Despite numerous articles on the subject, courtesy of Till and me, creationists still submit essays demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the reasoning process. How many times do we have to repeat ourselves?
In particular, Dr. James D. Price begins his article with this statement: "It is true that a person who defends the truth of a debated proposition must present convincing evidence to support its truth. But the person who denies the truth of the proposition has the burden to convincingly disprove the proposition-- that is the real burden of proof. The proof of a proposition is in the failure to prove the denial.... Why should the burden of proof be one-sided?"
The first portion of Dr. Price's statement is technically correct, but neither Till nor any other skeptic need take that position. We are simply saying that we won't buy his goods unless he convinces us of their value. We are not saying that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that his goods are rotten. The burden of proof is clearly on his shoulders.
The second portion of his statement is, of course, absurd. A proposition is not proven by a failure to disprove it! It is not my job to prove that giant, green spiders are not hiding out in San Diego! The great, green-spider conspiracy does not become acceptable public knowledge just because I can't disprove it! Wake up and smell the coffee!
Thus, all that Till needs to do, and has done, is to show that Dr. James Price's thesis is far from compelling. Strong disproof is hardly necessary. The reason that the burden of proof is one-sided is that reliable public knowledge must be safeguarded against nonsense. If we are to weed out the giant-green-spider theories, then we must insist upon positive, compelling evidence--and not the lack of strong disproof--as the criteria. Otherwise, public knowledge becomes a total joke where anything goes.
Dr. James Price refers to the matter of extraordinary proof as an"alleged" law of evidence. Whether it is a formal law or not is of no interest to me; it is, however, absolutely necessary for the accumulation of reliable knowledge. It is based on the concept of accepting the probable over the improbable, which makes good sense if we are trying to collect sound knowledge on any subject.
Dr. Price asks how extraordinary a proof must be before it is accepted. In matters of science, we must ask whether it is more probable that a thoroughly tested law, which has successfully explained a great deal of nature, has failed or whether claims of its failure, which can often be traced to lies, confusion, distorted third-hand information, etc., are unsound. In that case, the proof must be so extraordinary that it is easier to believe that the law of science has failed than that a lie, confusion or faulty report has been involved. Clearly, that means the kind of scientific documentation that is available for all to see, one that forcefully rules out the alternatives.
Historical claims involving miracles, in the full supernatural sense of the word, are claims that scientific law has failed. Generally, the circumstances involved in those claims are beyond investigation, making extraordinary proof impossible. Rather than saying that such claims are clearly false, the skeptic need only note that scientific law is far more believable. That is, we reject the miracle because it is very likely a false or distorted claim. Accumulating sound public knowledge means rejecting claims that, in principle, might be right. We must accept the probable over the very improbable, and that's the bottom line.
Consequently, the skeptic will continue to demand that extraordinary claims be accompanied by extraordinary proof. There is no alternative if we seek to accumulate sound knowledge.
The data collected by Robert Ripley does not generally, if ever, run contrary to scientific law. Consequently, the standards of reasonable proof are much lower. Do strange oddities occur in nature? Absolutely! Thus, the real question is whether Ripley accurately recorded his data. Since many of his claims are backed by numerous photographs, records or even direct physical evidence, enough to fill a museum and make it interesting, we are well within reasonable bounds to accept most of it without further proof. The "bias" that Dr. Price lays against the principle of extraordinary proof is revealed as nothing more than good sense.
Miraculous prediction, as in biblical prophecy, does not necessarily violate scientific law, but it does involve the acquiring of knowledge in a manner that has never been verified. Nor has science given us a theoretically sound framework to explain how such prophecy might reasonably occur. To the extent that mediums have been competently investigated, in the past as well as the present, the claim of miraculous prophecy has always proven false or unconvincing. Thus, we have neither the theoretical groundwork nor a single, proven example of miraculous prophecy.
We must ask which is more probable, that a few individuals in the Mideast had special powers during biblical times, men associated with a particular religious cult, or that the usual, faulty claims, lies, misunderstandings and later manipulations of history have occurred. Clearly, the odds are heavily in favor of the latter. Any proof of miraculous prophecy must be so strong, so extraordinary, as to make the latter the less likely case. Not only is such proof lacking, but in many cases we have good evidence that biblical "prophecies" were written down after the event in question! There is also good evidence that many of the events and characteristics attributed to Jesus have been lifted from the Old Testament by New Testament authors! Thus, it is hardly surprising that there are some parallels between the Old Testament and the Jesus story.
Dr. James Price attempts to give the principle of extraordinary proof this strange twist: "To those who believe in an omniscient God, the idea of fulfilled prophecy attributed to Him is not a fabulous claim, but what one would reasonably expect. To them an instance of such fulfilled prophecy requires only ordinary, not extraordinary, evidence as sufficient reason to believe it."
The principle of extraordinary proof has nothing to do with what some individual or group believes! Believers in the great, green-spider conspiracy may find claims that giant, green spiders have been spotted in San Diego to be the expected, ordinary thing. However, they are not exempt from the need to present extraordinary proof. Similarly, just because Dr. Price belongs to a group that views the Bible as God-breathed does not exempt him from the need to present extraordinary proof for miraculous prophecy.
The criteria that determines whether an argument needs extraordinary proof or not is that old question: "Which is more probable, given actual track records and the results of careful investigation?" The less probable an event, compared to the alternatives, the more extraordinary the required proof. No unreasonable presupposition is involved here, only a straightforward application of good reasoning.
Arguments involving supernatural miracles, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, require extraordinary proof. Miraculous prophecy is in a similar position. In both cases the burden of the proof is squarely on the shoulders of the believer. To win his or her case, the skeptic need only show that the arguments in its favor are not compelling. The skeptic does not have to disprove the claims. The skeptic's claim is that supernatural miracles and miraculous prophecy should presently be rejected as extremely unlikely, not that they have been proven false beyond any possible doubt.
(Dave Matson, editor, The Oak Hill Free Press, P.O. Box
61274, Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
