Hamza Tzortzis, Evolution and the Epistemology Argument

eschew_obfuscation

An email popped up in my inbox last week and caught my interest. “Science explains everything…doesn’t it?” – it read. Now this was a bit odd as I have yet to come across a science book where the scientist has claimed that science explains everything. Science by its very nature is a continuous work in progress.

Nevermind, I thought, I’ll bite, and read the rest of the email which appeared to be an invitation to attend a forthcoming talk by a Muslim speaker called Hamza Tzortzis. A quick check on Google revealed that this chap had written a lengthy 2013 article entitled “Has Evolution Been Misunderstood? Revelation, Science and Certainty.”

Now, I have read many articles by Muslims about evolution. The vast majority of them have been disappointingly poor and I have written elsewhere about the misinformation I have come across about evolution from Muslims and have also debated the issue with Harun Yahya (a prolific Muslim author of anti-evolution polemics). Would Hamza Tzortzis prove different and discuss the topic of evolution sensibly? The title of the email did not inspire much hope in that direction but who knew? So I read his article…

Well, it was almost 8000 words long. 8000 words of tedious mind-numbing waffle. Scrape away the bullshit and the argument that he appeared to be making was that the topic of evolution should be discussed from an “epistemic approach. We believe that this approach exposes the false assumption that the theory of evolution is a fact, or is certain.”

Tzortzis criticised the way the discussion around evolution has usually been framed and said that “… there is a hidden premise. This premise is that science produces certainty, evolution is fact and science is the only way to establish or verify truth claims.”

Just like the title of the email, this passage was misleading. I have yet to come across a scientist that claims that science produces certainty. Every decent book I have read says that the scientific method produces only approximations to truth and that as our theories improve over time, so should our understanding of reality or truth, but that we can never achieve 100% certainty (and there is a reason for this as we will see in a minute or two).

Now, as it happens, evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. I could try and explain this but why bother when the Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould explains it so much more clearly in an extract on the Talk Origins website (the full article “Evolution is a Fact and a Theory” at the above link is a must read – just compare it with the one from Tzortzis and the difference is between day and night).

In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”–part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science–that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.

So, to return to Tzortzis’s epistemology argument – that evolution cannot be proven with 100% certainty, this is a familiar trope and every bit as misleading as the argument about “facts”. Here is H.J. Muller as quoted in Talk Origins:

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ….

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

It is always depressing to hear Muslims such as Tzortzis offer such breathtakingly poor arguments against evolution. It reminds you of the terrible contemporary state of much of Muslim civilisation. Tzortzis claims in his article that Islam is “pro-science” and I do agree with that. It is just that I am not convinced that most Muslims (including Tzortzis) are pro-science. And that is a tragedy.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Islam, Science & Evolution and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Hamza Tzortzis, Evolution and the Epistemology Argument

  1. Abu Fatimah says:

    You contradicted yourself here bro. You started off by saying that science doesn’t deal with certainty, only the best approximations and and incremental knowledge, then go on the call evolution a “fact”. Here is the definition of a fact from the oxford dictionary, which clearly contradicts your first premise of science not dealing with certainty:

    “NOUN

    1A thing that is known or proved to be true:
    the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas
    [MASS NOUN]: a body of fact”

    I work in the field of science myself and am more towards the physics side of things so choose not to take a position on the evolution debate as I don’t know enough and don’t have an inclination to learn, it’s not going to affect my hereafter. I am interested to follow the discourse but you have completely contradicted yourself here and it looks like you are just parrotting what you have read from a wannabe scientist pseudo atheist blog or forum or facebook group.

    I spent a long time speaking to such people in the past to understand what their way of thinking is, and I realized science is just a mantra for these people. Most of them have no grounding in science at all. Go to any university atheist society and you will find the majority of members are not students of science

  2. Erm…I thought I had made it clear that the whole point of my blog was to show how Hamza Tzortzis had misleadingly used the words “fact” and “certainty” to create confusion about evolution.

    I quoted scientists as saying they use those words rather differently to how we do in normal speech. So, a “fact” in science would be (in Stephen Jay Gould’s words) something that is “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.”

    That indeed seems to be a fair description of the state of evolution.

    In my experience, those with the most problems regarding evolution are those who have allowed their thinking to be imprisoned inside a very narrow interpretation of religion. Something very similar happened to the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo. It is desperately sad to see it happening to Muslims today in such vast numbers.

  3. LibertyPhile says:

    “It reminds you of the terrible contemporary state of much of Muslim civilisation.”

    It reminds me of all the reasons why Islam is such a backward and inappropriate* body of belief. Abu Fatimah’s reply rubs it in.

    *As a scientist I won’t say “incorrect” as such a “body of belief” is not subject to scientific analysis (so far!).

  4. Robert says:

    Any proper scientific proof and evidence to back up this pseudoscience called evolution?

    The Lenski experiment involving trillions of unicellular bacteria subjected too all sorts of chemical, biological, physical and environmental pressures over 20 years was an utter failure because despite the bacteria having generation time of only 20-30 minutes the single-celled organism simply stayed a single cell. In 150 years of bacteriology there hasnt been any incident whatsoever of a single cell bacteria forming multicellular organism of two cells despite ridiculous numbers of experiments using all sorts of chemical, physical, biological and environmental pressures

    What about the lack of transitional fossils which led Stephen Jay Gould to come up with another hocus pocus fairytale – “Punctured equilibrium” ?

    Then theres the incredible amount of lies and fabrications. One example is regarding the hocus pocus story regarding the modern day whale evolving from a land mammal called Pakicetus. Then theres the stuff about Coelacanth, Archaeopteryx, Platypus and so on and so forth

    Infact I cant be asked because the whole bloody thing is codswallop pseudoscience and the tales change every bloody day

  5. Robert says:

    As for Hamza Tzortis – Ive seen him in action and quite frankly im in agreement with Inayat – I dont know what the bloody thing he is on about as he talked so much rubbish and very incoherent crap. A complete and utter waste of time

  6. “I have yet to come across a scientist that claims that science produces certainty”

    Just read anything written by Richard Dawkins

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s