Manufacturing Facts (Smokestack Philosophy)

What is a fact anyway?

Materialists keep insisting evolution is a fact. But what is a fact? Does any such thing exist? To examine this question I'll take a look at a rather wild statement from the 'Defend Science' website. The author (whose name I wasn't able to ascertain) is rather animated about the evil creationists he sees around him. So let's take a look at a few of the things he's upset about. (note 1.)

Quotes and comments;

1. "And that is not all: Here we are in the 21st century, and the head of the government himself, George W. Bush, refuses to acknowledge that evolution is a scientific fact! THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The President claims: “On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth,” and then sits smugly by while Creationists carry out an assault against evolution in classrooms, museums, libraries, government bookstores, and even IMAX movies and science theaters.

2. "No, Mr. President, the verdict is NOT out on evolution. EVOLUTION IS A FACT -- IT IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-ESTABLISHED AND WELL-DOCUMENTED FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. TO DENY AND ATTACK EVOLUTION IS TO DENY AND ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FACTS ABOUT ALL OF NATURE AND REALITY AND ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL FOUNDATION STONES OF ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE. (caps in original.)

- it's an obvious sign of hysteria when an author writes in cap letters. This is juvenilia. (The equivalent of a child having a temper tantrum.)

- But ignoring the cap explosion, let's ask a simple question; "what exactly is a fact?" Is there any such thing? how would we determine this? can it be determined? Many philosophers, thinkers, and theologians deny that any such thing as a fact exists. Man is finite, fallible, and fallen, and thus is incapable to determining facts. (A well known objection to the idea of 'facts' is that a person would have to know everything in the universe, and know it accurately, to be able to tell us what a fact is.) My own view is that only the creator God of the bible knows fact from fiction in any ultimate sense. (And this explains the necessity for special revelation.) Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Obviously this isn't good enough for people who want to use the theory in their political struggles.

3. Let's zoom in a bit.

Fact; n. (1913) L. factum; fr. facere, to make or do. see feat, affair, benefit.
- 1539, "action," especially "evil deed," from L. factum "event, occurrence," lit. "thing done," from neut. pp. of facere "to do." Usual modern sense of "thing known to be true" appeared 1632, from notion of "something that has actually occurred."

- It makes a lot of difference whether you see fact as something that happens, or see it as something that is made; i.e. fashioned. Is truth what is, what happens - or is it what is made; what is constructed? Speculation is a basic ingredient in any so called fact you can mention. Any fact has at least one, and usually several tasty bits of speculation embedded in it. (Think of a fact as a loaf of bread. Any so called fact has gone through a lengthy 'baking' process.)

A. 'Any thing done, or that comes to pass; an act; a deed; an effect produced or achieved; an event. Witnesses are introduced into court to prove a fact. Facts are stubborn things. To deny a fact knowingly is to lie. - Webster/1828

- the idea of fact seems to have drifted over the years from an original idea of something real or something that happened to the idea of knowledge. i.e. we know x to be true. i.e. from the realm of action to the realm of knowledge.

- a fact cannot be an idea; or a speculation. People have confused these two matters; and have likely done so intentionally. i.e. they want their theories to be seen as facts.

B. Reality, truth.
- The theologian Cornelius Van Til was famous (or infamous) for claiming there were (apart from revelation) no facts. He was, I think, referring to the idea of fact as truth. i.e. the realm of knowledge. Certainly things happen; but then people insist on putting some spin on them; and then declaring that their version of what happened is true. i.e. a fact. They insist their view of causation is a fact; their idea of responsibility, of motive, etc. These of course aren't facts; as Vtil was right to point out. You can't go from an event to a theory of causation without leaving the idea of fact behind; what you end up with isn't fact but speculation.

4. Maybe the hysteric who wrote this could tell us what reality is, and how they know this. One what level does this reality exist? (i.e. on what scale of being? Does reality exist on the macro level? On the micro level? On the particle level? Or what? And how does one know? Immanuel Kant denied man could know ultimate reality. If this' capster' knows better maybe he can enlighten us all. And what is the scientific basis for claims about reality? Can 'science' tell us what reality? Can anyone? How would we know? Is reality measurable? Can we observe it? Is it something everyone could agree on? Does it even exist?

5. I realize most scientists loathe philosophy, but when they enter the arena they must be prepared to start answering some tough questions. I for one can't take these opinions seriously. People who have no knowledge of philosophy can't expect to be taken seriously when they start spouting nonsense about facts, reality, etc.

6. Apparently this overwrought author has forgotten that 'modern science' was flourishing long before Darwin came along.

7. Because atheists, materialists, and Humanists think e. is true, doesn't make it true. If one is a materialist one is forced to be an evolutionist, this position on origins has nothing to do with discoveries in the created order, it's a simple necessity of adopting this world view. It's the height of arrogance to say there is no controversy here. (In my opinion evolution theory cannot be true, because 'life' cannot come from non-life. That's science; not the Darwinian fairy tale of spontaneous generation.)

8. How is saying evolution is a fact any different from saying materialism (atheism) is a fact?

Notes;
1. The Darwin Empire Strikes Back 03/14/2006 (Creation/Evolution Headlines)
'It would seem the ID republic is imprisoned on its own ice-world of Hoth, scrambling to escape as the empire has mobilized its machinery against the rebels. The AAAS, for instance, held its “Evolution on the Front Line” event in St. Louis and has posted its weaponry on its Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology website, along with portraits of its commanding generals: Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller and the rest.
2. What is reality? (This needs a separate post.)
3. I went to the 'Defend Science' website but was unable to see who wrote this 'cap' attack.
4. Apparently these people believe that people who call themselves scientists can live outside any moral or ethical law. Is this a fact? or an opinion? how does he know this? Is this a scientific discovery?
5. The main complaint seems to be that evil right wing Christians are slowing down the rate of scientific inquiry in certain areas. Well; how does Mr. Caps know things are moving too slow or too fast? (Many would think things are moving much too rapidly.) Is his idea things are moving too slow a fact? or an opinion?
6. Mr. caps apparently thinks people have no right to have a say in how their tax dollars are being used. Is this a fact? or is it merely his opinion? and how does he know? Is his view scientific? political? personal? arbitrary? Is this supposed to be science? was this 'fact' discovered on one of the missions to Mars? was it discovered in the jungles of the Amazon?
7. Is materialism a fact? or an opinion? is it a scientific discovery? or a religious commitment? how would one know? Is atheism a fact or an opinion?
8. Mr. Caps thinks he has a right to exactly the kind of world he wants, and that anything less than this is 'unacceptable' as he taps out repeatedly, like a mantra. Well; is that a fact? or is it an opinion? Does anyone get to live in a society exactly to their liking? Isn't that a tad unrealistic Mr. Caps? All societies have their 'conservative' and 'liberal' elements; have people who look to the past, and people who look to the future, and people who want to preserve the status quo. All societies are mixes of many different kinds of people. Apparently Mr. Caps is unaware of this; or wishes everyone was a clone of himself.
9. Mr. Caps seems to think a 'scientist' (whatever that is) can do exactly what he or she pleases. (As an aside was Mr. Kinsey a 'scientist' or a pervert?) He seems to think this is some kind of right I gather. Well is there such a right? Is it a fact a scientist can do exactly as he pleases? Or is it an opinion? A power claim? A faith claim? or what? And how is it we know this? Do we know it via the experimental method? By observation? By definition?
11. I wonder if this person finds reality acceptable :=) This is the revolutionary spirit; i.e. nothing but an exact replica of what I hold in my mind to be the ideal society is acceptable. Tens (and tens) of millions have died on account of that spirit. (And speaking of reality, nothing could be more unrealistic than the revolutionary spirit this 'capster' espouses.) How is this different from saying I find people different than myself unacceptable?
12. The irony in all this is that evolutionary theory can't give people any foundation for the moral outrage this person is engaging in. There is no morality in evolution. If we are all animals morality is a meaningless delusion. So only if e. is not true does anyone of what this Darwinian says make any sense. If (as Dawkins insists) man is just a mindless robot, a mere gene carrier deluded by 'his' genes, then none of this moral outrage makes any sense. This is the irrationalism that we see over and over in the c/e debate. If one has no free will one cannot be blamed for one's behavior and haranguing people is irrational. If one is a slave of one's genes it makes no sense to call people evil. If we are all animals then it makes no sense to talk of right and wrong. The evolutionist cannot bring his world view together; he's a radically split personality. On the one hand he says man is an animal, and then he says 'oh wait, man is Not just an animal.' He says 'man is controlled by his genes; but yet man is morally evil if he doesn't do what I say.'
13. What you'll notice is the old rhetorician's trick of condemning an idea by associating it with a person you know your audience loathes. e.g. G. Bush. (Well I'm little but critical of the Bushter, but I'm not going to dump my radical doubts about E. because Bush claims to have some doubts as well.) But obviously the slimeball argument goes; G. Bush is an evil man, G. Bush is a creationist; therefore creationism is evil. This is grossly offensive 'reasoning' if you want to call it reasoning.
14. The Capster (Mr. Caplock? Mr. Brainlock?) claims the evil Christian right is waging a war on some phantom he calls science. Is this a fact? or is it opinion? or delusion? or slander? and how do we know? did he discover this by the scientific method? is this claim science? (And can science tell us what science is?)
- addendum; the author of this declaration isn't the only evolutionist to get the 'cap attack. There was the infamous case of the National Geographic getting infantile with their type set. ['What they cannot ignore, however, is that large majorities in the public sector oppose the Darwin-only policy in education. That means the public also has become a target of abuse. This was obvious 17 months ago with the notorious National Geographic Nov. 2004 cover story, “Was Darwin Wrong?” answered inside with a paternal foot-stomp in bold 250-point type, NO]
- from Creation/Evolution Headlines
15. Because some Christians are against some things some scientists are doing is in no way equivalent to being opposed to what all scientists are doing, or the scientific project in general. This is simply fallacious reasoning.
16. The 'Defend Science' website is guilty in its very name of personification. Science isn't a person. Nor is there any universal entity we can call science.
17. As far as I know in times past only physical things or occurrences were called facts... theories weren't called facts. A fact was something that had happened. i.e. we saw the ship sank; therefore it was a fact that the ship sank. i.e. a 'fact' had to have eye witnesses. (This doesn't mean they were always correct.) A theory, by its very nature, can't be a fact. It is rather an attempt to explain puzzling phenomena.
18. Let's be clear; 'scientists' have Always complained about the lack of funding (the divine right to have tax dollars; the divine right to get one's snout in the public trough :=) and interference, and in public ignorance, etc. So let's not get hysterical about it.
19. The great joke here is that while the Capster denounces Christian moralism (or whatever he calls it), he yet he demands the right to steal people's money... and demands the gov. defend this right to steal. He also demands people allow this theft, demands they don't retaliate, etc. All of this depends on the veracity of moral truth; which evolutionism would make impossible. This is irrrationalism on stilts. On the one hand he denounces morality, but all the while depending on it for his existence. (One wonders why if 'scientists' can do as they please... defy all moral law and tradition... everyone cannot play this game? i.e. why should people in lab coats be exempt from the laws everyone else has to obey? On the basis of materialism there is no possible answer... except that of power politics.)
20. The amount of energy, materials, time, resources, money, etc. that go into convincing people evolution theory is true is so considerable as to be almost incalculable. Never have people spent so much (even if against their will) to have their own beliefs destroyed. I see this as possibly the most bizarre social incident in the history of mankind. Surely trillions of dollars have been spent to get people to believe this bit of philosophical speculation. There are literally millions of people working daily at the project. They endless fabricate 'just so' stories designed to deceive naive students. They fill textbooks with phoney pictures and fallacious claims. (One could go on and on.) Darwinism has Nothing to do with science at all; are we supposed to believe that if Darwin hadn't come along science would have ground to a halt?) At the very least it has no necessary relation to mainstream science. (Has it got anything to do with gravity? electricity, energy? heat? light? magnetism? etc. This is what real science is about.) Darwinism is just Materialism, disguised (and tottering) under a large and silly hat. (You know... the kind English royalty wear at 'important' horse races and cricket matches :=) One wonders why they don't they spend all this money (etc.) on teaching logic? (Oh wait, I think I know.)
21. Darwinism should be left behind. It was a product of the Industrial revolution, of a time where the elite imagined all things would be made anew; and that everything people in the past believed was wrong. The Victorians lived (for a dizzying moment) at the top of a tall wave. They imagined England would rule the world forever, and they couldn't imagine their new gurus could be wrong about anything. So great was their mania they thought every idea they ever dreamed up just had to be true.
22. When evolutionists say evolution is a fact one wonders what they mean. Do they mean evolutionary theory isn't subject to refutation? If that's the case, E. isn't science; as most definitions insist a theory be subject to revision and refutation.