The Death of Reason: The Result of My Letter & Conversation with the University

Hi all,

This is a retrospective post made in reference to the latest writing of mine: "My Letter to the University regarding teachings on Evolutionary Science." 

(Found here: https://amusingfollower.blogspot.sg/2017/09/my-letter-to-university-regarding.html)

I'm sure there are some who are interested to hear about the discourse that followed my email to the GEQ department, but first, here is some much-needed context regarding said letter:

1. Contrary to its appearance, the letter was not a writing to defend 'creation science' or 'intelligent design' but rather an appeal to consistency of reasoning. Simply put, I'm calling for fair analysis on both ends and in that endeavor, it was necessary for me to crack down on the seemingly iron-clad authority that evolution clings on to so tightly.

2. The module was one on questioning, or rather, asking questions. Considering that the segment I have referenced to was one on science, more specifically, physics, it was necessary for me to highlight that the portions on worldviews and faith (singling out one at that) was something uncalled for in such a curriculum. 

3. There are more unseen things at stake - the compulsory nature of the module as well as the tendency for students (not all but numbers substantial enough) to take information wholesale. It was worrying to note that information represented in the curriculum readings were not only clumsily cobbled but were also inadequately critiqued, curated, and lacking in disclaimers.

4. Independent of the points above, I will have to acknowledge, in retrospect, that the letter I had written, though well-intended, lacked poise and tastefulness. There wasn't much room for anyone reading it (and probably its intended audience) to disagree or adopt alternative points of view. I should clarify that it was a mistake on my part and anyone who had read that should also be wary not to take what I'd written as absolute either. Again, back to point (1), this was not a letter of defense or attack but rather a letter of concerns in academic rigor. 

Now that that's clear, I'll spend some time sharing the gist of the discourse that transpired (strictly discourse, no thoughts), and then the thoughts, momentary and reflective, that followed.

So what happened?

Well, I received a prompt response from the Physics segment coordinator (Let's call him C) inviting me to his office for a dialogue. 

I looked for him at his office in the Department of Physics, armed with 2 cans of coffee and a readiness for a level-headed discussion. C was a soft spoken man who looked like he was in his late 50's. We had a good discussion. In fact, it was a light-hearted one, with moments of laughter and commiserating with one another, and we had good space to politely share each of our sides of the argument or concerns. Overall, a peaceful and civilized dialogue in my opinion.

Some context needs to be established before I go into anymore details:

1. For the bulk of the conversation, I felt that he had the impression that I was "another student whose faith had been rattled by the curriculum (common for students in sciences) and had come to fervently defend it, or argue for creationism." For me, this seemed to be the greatest factor for the direction of our discussion, and though I had made attempts to correct that on several instances, it remained a barrier in the discussion. 

2. To be transparent, the discussion often weaved in and out of science, and between worldviews and faith as well. Yes, apparently, C and I shared the same faith (though not determining of the content of this discourse but certainly helpful in establishing common ground and experiential relevance).

What was the outcome of the discussion?

We had both established common grounds in the following areas:

1. Science does not prescribe truth, nor is it capable of making truth claims.

2. Scientific theories in particular don't tell us anything about the truth of the world - they are paradigms: possible ways of thinking in a given setting and point in time, and are subjected to changes as we develop and learn more.

3. Science and faith are not diametrically opposed. They can be aligned fittingly. (As to exactly how this is true is where we would differ.)

However, we disagreed on the following areas:

1. The necessity to point out the faulty reasoning that evolution science (i.e. evolutionary biology and cosmology) is scientific on the premise that it is "deeply interwoven in the fabric of science", a premise that can be easily dis-confirmed.

C's justification was that most of the information presented on his set of slides were taken from the AAPT statements directly (which was the reference that his team somehow decided to use solely). His point of view was that there was no need to take an issue with this on the grounds that at the end of the day, scientific theories are only just theories and that paradigms may change over time.

I, however, wasn't quite convinced of this and I felt that there was still a need to, at the very least, scrutinise such statements rigorously and call out faulty reasoning if observed. My suggestion on a disclaimer was briefly mentioned, though not thoroughly emphasised and was therefore, unintentionally dismissed by C.

2. The personal acceptance of a practitioner of pseudoscience despite its implications.

C affirmed that while creation science may be deemed as pseudoscience, he also affirmed that he was a proud practitioner of pseudoscience, and that it was something that people of faith are encouraged to do as well. This was the fundamental factor that I felt was the irreconcilable piece of our discussion. When asked (by me) how he would feel if he was deemed as 'unscientific' by the scientific community for his beliefs in pseudoscience, his response was a cheerful "it's alright."

Although I can't say that I agree fully with that line of thought, it gave me a huge deal of respect for the guy. As a professor, he was willing to be (unfairly) persecuted for his faith in the realm of academia and there really wasn't anything that could compel him otherwise.

However, I maintained the view that while that is something C may personally be able to accept without qualms, it could be disastrous in other circumstances. For instance, in some parts of the U.S., it is entirely possible to have your certification of Masters of Ph.D denied for simply having a creationist worldview. This stems from the heinous, underlying thought that evolution (as a worldview) is the only scientific worldview that is congruent with the scientific data and thus anyone who denies it as a worldview cannot be considered a scientist. I find this to be a travesty and an atrocity to the integrity of science.

My view is this: while by definition 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' are considered as pseudosciences, simply taking the lower rational ground and taking the persecution, though noble, is not a fair evaluation of pseudosciences where worldviews are concerned. This really goes back to point (1) where a rigorous analysis of evolution as a science will reveal quickly how much of a pseudoscience it really is. For the layman who subscribes to creationism (regardless of specific faith), it can be disconcerting to be told that his view is blind in comparison to the evolutionary line of thought when in fact this is not actually true.

However, this 'meekness' of C, as a scientific authority, was one to be desired (which I will speak of more in my thought segment)

3. The possibility of finding out, or coming near, to the truth about the universe. 

When posed the question on whether it was possible to reach a likely answer for the truth of the universe (regardless of field or discipline), C was quick to declare very rightly that scientific theories will never proclaim an absolute truth. However, he made a mention that with the advent of quantum and its implications on complexity of observation and scientific methodology, it was not possible to grasp the concept of truth, or reality for that matter. In this, he cited another scientist (I could not remember the name mentioned) that the truth is "too immense" for us to grasp.

To him, truth would then be virtues such as love, something that I agree with profoundly as well by the end of the session (which I will also elaborate more in a moment). 

At this juncture, what made me a little concerned about his ingenuousness in addressing this point was that at another instance, he commented on empirical data being the truth: In a comparison between theory and data, with data being truth since it is not something that can be changed; however, theories can change over time. Following this, he alluded to the evolutionary theory being a plausible truth with claims that apologetic giants such as C.S Lewis and Ravi Zacharias had some line of evolutionary thought (this could not be dis-confirmed by me at the time due to my lack of knowledge on this issue, but having some background information now, I might opine that C's interpretation on the stances of these men might have been inaccurate, or at the very least, his understanding differs from what these men have implied.)

Since he was familiar with Ravi Zacharias, I used a framework frequently used by the RZIM to convey my perspective: Truth, by definition is exclusive, and there can be only one truth. While you can have various perspectives of the truth, fact remains that you can have only one truth. So any worldview that engages with the truth will have to be subjected to two broad categories of evaluation, namely correspondence (whether the view is in agreement with reality) and coherence (whether the view as a whole makes sense and is not contradictory). These can be verified by three tests: logical consistency, empirical adequacy (which may be where science potentially comes in as well), and experiential relevance. And doing so will answer four key questions that ought to be addressed by any worldview: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. With that, we employ five disciplines to aid us: God, Knowledge, Reality, Morality, Man. Theology deals with God, epistemology deals with knowledge, metaphysics deals with reality, ethics deals with morality, and anthropology deals with man. This framework (which obviously is not exclusive to the realm of science) provides a reasonable guide for how one might works towards the truth.

I don't disagree that the truth is too immense for us, as C mentioned. However, I believe that it is our responsibility to grasp the truth to the best measure of our capabilities (as infallible human beings). It's the same as the concept of pure goodness. The knowledge that one can never be purely good should not undermine the attempts to pursue that goodness. Likewise, even though we know logically that we can never fully know the truth (otherwise, we'd be God himself), this should not by any means deter us from that pursuit. 

C had also hinted at the evolutionary line of thought when he mentioned that some scientists well-versed in the field (no names were mentioned) had certain 'revealing discoveries' on this debacle regarding creation and evolution. According to C, when he asked these scientists for why they weren't informing the churches on their findings, he was given the answer that "the churches aren't ready for it." 

I didn't quite buy this point, however. I think its fair to doubt the authenticity of said findings when the intentions aren't explicitly clear - to withhold crucial information on matters that may deal with the truth on the pretext that "the churches aren't ready for it" may be fairly treated as dubious or even malicious. I don't know that for a fact, but judging from the way it is conveyed and what was severely lacking in its substantiation, I'm not convinced of that at the current juncture. 

I would also like to highlight that evolution, defined by the evolutionist, is a materialistic worldview that is completely natural (i.e. no God, no superior being). So if I'm being told that Christian apologists and scientists have this line of thinking, then either they are lying about their worldview or the one who tells me the above is lying to me. That's all I have to comment in this portion.

Reflective Afterthoughts

It's been a long post so far, and I doubt you'd be interested to read this portion since you already know the conclusions of the discussion. However, I'd like to stress that this next part is probably the most important part (for me at least). This part of the discussion deals more with the faith aspect, different from the above discussion.

Meekness in adversity 

C made a lasting impression when I found that he was willing to be persecuted for his faith in the realm of academia, especially where science and touchy topics such as worldviews and truth are concerned. It was his faith that gave him such meekness. He professed that he was very much in touch with apologetics in his younger days but at this age, he found less of a need to have to speak out at every slighting comment on his faith. After all, he didn't need science to prove his faith, nor does God need defending from us humans. It was astonishing, the level of criticism he was willing to take (though I feel there's a time and place for a defense position to be made) and this was definitely a much needed learning point for me personally.

The undeniable, universal truth is love

A verse that was aptly quoted by C in our conversation:

"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." (1 Cor 13:8)

Conveying the truth, whether in our lives or in academic disciplines, is definitely important. However, it should never be a substitute for love, which is the ultimate truth. When all reason fails, only love will stand; only love will speak, and only love will prevail. This is the reason for the title of this piece, "The Death of Reason". Science, along with its theories and data, and Philosophy, and all other fields of study, can only get you so far; and yet they don't stand the test of time and universality. 

David Berlinski, an agnostic scientist, wrote in his book, "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions":

“No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. A man asking why his days are short and full of suffering is not disposed to turn to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer. The answers that prominent scientific figures have offered are remarkable in their shallowness.”

At the end of the day, science, as with all other knowledge, tells us very little about how to live life, how to love, how to conduct ourselves, how to care for one another, how to embrace our weaknesses, how to abandon the self and pride, etc. Love stands on its own, that's the power of love that we have been equipped with by the supreme one. Love is the ultimate argument against all entities.

I must say, in this regard, C's digression into the topic of love from science was a pivotal one. It has helped me understand this: The greatest argument (non-verbal) to a truly god-less world as scientific atheism or evolution purports is that, if its premises are true, then there is no moral imperative for human beings - no sense or place for any morality at all and that includes love. However, the existence of love is a powerful counter-argument for that conclusion and let anyone who delivers this argument do so in the essence of the argument itself - to love the one who disagrees, not to disparage his opponent's thinking but because it is in complete accordance with the will of the one so heavily touted in this worldview of a supreme, loving God.

Our role in defending our faith

Something I only realised towards the end of this episode is that the manner in which we defend our faith is just as crucial, if not more, than what we say to defend it. The above portion makes clear of this truth.

But I implore you, dear reader, not to make the fatal connection as well that love is not making a stand if it is at the risk of offending others. A.W. Tozer says: "I claim the holy right to disappoint men in order to avoid disappointing God." It is crucial for us to stand firm and profess what we believe in, and we need to recognize that there will be risks of offending others. This is where discernment comes in - we do so at the risk of offending, not with the intent of offending. It is something that you and I could both learn as we go, but we must take the decisive action first to stand firm for what we believe in. Someone else may disagree with your opinion but your positional integrity and levelheadedness, that is what will garner you their respect and even win them over.

Thank you for reading up to this point. It is my sincere hope that my experience have benefited you or spoken to you in a positive manner. Otherwise, you have my honest apologies.

God Bless,

Matt

My Letter to the University regarding teachings on Evolutionary Science

Unfiltered:

Hello sirs,

My name is Matthew and I am a Year 2 Industrial Design student who's currently taking the GEQ1000 module at the moment. 

Firstly, I'd like to thank you and your team for the work and effort that has gone into running a module that can be a challenging one to teach. I believe many of the students who go through this course will find themselves more thoroughly equipped with the skills of critical thinking, questioning and analysis.

My purpose of writing this email is to raise a concern regarding the recent physics readings. I am drawing reference in particular to phy-2-3: reverse questioning and pseudoscience. I apologize in advance for the length letter ahead, and also for my tone at times (which I am using to illustrate a point with fervor).

In pages 10 to 13, you have included the statement adopted by the AAPT, 2005 with no clarification provided. This statement purports that 'biological and cosmological evolution are theories strongly supported' and are therefore considered scientific whereas theories such as creation science and intelligent design are considered 'unscientific' or pseudoscience. It further pushes the boundaries by asserting that "teachings against evolution" cannot be endorsed, nor can the teaching of scientific creationism or intelligent design be endorsed.

It has to be called out that such a statement is a clear double standard and runs completely inconsistent with all the teachings in the initial documents of the physics segment (and philosophy, for that matter). Here is a compelling reasoning:

You have considered Creation Science (CS) and Intelligent Design (ID) as 'pseudoscience' on the premises of (1) the desired conclusion has been assumed , (2) it seeks evidence that supports the conclusion and ignores evidence and arguments to the contrary. Fair enough. However, do you not realize how Evolutionary Science (ES) crumbles to join the 'pseudoscience' gang as well when placed under the same scrutiny? 

Here's why:

(1) Evolution Science assumes the conclusion that all complex life develops from simple fragments or parts over the course of time and chance. It also assumes the conclusion that the origin of life can be explained atheistic-ally. 

Anyone with critical-thinking ability and access to information can quickly find out the roots of evolutionary science. "Evolutionary scientists" (at least that is what they call themselves) carry an agenda of explaining away the possibility of God/a supreme being, and thus utilized Darwin's postulates to their own advantage. Not only do they not have the decency to be transparent about their own biases and assumed conclusions, they pass of Darwin's observations on natural selection as sheer proof of evolution (even though this has been strongly debated to NOT be the case). However, because of these historical attempts of passing off ES as legitimate science, many have come to believe that ES holds true, even though the scientific community has NEVER ever reached a consensus of said theory.

(2) Evolution Science is guilty of seeking evidence to support its conclusions and ignoring the contrary.

There are many problems with ES, which have been unscrupulously shoved aside or explained unsatisfactorily. If this requires substantiation, I am happy to do so. ES has casually explained away:

A. Its contradiction to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (one of the best proven laws in physics)

B. The complete lack of redundancies of 'evolutionary parts' when observing the fossil record

C. The lack of a propagating mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection is an extremely weak argument for evolution, and interestingly, is a stronger support for CS)

D. The incredibly low likelihood of mutation as a mechanism for genetic variation (that is capable of bringing about sustainable evolution)

E. Problems with the geological timescale

F. The problem with the self-assembly of DNA and protein synthesis (Based on Miller's [failed] spark chamber experiment, the 'primordial soup' theory is more likely to bring about death than life)

G. A philosophical argument here: the existence of consciousness and rationalism (There are 2 necessary conditions for us to be capable of understanding the world around us empirically: The first being that the world is rational and logical, and the next being that our minds function rationally as well to comprehend this world. If we claim that this world and our minds have been developed through an irrational, unguided process, then how can we even dare to trust that the reasoning and logic from our minds is sound?)

H: A moral argument here: If ES is the dominant reality, then it would be acceptable (more than acceptable, it would be encouraged) that we eliminate people we perceive as threats to us and that we ought to go about copulating as much as we can for the survival of our genes. If anyone disagrees, then they have failed to keep a worldview consistent with the prevailing reality.

I: Discovered living tissue in dinosaur fossils

J: The problem with the Cambrian explosion

K: The problem with 'trilobite tracks'

L: The problem with a common ancestor: the study of homology strongly disagrees with ES

M: Here's a truly scientific one: The scientific method relies on observations and repeated testing. Newsflash: Evolution is NEITHER observable nor repeatable. 

You see my point, I could add in dozens more problems to this list that ES has ignored and cannot explain in a scientific manner. To assert that ES is 'scientific' and therefore should be taught, while CS and ID should not be taught, is a clear double standard - it is skewed reasoning and sheer hypocrisy. At best, Evolutionary Science is equally as 'scientific' or equally as 'unscientific' as CS or ID. There is no reasonable basis to put ES on a pedestal.

But I am not done. 

The slides claim (I quote) that "to deny children exposure to the evidence in support of biological and cosmological evolution is akin to allowing them to believe that atoms do not exist or that the Sun goes around the Earth." Of all places, the last place I'd expect to see a fallacy of such an order is in a class on questioning. How are the two parts of this equation the same? The former is a theory whereas the latter are facts. Granted, it may be a statement by the American Association of Physics Teachers, but should we not, as educators, carry the responsibility of pointing out faulty reasoning? A word of discretion is still better than stark silence.

And the statement continues on to express how they cannot condone the teaching of CS and ID as valid scientific theories. Considering that ES is equally as unscientific as these theories, should we not do ourselves a favour and teach them all? And let the young (and old) minds of our generation exercise their mental faculties and make their own judgments? Why is one taught over the other when both are equally unscientific? If CS and ID are so invalid as scientific theories as the institution paints them out to be, then what is the fear of teaching it? What are educators afraid of? If they are truly invalid, then the rigor of questioning will tear those theories down naturally. Yet, it seems that the institution (which may include NUS) seems to hold back on doing so, almost seemingly with a hidden agenda. To argue otherwise would lead to the conclusion that the university, then, is faulty in its reasoning as a whole. In the worst case scenario (that's not far from the reality), the education system, then, is a complete flop.

One more thing.

The slides say: "science has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God because it studies only natural processes, not supernatural processes." I can't stress how misguided this statement is - it shows a complete lack of understanding about the implications of the existence or nonexistence of God, or a supreme being for that matter.

Here's why: Suppose the premise that God exists is true. This will mean that all creation, including nature itself, is brought about by God. Will not the natural processes reveal the originator of the universe? If an artist creates a painting, will not the strokes, style, textures, inspiration, etc. reflect the identity of the true artist behind it? It is completely absurd to think that we can only be informed about God because He is supernatural by definition. By definition, He is the one who defines nature should He exist. The problem with the statement in the slides is that it creates a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural, without realizing that the immediate implication of the existence of God is that His authorship will also be imprinted in nature. 

If one would like to clarify the above statement to say that the term 'science' in this case refers to the scientific method, then one could also proceed to reason that the study of 'historical science' (a field of science that is more suited to study historical events , origins and things of the past) likewise deals with natural elements as well. It studies fossils, Homology, molecular biology, archaeology - all to do with natural processes! It is the scientific method (empiricism) that is the hindrance to the understanding of the possibility of God, not science itself!

For the record, the last few slides on "well-known scientists who also believe in God" are not any consolation and seems strategically placed there to avoid the dissent of students who may hold on firmly to faith and the belief in God. This worldview argues firmly for the existence of creation, not evolution. Yet, in all the slides, evolution science has been the only worldview to be implied as scientific. Therefore, what you are essentially saying (though not explicitly) is that these scientists would have considered ES as scientific, and CS as unscientific, and that their scientific views actually oppose the fundamental worldview that they hold. That is a slap to the face of science, not an encouragement to students who believe in God (as may have hoped). 

I believe I have expressed sufficiently what I needed to. Again, I do apologize if any of the things mentioned undermines the Q team's efforts to bring about rigor in the questioning of our students' minds. However, I sincerely hope that there can be some sort of clarification or response as to why were these information presented in the way they were, and why was there a lack of discretion in doing so.

Once again, I thank you sirs and the Qteam for your tremendous efforts in this module. I am interested in hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely,

Matthew 

Year 2 Industrial Design