Science and Politics

Our Prime Minister, like other national leaders, has said that all the decisions made about managing the coronavirus were based on the best scientific advice by medical experts. This is a little misleading. There are several problems with relying on science in a situation like this.

• The scientific process is slow, so science does not provide instant answers. Science works by independent checks by peer reviews and confirmation of results by other researchers. This process takes time.

• This means that early results will often be exposed as incorrect. With regard to coronavirus, researchers are publishing results without waiting for peer review. Some have had to be withdrawn when peer review by independent experts has exposed flaws. When more repeat studies are completed by other independent researchers, some early results that have been published will be proven wrong. There is nothing wrong with this, because it is the way that science works. However, it is a problem when decisions have to be made quickly.

• Testing medical hypotheses is difficult. Scientists like to do double-blind experiments where a potential treatment is applied to a sample of people and a randomly selected control group are left without treatment, as this is a good way to test if a treatment is effective. This type of experiment is often not possible with medicine, as it is immoral to exclude treatments from people who might benefit.

• Medical studies often used statistical methods to assess treatments. These methods can identify correlations between outcomes and personal characteristics or practices, but establishing a causal relationship is much more difficult. And because many characteristics and events are not always well defined or recorded accurately, statistical studies can produce misleading results. These problems will often be exposed by peer review or more thorough repeat studies, but that will take time.

• Robust experiments are difficult to design. Even when samples are selected carefully, bias can creep in if the results were affected by factors that the designers of the study missed, and therefore failed to control. These problems will be gradually ironed out by effective peer review and repetition of studies, but that takes time, so it is not surprising that the first results to be released are later proven to be wrong.

• Each epidemic is different. Therefore, relying on what was effective during the previous epidemics can lead to mistakes.

• There are no perfect models (except on the catwalk), so modelling always bring in uncertainty. The models used by epidemiologists to estimate death rates when the coronavirus first emerged were flawed. Subsequent expert reviews revealed that faulty assumptions and inappropriate parameters were used. There was no allowance for the effect of the virus on people in aged care facilities. These flaws resulted in estimates that were unreliable. They have now quietly been forgotten.

• On medical issues, there will always be disagreement. Put three specialists in a room, and they will often disagree on the cause of the problem, the best treatment, and the possible outcome for the patient. This disagreement is normal in medical science. The best way to resolve this problem when big decisions have to be made is to gather as many experts as possible and thoroughly debate the issues. These debates will not always produce an agreement, but it will at least expose the flawed arguments.

• Sometimes science has not answered the questions that are most important for policymakers. There is no science that indicates that a lockdown of an entire economy is more effective for dealing with an epidemic than quarantine of people who are sick. Quarantines have been applied in the past, so they have a known track record, but that evidence is not always applicable to other viruses. The lockdown solution has not really been used in the past, so there is very little evidence about the economic costs and the effectiveness of such a remedy. The outcome will only be evident when annual excess death statistics are released in a year's time, but even then, there will still be debate.

• Science cannot answer spiritual questions. If the coronavirus had a spiritual cause, science has to ignore it, because it can only assess physical cause and effect.

• Six months after the coronavirus was first discovered, it is fair to say that more is not known about the way it behaves than is known. That is not a failure. It is the normal situation when something new has been discovered. Most of the uncertainties will be resolved as the scientific process continues, but we should not expect medical science to have all the answers straight away. We should not be surprised if hypotheses are to be proved, or if later studies expose flaws in earlier ones. This is the normal scientific process at work. However, it does mean that we should not expect immediate answers to all questions when a new disease emerges. Assuming that you can know things that can't be known is dangerous.

Because the medical science is at best uncertain, and at worst, non-existent, may of the decisions about responding to the coronavirus mostly had to be political decisions. This is right because the ultimate responsibility for the outcome rests with them. Of course, the politicians like to claim that were relying on medical and scientific advice, but they are really just propagating an untruth to give their decisions more credibility with the wider population.

Miracles (9) Observing

Scientists measure events that occur in the physical world. This raises the question: what would they see if a spiritual being made changes to the physical world. If they made observations before and after, they would see how the world was before the change and how it was after the change, but they could not see what caused the change. The previous second observation would show a situation which was not sufficient to cause the change recorded in the second observation. The second observation would show a situation that the conditions in the first observation could not produce.

For example, an observation of Jesus body just prior to the resurrection would show a body that was dead. All physical functions would have ceased. There would be no possibility of further life. An observation just after the resurrection would show a person that was alive. There would be no physical explanation for this dramatic change.

The problem is that in most cases, the impact of the spiritual intervention does not become evident immediately, so observations are not made until well afterwards, when the symptoms of the spiritual interaction become evident. We mostly do not observe a spiritual interaction, because we do not know it has happened. By the time scientists realise what has occurred, it is too late to begin making observations.

If an evil spirit caused a woman’s spine to begin collapsing, a physical examination prior to the event would show a healthy spine. If the collapse was slow and gradual, then a physical examination just after the evil spirit had begun doing the damage probably would not show much difference. The beginning of a collapse might be evident, but they change would look very similar to what would be observed with normal osteoporosis, if it were observed when it was first beginning.

If an evil spirit caused a few cells in a person’s lungs to mutate and become cancerous, the immediate effect would be hard to observe. An observation prior to the event would show healthy lungs. An observation after the spiritual intervention would show a very small number of cancerous cells. This would be very similar to what would be observed if the cancer was due to natural causes. In both cases, the existence of the cancer would not be known to until it had grown sufficiently to produce more serious symptoms, so these observations would be unlikely to occur. So the immediate change would not be observed, even with modern medical diagnostic equipment.

If a modern pathologist had undertaken an autopsy of the body of King Herod after he had been killed by an angel (Acts 12:23), the pathologist would discover evidence of the cause of his death. Perhaps he had had a heart attack or a serious stroke. However, the pathologist would not be able to see that the death was triggered by an angel, because it would look just like any other heart attack or stroke. The physical examination of a pathologist cannot identify spiritual causes.

Science and God

Although John Lennox is a pure mathematician, he is a great communicator, especially on the issue if God and science. This talk called “Has Science buried God?” is a good example of his work. Anyone who is interested in science and apologetics should listen to it.

The following are examples from his talk.

Scientism is the problem. It is the belief that “Science is the only way to truth”. It is logical nonsense, because it is not a scientific statement, so if it is true, it is false.”

Wittgenstein said that the greatest deception of modernism is that laws of nature are explanations of the phenomena of nature. They are not. They are simply descriptions of what normally happens.

The meaning of the word faith has been redefined in a devious way to mean belief where there is no evidence. This is wrong. Everyone understands evidence-based faith. Christianity is evidence-based faith.

Real faith is commitment to people or facts, based on evidence. eg you have faith in the surgeon operating on you.

Faith is essential for science. Scientists need faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe. That is a belief. Science cannot prove it, because you have to believe it because you have to believe before you can start doing science.

Atheism is a belief system. If the brain is the result of an unguided random process, why can anything it determines be trusted?

Atheism undermines the capacity of the human mind/brain to be trusted as reliable.

I really like the section at the end, where he discussed information.

A materialistic world view has a serious problem with information because it seems that it cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry, yet it is at the heart of the universe. He says that physics and chemistry do not have the explanatory power to deal with meaning and language.

When language is involved, we never argue downward to chance and necessity, or physics and chemistry. We always intuitively respond by assuming there is a mind behind it.

We live in an information age. Information is difficult to define, but it is mostly agreed that information is not material. However, scientists who believe that the universe is purely material, are finding that information is fundamental, but it is not reducible to physics and chemistry. That means science cannot explain everything.

He tells the story of a reductionist scientist who sees the words “Roast Chicken” on a menu, assumes they have meaning, because a mind is behind them, but when researching the hugely complicated language known in DNA, he assumes it is the result of chance and necessity.

Science and Economics

Economics claims to be a science. The problem with this claim is that the scientific method depends on the ability to do repeatable experiments. For example, chemistry advances by checking if hypotheses are correct by doing experiments that are repeatable. If a hypothesis fails repeated experiments, it is deemed not to be true.

The problem for economics is that is a subject that deals with the behaviour of people and society, so it is usually not possible to set up an experiment to test whether an hypothesis or theory is correct. People do not like being experimented on. An economist cannot do experiments on an economy, because every economy is different, and changes over time, so any experiment would not be repeatable.

The best that Economics can do is establish models that approximate how the economy operates. Economists use their models to explain historical events, or to make predictions about what will happen if certain changes occur. Unfortunately, the same historical events can be explained by various models. What happens can usually be explained by several different models, so making a correct prediction or explanation does not prove a model is correct. Most predictions by economists are wrong, so faith in their models is risky.

Economists tend to rely on the weight of opinion to decide which is the correct model. They sometimes reach a consensus about which model is best, but they never reach full agreement. Consensus is good, but unfortunately, it is not the same as using the scientific method.

Models have to be a simplification of reality. This means that economics is not really a science, in the true sense of the word.

Climate change faces the same problem. Climate scientists cannot do repeatable experiments, so they have to rely on models, too. Predictions about future climate change depend on the accuracy of climate models. The outcome of the model depends on the assumptions built into the model, and there is often disagreement about these assumptions.

Environmentalists often say that people should accept the weight of scientific evidence for climate change. The problem with this is that climate models cannot be tested in the way that the scientific method requires. It is not possible to set up repeatable experiments, because there is only one world, and it is not possible to repeat climate situations to test the model.

The best that climate scientists can do is to test their preferred model to see if it can explain weather events in the past, or to make predictions and see if they happen. That puts them in the same boat as economists. Weight of opinion is not the same as scientific method. Using the word “scientific” to make the case for climate change is a bit misleading.

Evolutionary theory has the same problem. It is not possible to do an experiment to test if humans could evolve into apes, because this is not repeatable in a laboratory. Small steps in the evolutionary process can be tested in artificial conditions using the scientific method. But the overall process cannot be tested using the scientific method. For this reason, evolutionists often resort to depending on consensus of scientific opinion. However, that is not the same as scientific method.

When climate scientists and evolutionary biologists speak of the weight of scientific evidence, they are playing the same game as economists. Judging by the reliability of economic models this is not a very effective method for arriving at the truth.

Continuity and Discontinuity

Scientists claim that they have proved that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that all life evolved over millions of years. Their conclusion is based on two critical assumptions.

1. Materialism
   This is the assumption that the physical world is all that there is. It follows that all explanations of reality must be based on material things, what can be observed.
   
   
2. Uniformity
   This does not mean that thing have always been the same. They have not. It assumes that the physical world operated in the same way as it always has. Things change now in the same way as they always have. If you look at things today, and see how they change, you can work out how they were yesterday. This uniformity assumption allows scientists to roll history back to measure how the earth has changed and discover how life has evolved. (The 4.5 billion years is derived by measuring change that would take that long, if change was occurring throughout that time at the same rate as it changes now).

Both assumptions are inconsistent with the Christian faith.

1. Spiritual Continuity
   A spiritual world operates in continuity with the physical/natural world that scientists observe. We live in a multi-dimensional universe in which the spiritual dimensions exist in parallel to the three-dimensional physical world. Angels and evil spirits can move between the spiritual and physical dimensions, but humans only see the physical side of existence. Events in the physical world are shaped by activities in the spiritual realm. If we just look at the physical world in isolation, we miss much of what has happened.
   
   
2. Physical Discontinuity
   The uniformity assumption is broken by the huge discontinuity that occurred at the fall, following a massive intervention from the spiritual realm. Even Christians have underestimated the extent of this discontinuity.
   
   When Adam and Eve sinned, they put themselves and the earth that God had entrusted to them under a curse. The curse removed God’s spiritual protection from the earth. The millions of angels, who had rebelled against God, probably before the fall, were given a free hand to work their mischief and evil on earth. They were more united than they have been since, because they were still loyal to their leader called Lucifer. The ones who would be shut up following the flood were still free (1 Peter 3:19; 2 Pet 2:4-5). The spiritual forces of evil were at the height of their powers and there were not many people, so they were able to concentrate their attack on animals, plants, and the physical world.
   
   It did not happen instantaneously, but the spiritual forces wrought terrible change on earth.
   
   • The earth, which was created good, began to groan under stress (Rom 8:22).
   • A benign safe world was turned into a dangerous place.
   • Plants were modified to become harmful to humans
   • Vegetarian animals became carnivorous (Is 65:25).
   • New bad species may have been formed.
   • The food chain changed dramatically.
   • Weather patterns changed, so that storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes became frequent.
   • The earth was changed so that earthquakes and volcanoes became normal.
   The last two were partly the result of the flood, which was caused by the collapse of the firmament and the breaking up of the springs of the earth (Gen 7:11). (The flood was also a discontinuity, but not on the scale of the fall).
   
   The curse on the earth following the fall allowed the spiritual forces of darkness to work massive evil and disruption on earth. The world was totally changed and everything that was previously good was messed up. This is why the cross is much more than personal salvation. The cross dealt with the cosmic effects of sin, and the earth is waiting and groaning for the children of the cross to understand its fullness.

The huge discontinuity of the fall destroys the uniformity assumption. It means that scientists cannot look back from what exists now to what happened before the discontinuity. Looking at what exists now will give a distorted and confusing view of what existed before the fall. The intervention of the spiritual into the physical world following the fall means that scientists cannot discover the origins of the earth by looking at what exists now.