I chose the title of this post to evoke extreme reaction in some people. For most I have probably failed. A few will have the extreme reaction, but most will read the title and write me off as a crackpot.
Another few might have curiosity. What exactly could he be getting at? Is he being serious or facetious? For those few with the extreme reaction, and with the curiosity, I write this post.
The key to the whole phrase rests on the definition of science. There is the derivation of the word in English, and there is what it actually means.
The English word “science” comes from a Latin word that means “knowledge”, or to “know”. In English the meaning got separated from all other knowledge to mean our knowledge of the physical world.
Thus the questions arise, how do we learn about the physical world, and what sort of knowledge can we know about it? Both of these questions are based on our concept of causality. Some might understand this as the idea of cause and effect. One event/thing/reason creates or leads to another thing, which is its effect.
The fact that usually falls below our consciousness is that the connection between cause and effect is not provable, it is inferred. We also have difficulty separating correlation from causation. What do I mean by that second statement? Just because two items seem to go along with each other, go together, doesn’t mean that one is the cause of the other.
A great example of this, one I learned back in my college accounting days, was that one of the best indicators of the American stock market was the price of butter in Bangladesh. Now, just because the two move together, who would actually think that the price of butter in Bangladesh caused movements in the American stock market, or that the American stock market was the chief driver of the price of butter in Bangladesh? The two events have a correlation, not a causation.
Getting back to science, our knowledge of the physical world, we learn about the physical world by applying our knowledge of causality to it, observing it, and coming to conclusions.
Okay, I’ve prepared the ground. Now let me lay the foundation for my claim that Astrology is better science than Evolution. And I do mean Astrology — horoscopes and the like, not Astronomy — the study of the stars.
It all rests of the concept of causality, of one event/thing/reason creating or leading to another thing, which is its effect. Some of you might be with me with the logical fact that causation can not be proved, only inferred. But the real logical fact that will prove my case is that there is more than one concept of causality. Different concepts of causality lead to different sciences, and different conclusions about the physical world.
Here is my claim that I will go on to support with evidence:
- Astrology is a science, because it is based on specific concept of causality, and its observations of the physical world can be concluded from that concept of causality.
- Evolution is not a science, because it is not based on a specific concept of causality, and its observations of the physical world cannot be concluded from the concept of causality it claims as its source.
- Since Evolution fails the test of being scientific, it is a faith system, not a scientific system.
- Thus Astrology is more scientific than Evolution.
Let me take this one step at a time. First, let me put forward the two concepts of causality, the one Astrology is based up, and the one Evolution claims to be based upon.
To understand Astrology as a science, we need to know when astrology was developed as a science, by whom, and under what causality? Astrology was part of the science of the Levantine world, the civilization that followed the classical world, and that included both the Muslim caliphate and the Eastern Roman Empire.
The basic hypothesis as a scientific proposition is:
The force and nature of the stars provide the mechanism by which events are brought about. It is a scientific proposition because … (it) supposes the montions and forces of the stars are subject to system and rational analysis. (Lawrence R. Brown, The Might of the West.)
Or to put it in the word of the great Levantine thinkeng Averroes:
A knowledge of causes is a knowledge of secret things, because the secret is a knowledge of the existence of a thing before it comes into being. And as the arrangement and order of causes bring a thing into existence or not at a certain time, there must be knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a thing at a certain time.
When you suppose the ability to predict, via science, specific events, then astrology becomes a part of the pervue of science, and thus scientific. As Averroes said, all the knowledge of future, specific events, is in current events, including the stars. This is a very basic explanation of the causality, but accurate.
Of course this is not the type of causality that Evolution claims to be based on; that is Western causality. So, what exactly is our scientific causality?
Our scientific causality is based on several things, but the one that shows that Evolution is not science is our concept of the scientific method. Our science never proves the occurrence of a specific event. We eliminate all uncertain variables, and then we say what will happen IF all the variables are a specific way. The result is what would happen in general, generic way, not what would happen in any specific event. Our causality is non-historical. It doesn’t apply to historical time, past, present or future.
One can take the discoveries of our science and apply it in practical, historical circumstances — one example of that is engineering. But once again, that isn’t science, because in that historical circumstance there will be other factors, outside what the science had talked about, influencing the circumstance, unanticipated variables.
The same issue is at work if you attempt to apply the science backwards in time. The science can guide you with expectations, but the further back you go, the more unanticipated variables there are, and the less likely the accuracy of predictions, predictions which are not science.
So, I have not presented a case that shows the truth or falsehood of evolution. What I have shown is that evolution cannot be proven by science. Evolution is not scientific; it doesn’t fit the causality of our science. If it is to be proven at all, it must be proven by other means.
Today we apply what we learn through our science to our lives, via engineering, until it seems our science is very powerful, and capable of most anything. What we don’t realize is that those applications are not science, but engineering, and fraught with all the guesswork of the unintended variable.