CHAPTER 6:  MODERN SCIENCE--STARTING FROM THE CONCLUSION

Does science "reverse engineer" its logic to fit the desired conclusion?

Somewhere around 1975 I found myself engaged in a "discussion" of abortion with a young woman at my college.  The "paradigm" which she originally proposed to defend abortion was that it wasn't murder if the subject wasn't conscious.  I quickly pointed out that this would justify killing someone in a coma (or someone sleeping for that matter).  Seeing how fruitless the paradigm was, the ground quickly shifted to the "viability" argument.  I then pointed out that if someone were in an iron lung, they would not be "viable".  The paradigm shifted yet one more time -- to whether the subject was "viable outside of the womb."  And it would appear indisputable that if this paradigm were an expression of absolute truth, abortion is indisputably a moral option. . . at least up to the point of viability.

The point of this anecdote is not to revisit the abortion question.  The relevance lies in how the paradigm was developed.  The conclusion that abortion is not an immoral taking of an innocent life was not truly the product of a logical paradigm.  Rather, the paradigm "viable outside the womb" was reverse-engineered to support a preconceived conclusion.  The paradigm "viable outside the womb" did not rest on truly neutral principles, it was a self serving artifice constructed to give the appearance of neutrality to a preconceived conclusion.  In truth, the starting place had not been the paradigm "something that is not viable outside the womb is not a person."  The starting point was "I want myself or other women to have the option of abortion."

Various paradigms were advanced to determine which would best support this predetermined conclusion.  The assertion "abortion is not immoral" is simply an opinion, just as the assertion "abortion is murder" is simply an opinion, just as the assertion "man evolved from lower primates" is an opinion, and "man was created in God's image" is an opinion. 

But when the one holding the opinion seeks to advance their opinion in society at large, simply asserting it as an "opinion" won't do.  Opinions are a dime a dozen.  Everyone has opinions, but not everyone has "objective truth."  Opinions presented as the necessary conclusion of certain assumptions take on the appearance of objective truth when the assumptions take on the apparent quality of objectivity.  So although the conclusion usually precedes the paradigm, the passionate ideologue will skillfully work backwards from the conclusion, generating the most neutral sounding paradigm possible to defend his opinion.  The paradigm is carefully crafted to give the appearance that it preexisted the conclusion.  The more intelligent and skillful the ideologue, the more "neutral" and compelling will be the paradigm.  In ideological debates therefore, the principal battlefield is demonstrating that one's own assumptions are built on truly neutral principals, and that one's opponents presuppositions and assumptions are pre-conceived, non-neutral, illogical, irrational, self serving or circular.

Neutrality in the law

Presumably, judges are supposed to work from a set of facts and reach a conclusion through an impartial application of the law.  The practice of judges in identifying the "right" decision and then reverse engineering a legal argument to justify that decision is known as legal realism.  This process in the field of law was frankly acknowledged by Jerome Frank, the father of "legal realism."^[1]  Instead of working from the law and facts of the case to whatever conclusion is demanded by the law, Frank held that judges should determine what outcome seems most just, and then construct a legal artifice to support that conclusion.  An example of legal realism can be seen in Brown v. Board of Education.  The court sought to desegregate schools, but found the Fourteenth Amendment inconclusive since the practice of public education was embryonic in the South when the fourteenth amendment was passed.  But, determined to get to the "right" decision (of school desegregation), the court explained that to

separate [school] children from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their statutes in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. . . Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.^[2]

The court then offered a footnote citing psychological studies.  In other words, since racial segregation among school children is unjust, and, (at least according to the psychological studies of the day) psychologically damaging to minority children, the court was determined to strike down segregation laws.  This conclusion was reached based on "psychological studies", not the law.  The decision has been widely criticized.  Robert Bork for example argued that Brown could have achieved school desegregation through neutral constitutional principles rather than a court basing its decision on "psychology".^[3]  More importantly, Bork points to Brown as an example of legal realism, a court determined to do the "right" thing regardless of the law.  The paradigm was reverse-engineered to reach the desired conclusion.  But the paradigm was so facile and incoherent that it hardly sustained an illusion of neutrality and objectivity to anyone schooled in the law.  It was in response to Brown that Herbert Wechsler penned his treatise on "neutral principles", excoriating the legal community and admonishing them to return to neutral principles rather than preconceived outcomes.^[4]

The point, once again, is not to revisit the debate over judicial activism, relevant though such a debate may well be.  Rather, the point is that supreme court justices, no less than the woman in the abortion debate, reverse-engineer their paradigms to fit their conclusions.  We should not be surprised by this since judges are men and women, flesh and blood.  No judge, no person  for that matter is a tableau rasa unsullied by human experience.  Men and women at the pinnacles of our society are, of all people, aware of the plight of humanity and observers of the human condition.  One need only consider the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists annual rating of how near the world was to nuclear destruction to convince oneself of that truth.  Atomic scientists are not political scientists, at least not professionally.  But they are bright, thinking, contemplative men.  It should therefore not surprise us that "reverse-engineering" takes place in the field of law and science as in any other field.

Outcome based Science:  Reverse engineering to fit preconceived conclusions

Scientists too, are flesh and blood.  And scientists too reverse engineer their work to reach preconceived outcomes.  One need look no farther than Einstein's general theory of relativity to see reverse engineering.  The equation in its simplest form is as follows:

2(2² R/dt²)/R    [(dR/dt)/R]²    kc² /R²  = -8rGp/c²

and

[(dR/dt)/R]²    kc² /R²  =  8rG/3

where R is the scale factor for the universe (its diameter), t is time, k is a constant describing the geometry of the universe, c is the speed of light, G is the universal gravitational constant, p is the total pressure arising from all sources, and r is the density of matter and radiation.^[5]

The general theory of relativity was able to predict a shift in the position of stars during a solar eclipse, and became the toast of the intellectual world from the moment of its experimental verification.  The problem arose when Einstein realized that, plugging numbers into the equation, unless the universe were very small, the "pressure" was close to zero.  Without any pressure to hold the universe apart, gravity should be pulling it together.  But this logically meant that the universe had exploded outward from a single point of creation.  This left Einstein face to face with the Creator.  The problem was vexing.  Whatever Einstein's view of God (which we know at least to be one who didn't "roll dice" - reflecting his uneasiness with the quantum theory), he was clearly troubled by the Judeo-Christian God who spoke the universe into existence proclaiming "Let there be light."  To avoid this troubling implication of his theory, Einstein formulated his equation with a "fudge factor". . . the "universal cosmological constant."  Since there was not enough ambient pressure in the universe to hold the galaxies apart, perhaps there was a sort of static pressure - much like water pressure in the ocean. 

Although gravity decreases with distance, if this static pressure, (or "pusher" gravity - call it what you will) were ubiquitous throughout the fabric of space, and constant rather than diminishing with distance from celestial bodies, it would be sufficient to overcome the gravity pulling the galaxies inward.  This would allow Einstein to create a static universe that had no beginning, and therefore no Creator!.  The equations were essentially as above, with the "universal cosmological constant" L, highlighted in bold as below:

2(d² R/dt²)/R    [(dR/dt)/R]²    kc² /R²  = -8pGp/ c² L

and

[(dR/dt)/R]²    kc² /R²  =  8pGr/3  L/3

If a value for L could ever be discovered, and if it were the right value, it would

explain why the galaxies, though pulling upon each other by gravity, have remained eternally suspended in the heavens, and not collapsing inward by their gravity.  Einstein had hoped that it would be exactly the right value to produce an essentially static universe.  But alas, modern physics has failed to agree on any such "universal cosmological constant".  One study concluded that, it such a constant does in fact exist, it must be less than 6 x 10^-55.^[6]   (Which is roughly equal to zero.)  Moreover, at the 1914 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Vesto Slipher revealed that he had discovered that a number of nebulae are receding away from the earth at extremely high velocities.  (A young graduate student, Edwin Hubbell, would later explore the significance of these bare findings of Slipher.)  Einstein's universe was simply not an eternal static entity as he had hoped.  It was moving outward from a point of birth.  It had a beginning!  Finally, the death blow to Einstein's hopes for an eternally existing static universe would be dealt by Russian meteorologist Alexander Friedman, who, in 1922 uncovered a simple algebraic error that Einstein had made.  Once corrected, it yielded a patently non-static universe!^[7]

This same bias can be seen in the work of Stephen Hawking.  Like Einstein before him, he may have been unaware at first that his work was going to leave him face to face with his Creator.  Physicist Roger Penrose had developed the theory of black holes. . . a "star collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region whose surface eventually sinks to zero size.  And, since the surface region sinks to zero, so must its size.  All the matter in the star will be compressed into a region of zero volume, so the density of matter and the curvature of space-time become infinite.  In other words, one has a singularity contained within a region of space-time known as a black hole."^[8]  

Hawking began to work with Penrose, and extrapolated backward the process of a star collapsing into a black hole.  "The existence of a singularity at the beginning of time had previously been thought to be a possible implication of general relativity; Hawking and Penrose demonstrated that it was an inevitable implication."^[9]

The reverse of this collapse would become the basis of the "big bang" theory in its current form. . . the universe extending outward from a single point where space and time equaled zero.  Sounded a bit theological to Hawking's ears. . . sort of like the creation of the Judeo-Christian God who proclaimed "Let there be light", the God Einstein had so valiantly tried to avoid by mathematical artifice.  Like Einstein before him, Hawking had painted himself into a corner, and there appeared no alternative but a Creator.  Like Einstein before him, he would endeavor to paint himself back out of the corner by mathematical artifice.  He would reverse-engineer a theory that enabled him to avoid living under the rule of the Creator of the universe.  Unlike Einstein before him however, Hawking would not leave himself open to experimental falsification.  He had learned something from Einstein's mistake.  Einstein had reverse engineered his math to yield the conclusion of a static, eternally existing universe.  He had introduced a theoretically measurable cosmological constant.  There developed both empirical evidence that the universe was expanding, and experimental evidence that was increasingly drawing into question whether any such "universal cosmological constant" existed at all.  Einstein's hypothesis of a static universe with no beginning and no Creator had left itself open to empirical falsification.  And, although science seems to change its mind every ten years on whether or not a "universal cosmological constant" exists, at least in theory, the existence or lack thereof of a "universal cosmological constant" is falsifiable.

Hawking would not make the same mistake.  In the model's of the "big bang" there exists something called Plank's-time.  It is the first infinitesimal small fraction of a second from the moment the big bang started (the period of time from time equals zero to somewhere around 10^-56 seconds.  Not a very long period of time by any measure!)  But it was long enough for Hawking to focus his mathematical guns.  Mathematical models of the laws of physics as we know them hold up from Plank's-time to the present.  But from zero to Plank's-time, the first fraction of a second of the beginning of time, the laws of physics break down.  Therefore, if Hawking could construct a mathematical artifice behind the veil of Plank's time, it would be impossible to construct an experiment using principles of physics to falsify Hawking's work.  And since it is clearly impossible to construct an accelerator that could generate that kind of energy existing from zero to plank's-time (the accelerator would be longer than the galaxy to simply accelerate a few particles to that speed), Hawking has removed his theory from falsifiability.  Far cleverer than Einstein, but also far less scientific.

Behind this impenetrable veil, Hawking has constructed a "borderless" universe.  To understand what a "borderless" universe means, consider a square sheet of paper.  It has four edges.  You can trace your pencil to the edge of the paper.

Now if you tape the top end of the paper to the bottom end, it makes a tube shaped structure.  You can start at the "top" of the page, and trace down.  But you will never reach the bottom.  You will just keep tracing around in a circle, returning to the top after you pass the bottom.

You can extend this principle to the sides of the paper as well.  Consider a globe of the earth in your geography class.  We are now considering ONLY the surface.  It is empty inside, and we will pretend, for a moment, that the inside does not even exist.  The surface is a two-dimensinal surface that curves in every direction.  If you place your finger on the globe, you may trace around the surface in any direction, but you will never get to the "edge" of the globe.  Like a sheet of paper, it is a two dimensional surface.  But unlike the sheet of paper, it does not have an edge.  On the surface of a globe, you may see a friend far off.  He may seem to be near the "edge."  But if you were in his position, he is not near an "edge," because there is no edge to the surface of a globe.  He sees himself in the center, and sees you near the edge. 

Just as there is a mathematical expression by which an albegraic topoligist can describe a two-dimensional surface with no edge (the surface of a globe), there is similarly a mathematical expression by which an algebraic topologist an describe a three-dimensional sphere with no edge!  Named after the brillient French mathematician Poincare, it is known as a "Poincare 3-sphere."   Like the sheet of paper with no top and no bottom, there is no geometric center of this three dimensional space.  Just as you are always "in the center of the world" on the surface of the globe, so, in a Poincare three-sphere, you are always in the center of the three-dimensional space.  If you move, your new location now appears to be the center.     And just as there is no "border" or edge on a globe, there is no "border" or edge to such a three dimensional structure. 

Does such a structure actually exist beyond the equations of a mathematician?  Probably not.  No one has ever see such a sphere.  Nevertheless, this is the Universe in which modern physicists have come to believe.  The question to ask oneself, however, is "why?"  Are there any experiments to suggest that the universe "curves back on itself" as so often told us?  No.  Not one scientific experiment has ever been conducted to suggest this.  And the only "data" that suggests the universe is a Poincare three-sphere is that the earth's galaxy is so close to the center of the universe that no measurement within our power can place us any closer to the center than we are.

The wonderful vantage point . . . life at the center of the universe, bothers scientists.  It smacks of purpose or design!  So the answer?  We aren't really at the center, because there is no center.  Wherever you go, that looks like the center.  But there is no center, and no edge!

This structure has many wonderful features to the agnostic scientist.  Another benefit is that it eliminates the singularity that he and Penrose developed in the first place as the origin of the universe.  "There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary condition for space-time.  One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.'  The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.  It would neither be created nor destroyed.  It would just BE."^[10] 

Hawking thus created a space-time continuum that began in eternity past in something called "imaginary time", and transitioned into real time at the moment of the big bang.  It was just one continual process that never needed a Creator.

Scientists do indeed then have hidden agendas, and adopt self serving presuppositions and methodologies that support their preconceived conclusions.  Like supreme court justices seeking to integrate schools, or a bright college girl trying to prevail in an abortion debate, scientists adopt the conclusions that fit their theological and philosophical ends, and reverse-engineer their "science" to fit their conclusions.  At first this seems counter intuitive.  Presuppositions and wishful thinking will not make a light-bulb shine or an airplane fly.  Science of all disciplines seems predicated upon objectivity.  But both common sense and experience tell us that the closer any issue (be it of law, science or sociology) gets to core values and religious beliefs, the more likely a paradigm will be reverse engineered fit the desired conclusion.  And one could hardly imagine topics more central to core values and religious beliefs of humanity than the questions of where the universe and human life came from!  To deny that this takes place in science would be not only naive, but inconsistent with what we observe all of the time within all humanity, including the scientific community.  Assumptions motivated by theological and metaphysical implications are used to advance "scientific" theories, and as we shall see, data which is inconvenient is discarded as having little weight.

One need read no further than Carl Sagan's introduction to Hawking's A Brief History of Time to realize that the primary thrust of Hawking's work is not scientific, but first and foremost theological.  Having reduced the moment of creation to a singularity of time and space, Hawking sought to unreduce it.  He sought to move us from a universe of a Creator to a universe that was self creating.  In Sagan's words:

The word of God fills these pages.  Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein's famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe.  Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God.  And this makes all the more unexpected the conclusion of the effort, at least so far: a universe with no edge in time, no beginning or end of time, and nothing for a Creator to do.

This statement is clearly dishonest in that it portrays the conclusions of Hawking as "unexpected."  Hawking had not splattered equations randomly on the page as Sagan would suggest.  Hawking's many years of work were not unguided and random, but a methodical process of reverse-engineering a paradigm that would support intensely religious beliefs that he held.  On the other hand, Sagan is disarmingly honest in acknowledging that the primary implication of the theory does not impinge on questions of physics, but theology.  "Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God.  And. . . the conclusion[?]:  *  *  *   [A] universe with no edge in time, no beginning or end of time, and nothing for a Creator to do."  So theological in its purpose is Hawking's theory of the big bang that, right or wrong, any honest reader would have to conclude that it could not pass the "Lemon test"^[11] for neutrality.  The overarching purpose is both transparently and admittedly religious.  Moreover, the primary effect is not physics.  It is not subject to experimental testing and falsification.  It is indeed little more than speculative philosophy draped in mathematical garb.  The primary effect, if not the exclusive effect is theological.

If cosmologists have theological presuppositions about the creation of universe which undergird their theories, the same is true of biological scientists.  The presuppositional framework to evolution is intensely theological.  This pattern is consistently born out in the evolution / creation debate.  The hope of Orthodox Jews and Christians is the prospect of eternal life through the power of the resurrection from the dead.  This power can only be found in a God who created the universe and the laws of nature.  This does not mean that creationism is wrong. . . simply that there is a motivation of creationists to prove creation.  Most creationists are quick to acknowledge their presuppositional bias.^[12]  Evolutionists are usually far less honest in acknowledging their motivation for advancing the evolutionary theory.  But deny it or not, there is every bit as much of a theological motivation consistently revealed in their writings and statements.  It is the desire to avoid the demands of the Creator and the awesome thought of one day standing in front of the Creator of the universe as one's judge.  Consider the words of the first great evolutionist - Charles Darwin:

On 7 March 1837 I took lodgings in Great Marlborough Street in London and remained there for nearly two years until I was married. . .

[D]isbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete.  The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.  I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true, for if it is so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.  And this is a damnable doctrine.^[13]

Chapter 6: Modern Science, Starting at the Conclusion