Transcript Science Communication 4

Science Communication
LOLO.00.037
www.ut.ee/BG/scom
Section 4
What is not science - Pseudoscience
Nature of Science
Science is about looking for evidence to
substantiate theories, ideas, or facts.
Predictions are related to Observations
which lead to Inferences (all of which
may incorporate some form of bias).
What is Pseudoscience?
• Pseudoscience is any body of alleged
knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that
claims to be scientific, but does not fit with the
actual nature of science (whatever this is ?). The
word "pseudo" means fake.
• The surest way to spot a fake is to know as
much as possible about the real thing—in this
case, about science itself. Knowing science
does not mean simply knowing scientific facts it means understanding the nature of science.
Eleven comments about
pseudoscience
1. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably
sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect
hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and
pore over ancient religious or mythological
works. They rarely or never make an
independent investigation to check their
sources.
2. Pseudoscience begins with a
hypothesis (prediction) - usually
emotionally appealing, and
implausible - and then looks only for
items which appear to support it.
Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally
speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to
rationalise ‘strongly held beliefs’, rather
than to investigate, or to test alternative
possibilities.
3. Pseudoscience is indifferent to the
establishment of criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled,
repeatable scientific experiments, but on
unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and
tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious
anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is
either ignored or misinterpreted.
4. Pseudoscience relies heavily on
subjective validation.
Joe Blogs puts jello on his head and his
headache goes away.
To pseudoscience, this means jello cures
headaches.
To science this means nothing, since no
experiment was done.
5. Pseudoscience always avoids putting
its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudo-scientists never carry out careful,
methodical experiments themselves and they generally ignore results of those
carried out by scientists also.
Pseudo-scientists also never follow up.
6. Pseudoscience deliberately creates
mystery where none exists, by omitting
crucial information and important details.
Anything can be made "mysterious" by
omitting what is known about it or presenting
completely imaginary details.
The "Bermuda Triangle" books are classic
examples of this tactic.
7. Pseudoscience argues from
ignorance; an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on
incompleteness of information about nature,
rather than on what is known at present.
But no claim can possibly be supported by lack
of information. The fact that people don't
recognise what they see in the sky means only
that they don't recognise what they saw.
This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are
from outer space.
8. Pseudoscience argues from alleged errors,
anomalies, strange events, and suspect
claims—rather than from well-established
regularities of nature.
The experience of scientists over the past 400
years is that claims and reports that describe
well-understood objects, behaving in strange
and incomprehensible ways, tend to reduce
upon investigation to eliminate frauds, honest
mistakes, blunders, misinterpretations, or
outright fabrications.
Pseudo-scientists always take such reports as
literally true, without independent verification.
9. Pseudoscience makes extraordinary
claims and advances fantastic theories
that contradict what is known about
nature.
They not only provide no evidence that their
claims are true.
They also ignore all findings that contradict
their conclusions. ("Flying saucers have to
come from somewhere - so the Earth is
hollow, and they come from inside.")
10. Pseudoscientists invent their own
vocabulary
Listeners are often forced to interpret the
statements according to their own
preconceptions.
What, for example, is "bio-cosmic energy?"
Or a "psychotronic amplification system?"
Pseudo-scientists often attempt to imitate the
jargon of scientific by spouting gibberish that
sounds scientific.
11. Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend
to be by scenario.
That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have
no description of any possible physical process.
For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979)
claimed that another planet passing near the earth
caused the Earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This
is all he said.
He gave no mechanisms. But the mechanism is allimportant, because the laws of physics rule out the
process as impossible.
That is, the approach of another planet cannot cause a
planet's spin axis to flip.
What about Emerging Science ?
• This refers to developing fields or protoscience.
• Protoscience is a term used to describe a
hypothesis that has not yet been adequately
tested by scientific methods, but which is
otherwise consistent with existing science, or
which, where inconsistent, offers a reasonable
account of the inconsistency.
• For these to be scientific, they must relate to the
principles of the Nature of Science. This may
take time and hence their status is unsure, but
may be expected to be a future new scientific
area.
Contrasting Pseudoscience with Protoscience
The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience,
and "real" science are often unclear to non-specialist
observers.
– If the claims of a given field can be experimentally
tested and methodological standards are upheld, it is
real scientific work, however odd, astonishing, or
counter-intuitive.
– If claims made are inconsistent with existing
experimental results or established theory, but the
methodology is sound, caution should be used; much
of science consists of testing hypotheses that turn out
to be false.
ASTROLOGY – Is this science,
pseudoscience, or protoscience ?
• The most popular form of traditional Western astrology
is Sun sign astrology, the kind found in the horoscopes
of many daily newspapers. A horoscope is an
astrological forecast.
• “Do personality traits really correspond reliably with
birthdates?”
• According to a 2005 Gallup poll in the UK, 25%
persons believe in astrology; a statistic that has
remained steady for the past 15 years.
AN INVESTIGATION
PROCEDURE: search the following list of traits and
interests until you find the particular combination of
traits and interests which come closest to how you see
yourself.
Then, on a piece of paper, write
1. the NUMBER of that combination (1-12), and your
birthday (e.g. “July 25”).
2. YES or NO. If you think astrology can give accurate
predictions write (YES) or if not, write (NO).
Idea taken from
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hor.pdf.html
#
1
Key Positive Traits
Main Interests
loyal, possessive, determined,
possessions, comfort, beauty, arts,
practical, enduring
family
2
gentle, compassionate, sensitive, hospitals, pets, thinking, peace,
generous, dreamy, imaginative
helping, arts
3
honest, hopeful, intuitive, friendly, freedom, travel, philosophy,
idealist, easy-going
religion, books
4
neat, ambitious, organized,
hard work, business, being in
conservative, frugal, practical
charge, caution
5
competitive, action, initiative,
self challenges, leading
enthusiasm, leader
starting
6
popular, intelligent, versatile,
variety, travel, talking,
witty, curious
reading
7 helpful, independent, broadminded, helping others, friends, politics,
tireless, generous
being leader
8 cooperative, harmony, fair,
companionship, social life, justice
romantic, gracious, work hard
beauty/arts
9 generous, power, authority,
sports, being in charge, teaching,
romantic, idealistic, self-confident protective
10 methodical, service, high standards routine, details, perfection, travel,
practical, neat, reliable
work alone
11 protective, tenacious, domestic
security, home, family, country
sensitive, emotional, shy, neat
solitude
12 emotional, resourceful, secretive
sex, solving mysteries, working
forceful, loyal, determined
hard, success
Possible Negative Traits
stubborn, jealous, slow, lazy,
greedy
easily influenced, not ambitious,
no self-confidence
not particular, blunt (tactless),
argue
worry, slave-driver, stubborn,
social climber
starting arrogant, quarrelsome,
easily bored, selfish, stubborn
superficial, fickle, impatient,
break rules
dogmatic, rebel, impersonal,
stubborn, blunt, argue
indecisive, extravagant, fickle
egotistical, domineering, blunt,
temperamental
fault-finding, worry, hurtful
combative, moody, vain
vengeful, cynical, argue, jealous,
sarcastic
KEY TO SUN-SIGN DATES
#
DATES
1
Apr 20 - May 20
2
Feb 19 - Mar 20
3
Nov 22 - Dec 21
4
Dec 22 - Jan 19
5
Mar 21 - Apr 19
6
May 21 - Jun 21
7
Jan 19 - Feb 18
8
Sep 23 - Oct 22
9
Jul 23 - Aug 22
10
Aug 23 - Sep 22
11
Jun 22 - Jul 22
12
Oct 23 - Nov 21
SUN SIGN
Taurus
Pisces
Sagittarius
Capricorn
Aries
Gemini
Aquarius
Libra
Leo
Virgo
Cancer
Scorpio
The Earth is Flat Real or Pseudo- science ?
•http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fescidi.htm
Is the following claim byby the
Flat Earth Society scientific?
The Earth is Flat !!
This is a challenge for you to provide evidence for a
spherical earth.
• Against this, evidence (experiences) can be
presented for a flat earth.
• The role of science in exposing illusions in nature is
an extension which we now examine..
AN EDUCATION ACT IS TO BE ENACTED AND
TO BE ENTITLED
“The Balanced Treatment for Flat-Earth Science
and Spherical-Earth Science Act”
YOUR TASK – to support or to refute
Section 4 of this act gives definitions
(as used in this Act) for:
• Flat-earth science (Zetetic Astronomy)
• Spherical earth science
Flat-earth science includes scientific evidence and
related inferences that indicate:
(1) The Earth is an outstretched plane;
(2) The known, inhabited Earth is approximately circular, with the
north pole at the centre and a 50 metre wall of ice at the
southern limit (outer edge);
(3) The Earth floats on the waters of the Great Deep, and there
is fire below those waters (sometimes called Hell);
(4) The Earth is covered by a dome which also rests on the
waters of the Great Deep;
(5) The Sun and Moon are 32 miles (about 50 km) in diameter
and circle the region of the equator at an altitude of about
1500 miles (2400 km);
(6) Eclipses of the moon are caused by an unseen dark body
passing in front of it;
(7) The Earth and universe were created about 4004 BC.
Another illustration of the Flat Earth
Additional Evidence for the Flat Earth concept
1. Many passages in the Bible are consistent with
a flat earth.
2. The land looks flat, even when viewed from
high up or when measured by surveyors'
instruments.
3. The surface of every body of water is flat.
4. In nature there is an "up" and a "down." If the
earth were round, people in Australia would
hang by their heels.
5. There is no gravitation.
More evidence for a Flat Earth
6. The circumference of the earth at 45° south latitude
is double what it is at 45° north latitude, because in
the south the meridians of longitude spread out as
they approach the South Ice Wall.
7. The space program is a fraud. The space shuttle is
a joke. Thc Apollo moon project was a Hollywood
scenario written and directed by Arthur C. Clarke,
well-known science fiction writer.
8. In certain eclipses of the moon, both the moon and
the sun are seen above the horizon. Thus the earth
cannot be a round body positioned between the
sun and the moon.
Evidence for a Spherical Earth includes scientific
evidences and related inferences that indicate:
(1) The Earth is a spinning ball;
(2) The Earth circles the Sun, which is 93 million miles
away;
(3) Eclipses of the Moon are caused by the Earth’s
shadow;
(4) Other planets are large bodies, some of them larger
than the Earth;
(5) The Earth itself is merely a minor planet of a minor
star in an undistinguished galaxy;
(6) The universe is billions of light years in extent;
(7) The Earth and universe are billions of years old.
More evidence for the Round Earth concept
1. Seeing the same stars
Bodies in the sky should be visible at the same time from all parts
of a flat Earth. This is not so. Stars around the Pole Star are never
visible at low latitudes in the southern hemisphere.
2. Angle of the Sun from different longitudinal points
If the sun is observed at noon from different points on the same
meridian of longitude, it is seen at different angles from the
different points. This would not be true on a flat earth.
3. Evidence for a South Pole
The South Pole has been located exactly by explorers on
Antarctic expeditions. On a given day at this point, the sun is
lower in the sky than anywhere else on earth, because the South
Pole is the southernmost point. No insurmountable ice wall has
been found in Antarctica.
Spherical Earth
4. Differing times of sunrise, sunset, etc
The times at which sunrise, sunset, the rising and setting of
stars, and eclipses are seen differ at different longitudes. This
would be true on a round earth, but not on a flat earth.
5. Eclipse of the Moon
In a total eclipse of the moon the sun is always below the
horizon. The eclipse is caused by the shadow of the round
Earth completely covering the Moon. In a partial eclipse the
Sun may be partially visible. In this event the earth's shadow on
the Moon is seen to have a curved edge.
6. As a ship moves away from an observer, it disappears below
the horizon hull first, not mast or funnel first.
Evolution – real or pseudoscience?
Background Information
• The theories of evolution and creationism have been clashing in
courtrooms for over 70 years. The debate over teaching
creationism or evolution as scientific theory dates back to the
1925 trial of John T. Scopes, who was convicted of teaching
evolution in a Dayton, Tennessee, USA high school.
• Scopes was held in violation of the 1925 Butler Act, which
made it unlawful to "teach any theory that denies the story of
the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible."
• The Tennessee supreme court dismissed his conviction on
appeal, and the law was repealed in 1967.
•
Additional Information
9-12-99. The Kansas Board of Education voted six to four to
eliminate references to evolution as a central principle of biology
from the state school syllabus. The new Kansas curriculum cannot
prevent science teachers from referring to evolution, but highschool students will no longer be expected to know or understand
Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published in 1849, and
evolutionary concepts such as natural selection.
Under a 1987 Supreme Court ruling, public schools can neither
teach
creation science nor ban the teaching of evolution. But by
.
simply taking the subject off standardized tests, the board’s
majority of conservatives have given teachers a reason not to
bother and left lawyers with little meat to get their teeth into. The
final decision about what’s taught is still in the hands of local
school boards.
Theory of Evolution
• The theory of evolution holds that self replicating,
single-celled organisms developed from complex
organic molecules in our planet's nutrient-rich seas
about 3.5 billion years ago.
• Over time, genetic mutations produced increasingly
varied and complex organisms which were better
adapted to an ever-changing environment.
• Scientists say evidence supporting the theory of
evolution includes fossil records, the existence of
similar structures in different animals, and the fact that
all living things share similar biochemistry.
• They say the theory of evolution is not only
scientifically valid, it is the unifying theory of biology.
Against Evolution
Mankind evolved from apelike creatures much less a one-celled
organism remains impossible for some people to believe.
National polls consistently show that nearly 50 percent of
Americans still don’t accept Darwinism," says TIME science
reporter Andrea Dorfman. "They believe that humans were
created in their present form as according to Genesis -- just
10,000 years ago."
Creationists argue that evolution is an unproven theory based on
faulty science. "It's deception," Tom Willis, director of the
Creation Science Association for Mid-America, said. "You can't
go into the laboratory or the field and make the first fish. When
you tell students science has determined evolution to be true,
you're deceiving them."
Limitations of the scientific
endeavour
• In science, explanations are limited to
those based on observations and
experiments that can be substantiated by
other scientists.
• Explanations that cannot be based on
empirical evidence are not a part of
science.
Arguments relating to the
definition and limits of science
• Philosophers of science have used the term
methodological naturalism to refer to the long
standing convention in science of scientific method.
• The methodological assumption is that observable
events in nature are explained only by natural
causes, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, and therefore
supernatural explanations for such events are
outside the realm of science.
Other comments
• Creationists claim that supernatural explanations
should not be excluded and that scientific work is
paradigmatically close-minded.
• Because modern science tries to rely on the
minimization of assumptions, error, and
subjectivity, it remains neutral on subjective
subjects such as religion or morality.
• Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of
conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.
Evolution is a theory and fact
• Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a
hierarchy of increasing certainty.
• Facts are the world's data.
• Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret
facts.
• Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories
to explain them.
• Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but
apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the
outcome.
• And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they
did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism, or by some other
yet to be discovered.
Theory vs. fact
• Evolution as theory or fact
• The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often
been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution.
• The argument is related to a common misconception about
the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists.
• In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures,
hypotheses, and unproven assumptions.
• However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or
scientifically acceptable general principle or body of
principles offered to explain phenomena."
Falsifiability
• Philosopher of science Karl Popper set out the
concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish
science from pseudoscience:
• Testable theories are scientific, but those that
are ‘untestable’ are not.
• However, in Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable
scientific theory, but a metaphysical research
programme, a possible framework for testable scientific
theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".
Counter claims
• Opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's
definition to claim evolution was not a science, and
claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical
research.
• Popper responded to news that his conclusions were
being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming
that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life
on Earth were scientific, because "their hypotheses
can in many cases be tested.“
More on falsifiability
• Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on
the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.
• However, simple falsifiability tests have been put forward:
• For instance, biologists have pointed out that if fossils of rabbits
were found in the PRECAMBRIAN ERA (a time before most
similarly complex life forms had evolved) "that would completely
refute evolution as an acceptable theory.
• Falsifiability has also caused problems for creationists: In a
court decision in the US an American judge used falsifiability as
one basis for his ruling against the teaching of creation science
in the public schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not
science."
Politics and Pseudoscience
• An example of politics trying to control what is science is the
support for the work of T.D. Lysenko, an almost illiterate
agronomist, who gained almost absolute control of Soviet
biology and agriculture from 1937 to 1964.
• He claimed that modern genetics was nonsense. He could
produce greatly increased crop yields using techniques
unaccepted by orthodox scientists.
• When Stalin backed him at a major conference in 1948, politics
decide what was to be considered acceptable science.
• While the rest of the world was using new research to improve
their crops, the Soviets were accusing geneticists and
supporters of genetics of sabotage, espionage and terrorism.
• Lysenko ultimately set Soviet genetics and plant physiology
back by 30 years.
What is Intelligent Design
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the
universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
cause (not an undirected process such as natural selection).
Research to determine whether various natural structures are the
product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some
combination thereof. is conducted by observing the types of
information produced when intelligent agents act. Then objects
are found which have those same types of informational
properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.
Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect
design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex
and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining
physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid
origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the
Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Intelligent design v. creationism?
• The theory of intelligent design to empirically detect whether the
"apparent design" in nature, acknowledged by virtually all
biologists, is genuine design.
• Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see
how the findings of science can be reconciled to it.
• Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature
and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that
evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent
design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether
the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
• Some Darwinists try to conflate intelligent design with
creationism This is because they think such claims are "the
easiest way to discredit intelligent design."
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
• Yes if you accept that the scientific method is a four-step
process observations/hypothesis/experiments/conclusion.
• Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent
agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
• Design theorists hypothesise that if a natural object was
designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
• Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects
to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
• One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which
can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering
biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to
function.
• When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they
conclude that such structures were designed.
Countering the scientific claim
• Intelligent Design has been called an "argument from
ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its
conclusion:
• Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent
cause.
• Most scientists would reply that unexplained is not
unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more
appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of
science.
Scientific Method (Process !!)
• As in any scientific investigation, we must emphasise our
commitment to the scientific process and agree to accept
whatever the conclusion of that process may be.
• If that conclusion is evidence for supernatural intelligent
design, then so be it.
• But if we cannot find such evidence, then we should not feel
compelled to soothe the sensitivities of believers by leaving
unchallenged the assertion that their sectarian prejudices
have scientific merit.
• We must speak out forcefully whenever anyone claims
scientific authority for beliefs that fail the objective tests of
scientific method.
• ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS?
Who’s got the theory?
• A "theory“ - evaluation activity.
• A set of 5 scenarios (which offer proposed
explanations for how diverse life on Earth
came into existence)
• Each theory needs to be discussed based
on its merits.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/
lessons/theory.html
• Human values and personal viewpoints can
deeply influence science in determining the
questions asked and the criteria used for
choosing among different ideas.
• Science only deals with natural explanations.
Guidelines for Evaluating the Theories
1. Try to identify the problem/question which the theories
are attempting to explain.
2. Give the major strengths and weaknesses of each
theory, as discussed by the team.
3. Are there elements in the theories that are
untestable? In other words, are there elements for
which you cannot think of a way to design an
experiment that would produce data to support or
refute the element in question?
4. Are there any elements in the theories that seem to be
in disagreement with currently accepted “facts”?
5. Which theory could be correct? Give the major
reasons for your answer.
THEORY A
• Life has always existed.
• The life forms presently on the planet are the ones that have
always existed.
• There is an immutability to life (life does not change).
• All biological types remain the same through time.
• Man is at the apex of this static ladder of nature.
• There is a fixed hierarchical order to life.
• There is a “Great Chain of Being” that extends unchanged
and unbroken from the beginning of time to now.
• Some lower life forms may spontaneously arise, if proper
conditions exist.
• No life forms have ever become extinct.
• Fossils are merely chance aberrations in rocks.
• Nature is simply the monotonous and eternal recurrence of
the same things.
THEORY B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Life originated as an act of divine intervention.
Life forms continue to arise by spontaneous generation.
There is a “Vital Force” that drives the formation of life.
Within each living group, there is an inherent perfecting power.
In the animal group, this perfecting power slowly and
continuously directs the evolution of the group towards the
human type.
Man evolved from an orangutan-like hominoid somewhere in
the vastness of Asia.
Species are not fixed, but are changeable.
Species change in slow, gradual steps, never in sudden leaps.
There are two basic laws which govern these changes:
1. In every animal which has not passed the limit of its
development, a more frequent and continuous use of any
organ gradually strengthens, develops, and enlarges that
organ, and gives it a power proportional to the time it has
been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ
imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively
diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.
2. All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on
individuals, through the influence of the environment in which
their race has long been placed, and hence through the
influence of the predominant use or the permanent disuse or
any organ, all these are preserved by reproduction to the new
individuals which arise, provided that the acquired
modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the
individuals which produce young.
• Evolution, therefore, is the gradual change of species as a
result of accumulated acquired modifications.
THEORY C
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water is the basic stuff of the cosmos.
Life first appeared in water.
A primordial slime formed in the waters of the Earth.
The primitive oceans of the Earth were filled with preformed,
free-floating organs.
These organs came together haphazardly, by chance, to form
organisms.
Most of the resulting organisms were monstrosities and
perished in the struggle for existence.
Some of the organisms were successful in survival and
reproduction, giving rise to the organisms presently here.
Fossils are proof of the monstrosities which failed to survive.
Life forms first developed in water and then moved onto the
land.
Plants formed first, then animals.
The line leading to man moved through a fish-like stage.
THEORY D
• The origin of life is unknown, but life is certainly very old.
• At its core, there is a basic sameness to all life.
• All organisms tend to increase their population numbers at a
geometric rate. Over many generations, however, the number
of individuals in a species tends to remain constant.
• There must, therefore, be a struggle for survival in which some
individuals die or in other ways are prevented from reaching
their full reproductive potential.
• Variations (some of which may be inherited) are found among
the individuals in each species.
• Some variations are favorable to an organism and help it to
survive and reproduce abundantly.
• Surviving organisms pass their hereditary variations to their
offspring.
• In time, great differences arise, until a new species evolves
from an old species.
• Evolution is, therefore, the change of species as a result of the
natural selection of favorable variations in inherited
characteristics.
THEORY E
• Physical events can have non-physical causes.
• Life resulted from a single act of creation by a divine being.
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created
functionally complete from the beginning, and did not evolve
from some other kind of organism.
• Changes in basic kinds since their creation are limited to
“horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or
“downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinction).
• The processes used by the Creator are no longer operating
anywhere in the universe.
• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws;
however, there is always the possibility of miraculous
intervention in these processes by their Creator.
• There is strong scientific evidence to indicate that most of the
earth’s fossil-bearing sediments were formed in a recent global
hydraulic cataclysm.
• The Bible is infallible and completely authoritative on all matters
with which it deals; it is free from error of any sort, scientific and
historical as well as moral and theological.