Faith, science, creationism, etc.

Ry sent me this little article about the latest antics of the creationist movement, and I won't go into the article, because articles about creationism never really change (not unless they edit Genesis). But I thought I'd take the opportunity to discuss the difference between "faith-based" theories like creationism and "scientific" theories like evolution.

First of all, they are, in fact, both "theories." Yes, creationists are perfectly right on this point. A theory is just a model about how the world works. It can be supported by evidence (e.g. the theory of universal gravitation) or not (e.g. string theory). It can be applicable to the real world (e.g. auction theory) or not (e.g. "real business cycle" theory).

My second point is that, in fact, science is fundamentally (though not entirely) based on faith. Without faith, science cannot reveal truth of any kind. Don't believe me? Then consider this: How do we know the Law of Universal Gravitation will apply tomorrow? What if tomorrow we wake up and fall toward the ceiling? Our experiments can only confirm that the law held yesterday. In fact, the fact that we use the word "law" to describe this theory implies that we have faith that the Universe in fact has laws, which we have no way of knowing. This is called the "paradox of induction," and there's no way around it; although scientific theories are based on experiment, the future validity of experimentally confirmed theories must be taken on faith. What we mean when we say "evidence-based," then, is "not 100% faith-based."

And in addition to that faith in the constancy of the laws of the Universe, science often involves (but does not require) a second, different kind of faith: faith in scientists. I have personally demonstrated, in a lab, the Law of Universal Gravitation, but I have never personally confirmed, say, the speed of light; nevertheless, I believe with every fiber of my being that the speed of light is somewhere around 300,000,000 m/s, because I have faith in the people who told me that it is so. Just like I have faith that Pluto exists; I've never seen it. Science is constructed by experiment, but accepted in wider society because of faith in scientists themselves.

So, you may ask, what is the important difference between the "science" of evolution and the "religion" of creationism? As I see it, the difference lies in usefulness. In the end, humans believe things because the belief is useful; if I believed that lightning was caused not by the electromagnetic force but by the anger of Thor, I would not know to construct a lightning rod to protect myself; science is preferable to religion in this case only if you wish to avoid being zapped.

The relative usefulness of evolution and creationism has not been as firmly established as the distinction between Maxwell's Equations and Thor. But it has been established. If you believe that God created all species to be unchanging, then you will not worry about using the same antibiotics again and again; but if you believe that species can change their traits over time, then you will be careful to avoid creating drug-resistant bacteria strains. The science is preferable to the religion only if you wish to avoid dying of drug-resistant TB.

I say that the relative usefulness of evolution over creationism has "not been as firmly established" because there are many important areas in which the theory evolution promises to make itself useful but has not yet done so. For example, evolutionary theory implies that we should be able to create conditions in which life will spontaneously evolve from non-living substances; we have not yet done this. Nor have we been able to use evolution to produce a new sentient species. Someday, if evolution is correct, we may do these things, and then evolutionary theory will be more useful than it is now.

But you may ask: What if believing in creationism is essential for getting into Heaven? Wouldn't it then be the most useful theory of all? And in fact you are right: if that is the case, then creationism is more useful than evolution, and in fact we should all believe it. Whether the thing about Heaven is true is entirely an article of faith, and as such admits no evidence against it; like all articles of faith, you may choose to believe it if you wish.

It also seems possible to me that belief in creationism serves another kind of use: comfort. It may under certain circumstances be comforting for humans to believe in theories not supported by evidence - so useful that it is in fact useful for us to ignore evidence to the contrary. If the comfort of believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis outweighs the usefulness of biological technology, then we should believe in creationism whether it is true or not.

I highly doubt this is the case, but I'm occasionally known to be wrong.

In any case, the upshot is this: I believe in evolution not because it is more appealing to me than creationism, but because I think that belief in evolution has positive consequences for society. I think we would be a lot happier with some of the technologies that could be created using the principle of biological evolution. And I have faith that God is not such a schmuck as to send me or anyone else to Hell for wanting to make use of those technologies. That's all there is to it.