Chapter Six - What is a Theory?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the word “theory” as it applies to the subject at hand has the following definition:theory n. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
In short, a theory is an idea that somebody has come up with to explain things that have been observed. The concept is very simple. For example, let us say that I took a rock and dropped it. I would observe the rock falling to the ground. If I didn’t already understand how and why that happened (i.e. gravity), I may come up with an idea, or theory, to explain why things fall when you drop them.
The Hydroplate Theory looks at over 20 major “mysteries” and phenomena (as listed earlier) and explains them all with a simple, yet powerful event: the global flood. This event which was caused by the eruption of water from beneath the surface of the earth triggered a series of events which all explain the current mysteries that we now observe.
How to Evaluate a Theory
Since theories are ideas which come from men, there must be a proper way to evaluate them and check their validity, accuracy, and tenability. It is unfortunate that in our day many popular theories are not subject to proper scrutiny or evaluation, but are believed mostly on the grounds of their popularity, or the apparent authority of the scientist(s) who came up with the theory. In other words, some theories, such as evolution, are not properly evaluated for plausibility. They are simply believed by people to be true because many “big-name” scientific authorities support the idea. Also, people often believe in a theory because they want it to be true. Other people accept the idea (theory) because it is constantly promoted as being true through the public education process. This is the same way the advertising gurus on Madison Avenue sell us mainstream products and services. Instead of actually educating you as to what the differences are between products in the marketplace and why their product is superior or unique, they simply show us a celebrity or familiar face utilizing the product. Then, they spend millions of dollars repeating the advertising in every medium you can think of, so as to ingrain the image of it on your mind.This is how evolution and some other theories are propagated. They must be propagated and taught this way because these theories do not stand up to the test of attentive scrutiny. However, this does not have to be the case. There are very simple ways to evaluate theories, and you do not have to be a rocket-scientist, nor a brain surgeon to do it. However, you do have to be open-minded, have common sense, and use logic.
In order to use a theory to explain an unobserved event scientifically, we first have to assume what the conditions were that existed before the event occurred. Assumptions are not made blindly however, nor are they pulled “out of thin air.” This is easy to understand. Think about it – if you were not there to witness an event take place, you have to make certain basic assumptions concerning the conditions or surroundings of the event, before the event actually took place. Since you arrived after the event actually took place, you would still be able see the remnants or the leftovers of the event, and you could therefore make some simple assumptions. Once you have determined the basic starting conditions, you then try to determine what the laws of physics dictate would happen.
Police detectives and forensics experts do this all the time. When at the scene of a crime or accident, it is the job of detectives to determine “what happened?” For example, they may not have witnessed a car accident take place, but they know that one did take place because there are two wrecked cars in the middle of the intersection. The detective was not there to witness the accident, so he has to theorize scientifically how this accident took place. He cannot simply say that the red car must have run the red light and hit the blue one because it is a red car, and everybody knows that red cars go fast. He cannot come to a conclusion that suits his fancy simply because he is intellectually lazy or because he has ulterior motives (for example, the driver of the red car is his enemy). He must follow logical steps to come to a logical conclusion based on the evidence and the laws of physics.
First, he would assume certain starting conditions. For example, he may assume, based on what he can see, that the blue car was traveling north and the red car was traveling south. He may assume that the blue car tried to turn onto the perpendicular street at the intersection and the red car hit him. These are logical assumptions that can be made simply by looking at the wreckage and skid marks. However, there is still much to learn. Was the light red when the cars entered the intersection? How fast were they going? Who had the right of way? Is the damage more or less than what should be expected?
Once these answers are scientifically produced using measurements, calculations, and other scientific methods, the explanation (or theory) should then be evaluated based on the following three criteria:
Criterion 1: Process
Process simply means that our assumptions should bring results based on well-established, known processes. For example, if I walked into a field and saw a truck in the middle of a field, I may theorize that this truck arrived there in the field when a squirrel buried a seed in the middle of the field 2000 years ago. Over time, the seed sprouted and turned into this truck. Of course this sounds crazy, but the reason it sounds crazy is because there is no known process that would turn a seed into a truck!So, a good theory should use explanations that are based upon known processes, or newly discovered processes that can be tested to be true. Theories that call upon “unknown processes” to explain our current observations should be avoided because they are not scientific.
Additionally, explanations should be able to explain many observations. For example, let us say I had observed the scene of the above mentioned car-wreck and took notice of the following:
1. There is a large crack in the radiator of the blue car.
2. The air bag in the red car was deployed.
3. There are two pairs of skid marks traveling north/south.
4. The axle of the red car is broken.
5. The signal lights are not working.
After taking some measurements and making some calculations, my conclusion and description of how the car accident took place should be able to explain all of these various observations. If my description easily explains all of these observations, then we would conclude that my explanation may be correct. However, if my description of the way that the accident happened conflicts with known scientific processes, or if it just does not explain certain observations, then we would conclude that the description is false.
So, if we can easily explain many different observations with an explanation, then our confidence in that explanation should increase. However, if our explanation should have produced certain results, but these results cannot be found, then our confidence in that explanation should decrease. For example, many people have asked the question, “What caused the dinosaurs to die out?” Since this was an unobserved event, that cannot be repeated, we ought to first consider criterion 1. Here is a perfect opportunity to test how to evaluate a theory with this simple criterion…
Some theories that attempt to explain how many dinosaurs “died out,” assume that huge climate changes were at the root of their deaths. While it is possible that climate changes may kill dinosaurs, we must also (by criterion 1), consider the other consequences of dramatic climate change. Flowering plants and smaller animals would be even more susceptible to death from dramatic climate changes. Since most of these plants and animals did not “die out,” or become extinct with the dinosaurs, then the “climatic change” theories are weakened substantially and should not be accepted. We see then how that theory does not survive simple scientific analysis or scrutiny.
Criterion 2: Parsimony
Parsimony generally means to be extremely frugal or stingy. Some people who would be considered parsimonious may otherwise consider themselves people who are always just trying to get “the most bang for the buck.” In other words, they are always trying to get the most production using the least amount of resources as possible.Science has applied this principle to theories, as well. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the law of parsimony is defined as:
law of parsimony - Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data.
In short, all this really means is that it is best to make the fewest assumptions as possible when theorizing. If just a few assumptions can explain many different results, then we should have great confidence in the explanation (and the assumptions). However, if the explanation is so illogical that more and more assumptions are constantly being added to explain why it does not agree with established laws and processes, then we should not have confidence in that explanation.
For example, the theory of evolution is one big assumption. However, before evolution can begin taking place, we must first come to the origin of life question: where did the first form of life come from? Since scientific laws dictate that living organisms cannot arise from non-living matter, believers and supporters in evolution have to continually make more assumptions to explain why their theory contradicts known scientific laws. In the case of the origin of life, the best answer that most evolutionists can come up with is to assume that some “unknown process,” caused life to arise from non-living matter. In fact, the whole evolutionary process is a theory which is founded on hundreds of assumptions (that’s not parsimony), and even hundreds more unknown processes. Is this scientific? No! Evolution will never stand up to the three criteria of effective theory evaluation. It never has and it never will.
Criterion 3: Prediction
Science allows us to make predictions about many things that we do or observe in life. For example, the scientific explanation for gravity would allow us to predict that when you let go of something, it will fall to the ground. However, this is a very simple and oft repeatable event. In fact, it is so common that it is universally accepted and expected. However, where true science really shines is when it is able to predict something that is unusual or would not normally be expected.A legitimate theory will allow us to make such predictions and demonstrate them to be true when you look in the right places and make the proper measurements and observations. When the predictions are demonstrated and substantiated to be true, then our confidence in the explanation should again be greatly enhanced. Published predictions are the most important test of any scientific theory. Anybody can find an unusual piece of evidence and then later claim, “I knew that was going to happen.” However, only a studious scientist who has properly examined and evaluated his theory would be confident enough to make multiple published predictions. Few evolutionists make predictions.
Finally, let us note that scientific explanations can never really be certain, absolute, or final. Even the word “prove,” is mostly used improperly and is never really justified except possibly in mathematics and in a court of law. Additionally, we must note that science is even less certain when dealing with ancient, unrepeatable events such as the flood and other events in Bible history. Since it is impossible to have all of the data and it is impossible to consider all of the possibilities and since the events took place so long ago, it is possible to overlook certain variables or improperly apply the laws of physics.
Unfortunately, this is the only way to more properly learn about and understand unobservable and unrepeatable events using science. Although we may not be able to explain, nor understand every detail and nuance of a particular event in history, proper scientific evaluation will still allow us to have confidence in certain conclusions.
As stated earlier, let us remember that the Bible is the only authority we have for these ancient events. However, the Bible does not give us scientific detail regarding theses events, it only gives us the historic authority for the events. Therefore, if the Bible declares it, then we can know definitively that it is the truth. Science then, when properly applied, should bring us explanations that support the historical record of the Bible, and also withstand proper scientific evaluations. The explanation then may not necessarily be completely “authoritative,” but it should bring us as close as possible to the truth with the currently available data.
In the end, let us remember, that proper scientific process (in this case) will only bring us to a place of great confidence in the theory at hand, but only the Bible can be taken as an absolute, infallible authority.