Brian W.
Harrison is an Australian-born, Missouri-based Roman Catholic priest and
theologian, emeritus professor of theology at the Pontifical Catholic
University of Puerto Rico, and associate editor of Living Tradition, a
publication of the Roman Theological Forum hosted by the Oblates of Wisdom in
St Louis. Harrison is also, contrary to official Catholic doctrine, a young earth creationist and demonstrably scientifically
illiterate.
So,
according to Harrison, “[i]t is a core element of
science that any finding must be reproducible if it is to be valid. Someone
must be able to do the same experiment and get the same results. Well, since
evolutionary theory plainly lacks that core element, it is not science. The
supposed development of all different phyla (macroevolution) from a hypothetical original cell
cannot be observed, much less experimentally reproduced.” … which of course demonstrates a
misunderstanding of reproducibility and observability that would (hopefully)
ensure that Harrison would fail any legitimate high school science class. And
if anyone here is actually unsure but don’t dare to ask:
- Yes, science deals with
observations. But there is, of course, no requirement that the phenomena
described by a scientific hypothesis or theory should be observable – they
usually aren’t – but that the hypothesis yields observable predictions.
The theory of evolution does – including predictions e.g. on
what fossils one will find in various geological strata. Harrison is
illiterate.
- Yes, scientific results should be
replicable. But that means that scientists checking your data or scientists
using different methods to gather data should arrive at the same conclusions.
It does not mean that the hypothesized phenomenon should be repeated –
detectives investigating a murder do not need to commit the murder again for
their evidence to count. Good grief. Harrison is dazzlingly illiterate
and stupid about these things.
Oh, but
Harrison has other objections, too: creationism is ruled out by fiat: “One
of evolution’s own core elements is the highly debatable philosophical
assumption that all observable phenomena are to be explained by natural causes
alone, i.e., excluding any appeal to divine intervention or revelation.”
Here, Harrison’s misunderstanding is arguably more understandable: Harrison is
appealing to the myth of methodological naturalism, that the assumption
of “no magic” is some sort of
operational constraint on science. And in fairness: We have seen intelligent
people who should know better invoke that myth, too. But it is of course
bonkers bullshit – and seeing that methodological naturalism is a myth
requires only a moment’s reflection (how could science have arrived at quantum
mechanics if it were constrained by substantial metaphysical assumptions about
causality?). In reality, science is constrained by empiricism: evidence
for or against a hypothesis is acquired by checking whether the hypothesis’s
observable predicitions are accurate. If you wish to invoke God or magic to explain the
development of life, feel free – but what you need, in that case, is an
operationalized concept of God or magic that allows you to actually derive observable
predictions from your hypothesis (something creationists refuse to do), and
then check whether your hypothesis does a better job of predicting and
explaining the data than alternative hypotheses. If it does, you win. But no
creationist has, of course, ever even gotten close, for obvious reasons (a
hypothesis that is sufficiently precise to actually yield predictions is, after
all, also a falsifiable hypothesis).
Diagnosis:
Complete ignorance about a field and confidence in one’s assertion about that
field is a pretty common combination. Harrison’s ignorance and illiteracy is
spectacular but hardly novel – we have heard his nonsense many times before.
Fundie dolt.
