THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

The Eye of the Beholder

A memorable episode of the well-known Twilight Zone series back in the 1960's, was entitled, "The Eye of the Beholder". Which implied strongly that, beauty and truth were interpreted through the eyes of those who saw it. Recently, I was asked to answer the following questions: What is science? What is not science? What is pseudo-science? After thinking about it for awhile, it struck me that, given the content we often read on the subject, these questions might be best summed up in the that phrase, "Science is in the eye of the beholder!" That is not to say that there aren’t plenty of good definitions to establish the parameters for each, e.g., “…[science is defined by what is], testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable…” (Patterson, 2007), but it is through the eyes of each researcher and institution, by which the raw data and presuppositions are inevitably filtered, qualified, quantified, and ultimately interpreted. The resulting conclusions inevitably fluctuate wildly as a result.

To the one observer who begins with the premise that an intelligent designer, creator God is the ‘first cause’ for everything we see, touch, and experience; all the evidence points to that being, and the conclusions of science naturally support that reality. Scripture is clear that, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom [i.e., knowledge, latin: scientia], and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding [of life, death, and creation, both spiritual and material], (NKJV, Prov 9:10). But to the observer who begins with the premise that no such being exists, and all of the deductions of science must be gained through a naturalistic system of interpretation, the conclusions predictably take on the inferences and presuppositions characteristic of pseudo-science, rather than, testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, facts of science.

In fact, they brazenly reject evidence that doesn’t fit their narrative stating, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Patterson, 2007). Such statements, especially in the case of abiogenesis and evolution, violate their fundamental principle of interpretation which states; “…if predictions turn out to be wrong, then the theory has been falsified, or disproved.” (Okasha, 2002). Someone once said that, “Being a scientist is like doing a jigsaw puzzle in a snowstorm at night, with some pieces missing, and with no idea what the finished picture looks like.” That is quite instructive in regard to genuine scientific discovery, but it also parallels the incredible insights of Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, who also used the illustration of a jig-saw puzzle of the Matterhorn, to communicate the utter impossibility of abiogenesis. A renowned chemist with three earned doctorates, Wilder-Smith (1981) deducted that Miller’s ammino acid experiments, which are still touted today as proof of abiogenesis, were only able to produce the crude elements of life, because the individual molecules were intelligently designed to do so.

"…chance has not in itself executed the project, but rather preprogramming, decision-making, irreversibility, and prior intelligence concealed within the individually interlocking pieces have done so. Programming, decision making, and intelligence acted beforehand by prefabricating the interlocking irreversible puzzle pieces …the parts of a jigsaw puzzle [do not] irreversibly slot into each other when they are [shaken, they reach equilibrium and break apart] …but the building blocks of biological life, (amino acids) were built so that they automatically slot themselves into …the genetic code…" ~A.E. Wilder-Smith

That is what true science is, and to deny that testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable fact, for the sake of stubbornly perpetuating an outdated and unprovable ideological dogma (evolution), is truly, pseudo-science! Yet, the proponents of this faulty presupposition will turn right around and say that, while Intelligent design (ID), “…does align well with the aims of science… but because ID relies on the action of an unspecified “intelligent cause,” it is not a testable idea.” (Berkley, 2013). The illogical irony of this statement is absurd, because their avowed “cause” is, random chance, which in essence is NOTHING! This is not science! It is an absurdly vain hypothesis which seeks to explicate the origins of an infinitely complex universe, with virtually limitless specimens of astonishingly sophisticated biological life forms, as an accident. 

Many years ago, I was walking along the banks of a large river with my 7 year old son. I was amazed that the river had deposited literally millions of rounded river rocks through out the valley. The rocks were randomly piled up as far as the eye could see, in no particular order or sequence. Suddenly, my son pointed to one of the river banks filled with rocks and said, look dad, someone made a stack of rocks. Sure enough, someone had piled rocks into a very simple pyramid shape, about two feet high. It struck me, that even a 7 year old child, with limited science education, could easily distinguish the slightest hint of order and complexity that it represented, in this sea of random chaos. 

He correctly identified that an intelligent being had to have imagined and initiated the transformation of a lower-value form into a higher-value form, by making the slightest of adjustments to their order and structure. He knew instantly in his young mind that the water of this mighty river had not swirled these stones into the stack that they currently formed, and neither had the gradual process of erosion or uniformitarian sedimentary deposits. Wildlife creatures, random chance accidents, and billions of years of time could not conceive of and develop this monument of stone. He knew instinctively that only the creative nature of intelligence could have rendered this simple arrangement, regardless of the reason for its conception. This innocent statement of my son is as profound to me now as it was then.

Truly, science is in the eye of the beholder, but as Jesus said, “…when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness.” (NKJV, Luke 11:34).

Works Cited:

Berkley, The University of California. What is Science? Museum of Paleontology. 2013.
Fowler, Samantha. Concepts of Biology: The Process of Science. OpenStax, Rice Univ. 2017.
NKJV. New King James Version, Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishing. 1982.
Okasha, Samir. Scientific Reasoning in Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press. 2002.
Patterson, Roger. Evolution Exposed: Biology, What Is Science? Answers In Genesis. 2007.
Wilder-Smith, A.E. The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. TWFT. 1981.
Wilson, Ronald. Deductive and Inductive Reasoning. CCBC, Course Offerings. 2016.