Lets Squash Some Bugs 3, The True Nature of Evidence

     In the debate between Mr. Butt and Mr. Scott, Mr. Scott continually asked for the evidence for the existence of God.  This was his primary reason for rejecting the evidence that was presented to him and the audience from Mr. Butt.  He asked repeatedly "Where's the evidence?".  I believe that Mr. Scott is unaware of the true nature of evidence.  It is not what many, including Mr. Scott seem to think.  The following is an article that I published a few years ago on Facebook.  It explains what the true nature of evidence is and what is really involved when anyone comes to that evidence.
     What is the place of scientific evidence in the origins debate?  Do things like DNA, fossils, rock layers, the age of the earth really show that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution has occurred, or do they support the creation account as described in Genesis.  Why is it that 2 PhD scientists can work side by side on the same piece of evidence and come up with 2 totally different explanations of the evidence?
     Many people like to think that an unbiased investigation of the evidence in the absolute standard by which the origins debate can be settled.  We often hear the evolutionist say "The evidence is conclusive, evolution is a fact".  If this were true then, would it not be the case that all would accept this fact?  Yet when we look at the vast gulf that exists within the two camps, it becomes obvious that something else is in play.
     Again, some people think that all that is needed is the evidence.  However, such a view does not stand up to careful scrutiny.  Others take the opposite approach.  They believe that scientific evidence is utterly irrelevant to the debate.  The issue being more a matter of faith than reason.  However, this is overly simplistic and, just as the opposite, will not stand up to careful scrutiny.
     Before we begin to address the issue at hand, I wish to include a couple of the most compelling scientific arguments for Biblical creation.  The first has to do with Information Science.  This is a relatively new field in science.  Yet it is one of the most compelling.  In this technological age, we are inundated with all sorts of information.  But few people stop to consider what information really is and where it comes from.  We can define information scientifically as a coded message containing an expected action and intent.  Under this definition, the words on the screen qualify as information.  That is to cay they are encoded, the words represent ideas.  The expected action is that you, the reader, will read and act upon the words.  The intended purpose is that you will become better in your understanding of the issue (that is, if I can explain it!).
     The DNA molecule is a long molecule found within living cells and resembles a twisted ladder.  The rungs of the ladder form a pattern of base pair triplets that represent amino acid sequences or the building blocks of protein.  DNA contains the instructions to build the organism.  So different organisms have different DNA patterns.  DNA qualifies under the definition of information.  1) It contains an encoded message, the base pair triplets that represent amino acids.  2) It has an expected action, the formation of proteins.  3) It has an intended purpose, life.  This being the case, DNA contains information.  Whenever we find any kind of information there are certain rules that apply, these are called theorems.  For our discussion we will look at two.  1) "There is no known law of nature, no known process and no know sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter", (Theorem #28 in DR. Werner Gitts book In the Beginning Was Information, Green Forest, AR:Master Books, 2006, p. 207).  2) "When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backwards, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender ( Theorem #15, Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, p. 107).  The first tells us that matter does not spontaneously generate information.  The second tells us that only a mental source can generate new information.  To underline this concept, consider the response given by Richard Dawkins when asked to give an example of new information being generated by chance.  His response was silence.
     In one sense, these theorems are hardly profound; we that for granted that when we read a book it has an author.  No one reading this would conclude that it was generated by a sequence of typos that gradually accumulated over time.  We take for granted that a mind (no matter how small) is ultimately responsible for the information that it contains.  The theorems of information science confirm this.
     With this new science, it would seem that the gradualist Darwinian scenario is crushed.  These theorems tell us that life cannot have come about as it is stated by the evolutionists.  The information in DNA cannot have come about by mutations and selection because the laws of information science tell us that all information comes from a mind.  This goes against the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of origins.  The laws of information science would seem to confirm the creation account as given in Genesis.
     Although the above example is a very good argument, it does not actually prove Biblical creation, nor does it utterly refute evolution.  The reason being is, when faced with this kind of evidence, those who do not accept the Biblical account of creation invoke (unknowingly) what is called a "rescuing device".  That is, they invent a story to explain away apparently contrary evidence.  A great example of this comets.
     Evolutionary astronomers believe that the solar system is billions of years old, yet they see comets within it.  They can see that comets disintegrate quite rapidly and based on this they compute that they can last only 100,000 years or so.  This would indicate the the universe is rather young.  How do the resolve this dilemma?  There must be a source that generates new comets to replace the old ones.  So they have proposed the Oort cloud (named after its inventor Jan Oort).  This cloud is an enormous hypothetical sphere of icy masses that surround our solar system.  It is supposedly far beyond the most distant planets, beyond the range of our most powerful telescopes.  They also suppose that on occasion, objects in the Oort cloud are dislodged from their distant orbit and thrown into the inner solar system to become brand new comets.  Since these new comets continually replace the old ones, the solar system could be billions of years old.  It is important to indicate here that no one has ever seen the Oort cloud.  It is supposedly much to far away to detect the small objects within it.  Currently there is no observational evidence of any kind for the cloud.  This is a rescuing device that "saves" the evolutionists view from evidence that would otherwise seem to refute it.  Is this acceptable?  Can "rescuing devices be used?
     The answer to the question might surprise you.  It is NO.  A rescuing device is not necessarily wrong.  In fact we all use these devices, even the Biblical creationist.  The distant starlight problem is a great example the the Biblical creationist also use these devices.  This argument states that the universe must be billions of years old since it takes light millions of years to reach the earth from distant galaxies.  This would seem to be irrefutable evidence that the universe is in fact billions of years old.  How does the Biblical creationist answer this contrary evidence.  A rescuing device.  There have been several models proposed to explain this problem, yet they have yet to be conclusive.  So in order to retain our position, we issue a rescuing device of our own.  We introduce the words of Scripture in order to save our belief.  Is this arbitrary?  Are we, just like the evolutionist being unreasonable?  The answer is no, both sides have a reason to believe what they believe.  It is called a world view.
     We all have a way of thinking about the world, this is commonly called a world view.  Our world view contains our most strongly held convictions about how the world works, how it came to be, the nature of reality, and nature of truth and how we should live.  Most people today have not given much thought to their own world view.  In fact many do not even realize that they have one.  Such people tend to think that all knowledge is acquired by an unbiased observation of the evidence.  This is called "Empiricism" and it is itself a world view.  We cannot help but to have some beliefs about how the world works, how we obtain knowledge and how we should live.  Even if we believe that we have no such beliefs, this is a belief itself.  There is no escaping it.  It is inevitable to have one.  The thing is a rational world view in not.
     A world view is like mental glasses.  It effects the way that we look at the world.  A person wearing red glasses sees everything as being red.  A person wearing evolution glasses sees evolution everywhere.  The world is not really re everywhere, but the glasses do effect our perception of the world and the conclusions that we draw.  The evolutionists sees the world differently then does the Biblical creationist.  We have the exact same facts, but what we make of those facts is colored by our world view.  Thus, we interpret the same evidence differently.  This is why the two PhD scientists can come to two totally different conclusion about the exact same evidence.  This point cannot be overstated.  Much of the frustration that exists in the evolution-creation debate is due to this fact.  The evolutionist and the creationist must interpret the same data differently due to their different world views.
     Many people do not want to accept the fact that all evidence must be interpreted in light of prior beliefs, a faith commitment of some kind.  Again, many have the assumption that evidence should be approached in a neutral and unbiased fashion.  That is without any previous beliefs.  This is impossible to do since this view is itself a belief and not based on any empirical evidence.  It is a belief about how we should look at the evidence.  In order for our observation of evidence to be meaningful, we first have to assume that our senses are reliable.  If our senses are not reliable then any observation is flawed and we cannot empirically test our senses because we have to use the very thing that we are testing.  Since this is the case it does us no good to observe the evidence if we did not believe that our observation were real and reliable.  We cannot avoid wearing mental glasses, having a world view.  The item of importance here is that we need to make sure that we have the correct glasses.  An incorrect pair will draw incorrect conclusions, a correct pair will prevent us from drawing the wrong conclusion and can improve our understanding about the universe.
     A magician saws a woman in half.  Your senses tell you that you saw this happen.  But the conclusion that you draw from it is not based on what you have seen.  You draw your conclusion that it is a trick because you world view prevents you from drawing the wrong conclusion, that the woman was actually cut in half.  Our world view restrains us and guides us in the interpretation of the evidence.  This is true in every aspect of life from origins to our view of the Bible.  Our world view tells us what to make of the evidence.  We all interpret the facts in light of our world view.  Any evidence that seems to challenge our world view can always be explained by invoking a "rescuing device".  Many of the debates and comments about origins (from both sides) are not effective because the opposing sided do not understand the nature of world views, evidence and rescuing devices.  This is the fundamental reason why the parties always leave the debate wondering what is wrong with the other side.  They call the Biblical creationist unreasonable even stupid, yet the same can be said about the Biblical creationist (which should never happen).
     Evidence by itself will never settle the debate, and being such it would appear that there is no rational resolution to the issue.  After all, no matter how compelling the evidence to either side may be,the opponent will always interpret that  evidence in light of their world view.  This being the case, is there any way to rationally resolve this issue?