What is Creationary Science? The Concepts and Methods I Employ.
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph. D.
Theoretical scientific research has produced various theories or models for how our present universe may have come into being; where these theories give hypothesized rules, processes, or entities that in a step-by-step evolutionary manner may have produced the observed objects contained within our present universe. This is done so that the theory's predictions are logically consistent with results obtained from today's observational cosmology, geology and biology. Further, such theories also give consistent explanations for the actual evidence that is gathered from various sites throughout our solar system. However, within theories that claim to represent how our universe came into being or how it is presently developing, many of the hypothesized entities or processes either cannot be observed by human or machine sensors, or they cannot be reproduced within a laboratory setting. The same holds, at present, for all of the present standard theories of macroevolution, many aspects of the standard quantum theories and the like.
For standard biological macroevolution, some of the hypothesized processes are, at present, only observed for certain biological entities. These processes are then extended to cover the unobserved, and it is claimed that these unobserved processes hold even without laboratory verification. Indeed, in many cases, actual verification is probably not possible due to the influences of the experimenter's laboratory itself or our lack of knowledge as to the correct or even consistent parameters that existed in the far past. Further, all such hypotheses are based upon the not verifiable assumption that the "physical (natural) laws" we claim govern the behavior of a physical-system today have never varied.
The most investigated and discussed of all cosmological models, the standard (Big Bang) model, and many other competing versions have been publicly funded for the research community, and they have been refined and "improved" upon through the efforts of thousands of highly trained individuals. The same can be said for all attempts to match geological and fossil findings with the standard evolutionary old earth-solar system paradigm.
On the other hand, recent and equally consistent cosmological, geological, and biological theories - creationary theories (or models) - have been developed, usually without any special funding, and they have been investigated often by only a relatively few highly trained individuals. (The term "creationary" (or creation), as explained below, is relative to philosophic choice.) Creationary science theory builders follow the exact same technical procedures, the exact same logical rules, as followed by those who construct standard theories. Creationary theories also may hypothesize scientifically unobservable entities or processes.
Any evidence that "fits" the predictions of either a standard theory or creationary theory does not establish as fact unobservable entities or processes according to the tenets of the scientific method. "A hypothesis becomes verified, but of course not proved beyond any doubt, through the successful predictions it makes." (Cohen and Nagel, Logic and the Scientific Method, Harcourt, Brace , N. Y. 1934). For this reason, such verification is called "indirect." It is self-evident that if two distinctly different sets of hypotheses, each containing unobservable entities or processes, predict the same verified evidence, then a choice as to the correct set of hypotheses cannot be based upon any canons of the scientific method.
Of great significance are the distinct notions of the analogue and concrete models. Analogue models are created by human beings. They predict behavior that we otherwise may not be able to comprehend. In quantum theory, there is the notion of the quantum fields that predict behavior. Most scientists who work in this area considered these as primitives. That is, they are not considered as composed of more fundamental entities. Further, by definition, they cannot be directly observed by any physical entity. These fields began as a pure analogue model for behavior. However, there are other analogue models, propertons, that can be used as a primitive rather than quantum fields. Selecting the primitive used to construct an analogue model as physically real is but a philosophic choice. If such fields are accepted as fact, the model still does not acquire the status of a concrete model. Concrete models require the entities used to be observable.
Although few know the following fact, which is established in the article What is Spacetime? the General Relativity (GR) geometric language used to describe behavior within gravitational fields is also analogue in character. Kepler guessed at his three laws of planetary motion. But. the second law is entirely unobservable within "Nature." Newton used these laws to derive his law of gravity for circular orbits. After years of contemplation, Newton generalized his law to all planetary orbits and, indeed, the "force" between bodies with "mass." In so doing, he showed that Kepler's third law is generally in error. There is a "concrete" model for his theory. You have gravitational forces that we can feel and, for various observable projectiles, predictions as to their relative paths of motion under the influence of a gravitational field. These relative paths can directly observed.
What is not usually not known is that the GT geometric language that describes the behavior of bodies within a gravitational field, when expressed in terms of the arc-length parameter, is directly translatable into the language of "forces." Rather than stating that such behavior is due to the "curvature" of spacetime (or just space), it is just as acceptable that such behavior is due to the "force of gravity," something that "feels" real. Of course, this does remove the analogue language that science-fiction authors often claim refers to "real" physical stuff - the undefined "space."
Comparing these recent, shall we call them, rough creationary theories with those that have been so extensively refined and improved upon, it is very remarkable that these rough theories do explain to such a high degree the same observational evidence as that explained by the refined and improved standard theories. It should be self-evident that rough theories should not be rejected solely because, at present, they have not been refined to such a point that they predict all events as well as the refined and improved secular theories. Of course, if a rough theory's prediction yields a direct observational contradiction, then a great deal more than a refinement is needed. It probably should not be further considered until the contradictory prediction no long occurs.
Then there is the Bacon approach that starts with observed data obtained by general observation or via experimentation and one "guesses" at an hypothesis. Using modes of human deduction, this hypothesis is shown to verify the data. Replication yields the same type of data-set and again this verifies the hypothesis. The hypothesis might be termed fact. It is used to rationally predict data-sets that should be verified by observations. This assumes that physical patterns follow the same rational patterns as classical human thought. Further, acceptance of the hypothesis, if not continually tested, depends upon acceptance of the notion of the uniformity of physical law over time or place.
The general uniformity of physical law cannot be tested. Further, it is rather untrue that science is based upon this concept. Indeed, the philosopher of science John Stuart Mill rejects this general notion. In general, physical regulations are being or should be continually tested. By-the-way, theologically, there is nothing in the Bible that states that God's regulations for physical behavior are fixed relative to space or time and that they are the same as regulations proposed by scientists. The Hebrew used in Jeremiah 33:25 for "ordinances" or "regulations" need not convey that from our viewpoint what passes for physically law is fixed in character. Most translations of this verse do not add the term "fixed." Further, the verse itself is not contained in the Greek LXX.
The GGU-model processes are fixed, but they can generate infinitely many different universes that satisfy infinitely many different physical laws. Theologically, this includes the special events termed miracle events. Every allowable universe and behavior scheme is pre-designed. This means that they exist "prior" to physical realization. This "existence" can constitute a mental-type state of existence or such an additional characteristics can be omitted. One of the difficulties when a theological interpretation for the GGU-model is considered, is that God is atemporal and human beings exist in a temporal or sequentially developing environment. Human comprehension of an atemporal view is difficult if the notion of a sequences is not retained in a pure not "time" consuming sense.
There is a predicted process that can be used to verify Mill's contention. It shows that there can be numerously many differences in observed "physical laws" during the past that "we" cannot detect through observation from our present time and position within the development of our universe. Such a variational process can certainly be considered as a fixed feature of God's creation. However, these and all other possible alterations in physical law are products of God's fixed regulations.
In this short article, I do not discuss whether the pure hypothesis-deduction or the Bacon approach is the best.
The Specific Scientific Method I Employ.
The method I use differs from the Bacon method of pure experimental science and the pure assumed hypothesis-deduction approach of theoretic science. It incorporates the best of both approaches.
The (Herrmann) method. [The mathematics used is a combination of the standard methods of analysis and methods from mathematical logic. The in-depth development of the mathematics began in 1966.] Although not first presented in this form, intuitively, this is how the method can be conceived. Actual observed behavior (the data) is mathematically modeled. All of the real behavior and actual observable physical entities that yield this behavior form, in a technical sense, the physical “axioms (hypotheses)” used for the model. Replication is used to verify that such behavior remains valid. [A math. model has two sets of “axioms” – the mathematical ones and the non-mathematical, which are, in this case, the ones describing such behavior.]
Via deduction, other entities are predicted as well as corresponding sets of observed and unobserved data (behavior). The predicted sets of observed behavior are related to the original physical behavior and the predicted behavior is verified. The described unobserved behavior satisfies the behavior of the remaining unobserved predicted entities. For the general intelligent design model, the unobserved behavior is shown to verify philosophic or theological descriptions. [The major aspect of the Herrmann method lies in how the mathematical model is constructed so as to reveal more unobserved behavior and the rational methods used to make comparisons between observed and unobserved behavior.]
Early history cosmology and quantum physics assumes the existence of entities and processes that cannot be directly observed. They are used to predict behavior that is physically observed and the assumed entities and processes are accepted as "fact" based upon this indirect evidence.
I am a limited logical positivist within the philosophy of instrumentalism. For the GGU-model, a gleaned physical law is not relate to a physical "cause and effect." The cause and effect notion is but an aid when we predict physical behavior. The GGU-model is also based upon the notion of the physical-systems - a collection of entities. Propertons collections allow for physical-systems to only be those that are classified as observable. Physical-systems can be composed of unobservable "particles" as proposed by quantum physics. These would all be produced by properton formations. The "lack of knowledge" aspects of the model tends to limit speculation as to the possible unobservable constituents of a physical-system.
Relative to the GGU-model, propertons and physical-systems, there are unobservable aspects of modern physics that are unnecessary. As mentioned, primitives such as basic quantum fields, possibly "strings," "virtual" particles and processes, and unobservable hidden aspects of early history cosmology are entirely unnecessary. I do not consider such systems or entities as physically necessary. As an example, excitations of quantum fields need not cause the fields to produce characteristics of "particles" since the fields need not physically exist. In general, my basic approach states that it is not necessary to consider quantum fields and other such unobserved hypothesized entities as physically real. The observed behavior of an event sequence is pre-designed in an atemporal sense. These unobserved aspects of modern physics are "instruments" used by us to predict behavior, behavior that we cannot otherwise predict.
God has gifted us with an extraordinary mental capacity to construct theories for the sole purpose of predicting actual observed behavior. Such predictions are necessary so that we can follow His requirement that we "subdue" the earth and, in so doing, build our human made universe.
For the method I use, observable behavior predicts entities and processes that yield directly observable data. Hence, in a much stronger fashion than early history cosmology and quantum physics, the existence of the entities and processes predicted by the GGU-model method can be accepted as fact.
This is an example for my method. By comparison with real observations for real entities, predicted unobserved behavior of an higher-intelligence is described. If we exist, then mathematically such an entity that, at last has these properties, is predicted to exist. Of course, such comparisons are only for those attributes that can be compared. God has many attributes that are not so comparable. For the secular GGU-model approach, the new entities and the unobserved behavior correspond to physical-like entities and behavior that produce and sustain the development of any known physical cosmology.
When the data-set exists, the Bacon empirical approach requires that an "educated" guess be made. However. my approach is not actually a mere guess. I knew some-how-or-other from my experience or otherwise that if I modeled the data-sets using a new mathematical approach, then most likely I would be able to solve the General Grand Unification problem and also secure the GID-interpretation. I have developed elsewhere a model the shows rationally that immaterial entities can influence human thought. Prior to 7 April 1977, I exhibited no great creative ability. This is not the case after that date. I always give credit to God for immaterially influencing my thoughts. To Him belongs the glory,
As implied, I use the same methods as those used by the scientific community relative to indirect (observational) verification. As stated previously, properly constituted creationary theories use the exact same rules and procedures as those used to construct properly constituted "standard" scientific theories. When I am concerned with creationary science, the procedures I practice do not alter in any manner the accepted methods but improve upon them. For a pure secular physical-like application, the "behavior" is interpreted as that of physical-like processes within a substratum world. Using these accepted methods, there tends to be two approaches to creationary science. One approach is to add to the hypotheses a "Divine intervention statement." The addition of this hypothesis during various aspects of theory building does not alter the methods utilized. The method I use is not of this type.
All of the creationary science models I have discovered do not use as a fundamental hypothesis any such Divine intervention concept. This is why the GGU-model has purely secular interpretations. Relative to creationary science, I use the concept called re-interpretation. After a model is constructed, not before, the terminology is altered by replacing "ultra" or "hyper" prefixed terms with "higher-intelligence" mental-like terms. The terminology is again altered and these terms are replaced by theological expressions. All other aspects of the scientific method used remain unaltered.
Since major physical events predicted by most of the theories produced by todays theoretical methods cannot be verified by an exact laboratory experiment using the hypothesized physical entities or processes, then all such theories and the events they tend to explain should probably be categorized as a form of scientific speculation although many, who through great effort produce such theories, would probably categorize their work as but theoretical science. However, such theories cannot be characterized as scientific fact.
Notwithstanding such a categorization, the questions these theories attempt to answer are, however, highly interesting relative to an individual's personal philosophy. For this reason, knowledge as to the existence of the refined and improved theories - the standard theories - and the existence of the creationary theories that are all approximately equivalent in explanatory power to the standard theories is of considerable significance. It is self-evident that, in order to consider a choice between competing theories, individuals would need to have unbiased knowledge as to a theory's specific predictions as well as the hypothesized unobservable entities and processes. However, if an individual wishes to make an informed and appropriate choice from a collection of theories that are equivalent in explanatory power, then the choice would need to be based upon philosophic or other non-scientific considerations.
As a minimal requirement, I consider a properly constructed scientific theory or model as a (Biblical) "creationary" science theory or model if it, at the least, does not contradict a strict interpretation of the Bible's Genesis 1 creationary statements when so interpreted. The strength of any such theory or model depends upon whether it also predicts not only each Biblical creationary event, including the Genesis Flood, but whether it also predicts physical events as observed today. Although such an interpretation is not necessary, there is a theological interpretation of the GGU-model that yields every strictly interpreted physical event as described in Genesis through the Flood, as well as, all physical events that have been observed and recorded since the Flood. Of course, besides this minimal requirement, Biblical creationary theories can validate many other theological principles. The following is a major requirement for my Biblical interpretations.
The Bibles states that one should neither add to nor subtract from it. This does not just include words and phrases but concepts as well. Throughout all of my creationary science and theological writings I adhere to the follow: As proposed by philosophers beginning after the death of Apostle John and who use forbidden methods of discourse (Col 2:8), I and, indeed, no one should accept, that, throughout Biblical times, God deceives His followers and even lies to them. The claim is that His ideas and concepts as originally presented within the Bible's pages are faulty. This is the claim that the literal or obvious nuances in meanings for the Biblical terms used therein are incorrect and have other meanings that have been hidden until revealed after the death of Apostle John. This claim must be rejected. These other meanings even contradict literal or obvious nuances. God notes when He sends a deception. Any such alterations in the literal meanings or obvious nuances for the words as understood during Biblical times would make the entire Bible untrustworthy and even contradictory and, hence, useless except for historical information.
This is exactly how Genesis 1:1 - 2:1 is interpreted following these strict interpretation methods.
17 JULY 1999. Revised 12 FEB 2013.
Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.