation. A hypothesis makes certain assumptions or predictions about the future. If these predictions hold true, the hypothesis is strengthened in its usefulness as a predictive tool, but it can never be absolutely confirmed since we remain subjective creatures… subject to our senses and to indirect interpretations of what they are telling us. The strength of this method of learning is not so much in its ability to detect truth, but in its ability to detect error. It has the ability to rule out those hypothesis and theories that are definitely not true… or not good predictive tools. For instance, I might observe a man scratching his nose and then rolling a pair of dice. I observe that the dice end up on double six’s. I might hypothesize that this man’s nose scratching caused him to roll double six’s. I therefore predict that this will always hold true in the future. If it happens again as predicted, my hypothesis is strengthened, but not absolutely confirmed… it could have been a coincidence. If my prediction holds one hundred times in a row, I might become more confident, but I still can never fully know. All I can do is point to the past predictive usefulness of my hypothesis/theory. However, if this man happens to roll a two and a five after scratching his nose, my hypothesis has clearly failed in some way and either needs to be revised, or even replaced by a different hypothesis.

The Scientific Method is an extremely powerful learning tool in that it detects error, thereby narrowing the possibilities as to where truth is located. If truth exists in any field of thought or learning, the Scientific Method can be used as a guide in one’s search. It is a very versatile method. It can be used for anything as mundane as hog calling to physics and mathematics. Anyone can therefore be a scientist and any area of thought can be approached in a scientific manner. However, this does not mean that all people are scientific in their thinking… even in such "hard" sciences as physics or mathematics. Humans have a tendency to believe a lot of things based on feelings, or a desire or love for a particular idea. The problem here is that external truth is not dependent on desire. By wishing I cannot make the moon disappear, or the sky to be green instead of blue. Truth will be true regardless of my feelings concerning it. I am subject to it, but it is not subject to me. I cannot change the laws or truths of nature even if I dislike them. So, if one honestly desires to know truth, a conscientious effort must be made not to allow emotions to direct one’s search. All possibilities must be considered with none being ruled out simply on the basis of personal likes or dislikes. All of our ideas must be open to challenge and question. This becomes easier when we realize that human understanding can never achieve full perfection. When we come to this point, we are forced to conclude that our individual search for truth is never ending. We can approach truth, but we will never fully realize truth. Even established theories must be subject to re-evaluation and adjustment as new information comes to light.

Of particular interest here are the theories and hypothesis concerning the origin and diversity of living things. An understanding of origins is important as far as how one approaches the future and is often important in establishing personal motivations. Currently, there are two main opposing camps of thought concerning the origin and diversity of life with many theories containing mixtures from both camps. On the one hand there is the purely naturalistic Theory of Evolution. On the other hand there is the non-naturalistic Design Theory. There are many variations within both camps as well as many theories that contain elements from both, but very few theories concerning the origin and diversity of living things exist outside of these two main camps. The purists in each camp accuse those in the other camp(s) of straying from the scientific method and even of being outright non-scientific or even "religious" in their respective positions. It is commonly stated that religion should be left to theologians while science should be left to scientists. This argument assumes that some important truths are beyond scientific investigation and are thus matters of "faith." What many do not seem to realize is that all human knowledge and learning is a matter of faith. Theories, even in disciplines such as physics or mathematics, are only precise statements of faith. They are backed up by a greater or lesser degree of evidence, but like all human attempts to search out truth, none of them have ever achieved absolute perfection. Without absolute knowledge, a degree of faith remains when one holds a particular position… be it "religious" or "scientific." A theory is therefore a faith and a faith is therefore a theory. One who holds a particular faith/theory to be "true" may or may not choose to apply the Scientific Method to that position. If the Scientific Method is not or cannot be applied to investigate or test a particular faith (theory), then it is impossible to detect any possible error in such a position. Without the ability to detect error, a particular position cannot be said to be "better" or "worse" than any other position. All such faiths/theories become equal. So, if a person or group presents one particular faith or theory as better than another faith or theory, they have to be able to back this up with testable reasons that make better predictions concerning an observation (ie: using The Scientific Method).

However, what if a faith or theory concerns a historical event? Is it possible to test a historical event? The study of origins and diversity is a historical study. All origins happened in the past. We therefore cannot go back and directly observe these origins. For example, I believe that the man Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United States during the Civil War. I did not live during this time. I never met Mr. Lincoln. I cannot go back and directly test the "truthfulness" of my belief concerning either Mr. Lincoln or the Civil War. Is this simply a case of "blind" faith? No, because historical studies can be done in a scientific manner. Documents, archeological discoveries, etc. can be tested for agreement and predictive value as they relate to each other. The amount, degree, and quality of agreement or disagreement between various sources pertaining to a particular historical event can be directly tested. For example, lets say that I am reading from a historical document that is discussing a particular Civil War battle. The ink and paper can be tested to see if they match other documents thought to be from the same time period. The handwriting can be tested by analysis to see if it matches other documents supposedly written by the same person. Let’s also say that this document states exactly where a battle was fought and describes in detail what type of weapons and ammunition where used. If I then go and find a location that seems to match the description found in this document, and then dig and find similar weapons and ammunition, the degree of agreement between these two sources of information is statistically testable. The Scientific Method can be applied here. The study of history can therefore be a science.

Is the Theory of Evolution also a similar historical science? It certainly could be, especially if the "truth" of the matter is that evolution is in fact responsible for not only the existence of living things, but also for the diversity of living things. If the truth of the matter is that evolution did happen and is real, then how would one go about discovering this truth? Well, as in the case for evolution, it might be helpful if the truth that one was looking for was not only a historical truth, but also a present truth that could be evaluated in real time. This is exactly what the Theory of Evolution proposes and such apparent observations in actual living things are what made various people start to wonder.