Hisotircal Science vs. Empirical Science

[Note to reader: This article is part of a series exposing the false science presented in a widely used college biology textbook. Once the series is complete, it will be available as a free ebook on this website. The first part can be viewed here]

To introduce the importance of critical thinking in the study of science—or any subject in college and beyond—this book opens with a statement from What Is Life?. Jay Phelan writes:

Here’s something important to know: science doesn’t require advanced degrees of secret knowledge dispensed over years of technical training. It does, however, require an important feature of our species: a big brain, as well as curiosity and a desire to learn.¹⁾Jay Phelan, What is Life?: A Guide to Biology (Third Edition), W.H. Freeman & Company (New York, NY: 2015), p. 2

This raises important questions: Is brain size a definitive feature of humanity? Do smaller brains indicate reduced intelligence? Would a person with a smaller stature—and consequently a smaller brain—necessarily have a lower IQ?

The implication of Phelan’s statement is that larger brains equate to higher intelligence, while smaller brains suggest diminished cognitive ability. This idea is a common misconception deeply embedded in evolutionary thought. The assumption is that humans evolved larger brains from ape-like ancestors, thereby gaining superior intellectual capacity. However, this very logic was refuted by evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1981),²⁾Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, W. W. Norton & Company Inc. (New York, NY: 1981). where he demonstrated the error of assuming skull size directly reflects intelligence. Gould further exposed how this notion reinforced the racist ideologies prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

One geologist recalls his experience as a college student (1979–1982), where the flawed concept of brain size and intelligence was still perpetuated:

In one sociology class, the professor made derogatory remarks about women – that they had smaller brains and therefore were not as intelligent as men Remarkably, no one, not even the women in the class, questioned these claims. Later, I learned that this colossal ignorance stemmed from the earlier 19^th-century evolutionary beliefs. As I understand it now, brain size in humans has little or nothing to do with intelligence.³⁾Roger G. Sigler II, in Persuaded by the Evidence: True Stories of Faith, Science and the Power of the Creator (Ed. Doug Sharp and Jerry Bergman), Master Books (Green Forest, AR: 2008), p. 130

This persistent blunder of science and logic continues to appear in modern education.

Phelan’s Definition of Scientific Thinking

Phelan attempts to define “scientific thinking” in broad terms:

Scientific thinking is important in the study of a wide variety of topics: it can help you understand economics, psychology, history, and many other subjects.⁴⁾Jay Phelan, What is Life?: A Guide to Biology (Third Edition), W.H. Freeman & Company (New York, NY: 2015), p. 3

He further explains:

Knowledge about history, for example, comes from a systematic examination of past events as they relate to humans, while the “truths” in other fields, such as religion, ethics, and even politics, often are based on personal faith, traditions, and mythology.

Scientific thinking can be distinguished from these alternative ways of acquiring knowledge about the world in that it is empirical. Empirical knowledge is based on experience and observations that are rational, testable, and repeatable.⁵⁾Jay Phelan, What is Life?: A Guide to Biology (Third Edition), W.H. Freeman & Company (New York, NY: 2015), p. 6

At first glance, this seems like a clear distinction. Yet, when examined critically, Phelan’s argument appears inconsistent. For instance, can psychology or history be considered “empirical sciences”? Historical events cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. By his own definition, history does not qualify as empirical science. Moreover, throughout his textbook, Phelan treats evolutionary claims—concerning events allegedly occurring millions of years ago—as if they were empirical, when in reality they fall under historical interpretation, not repeatable science.

His statement also diminishes religion, equating it with mythology and subjective tradition. But if historical evidence can be provided for a religious claim, would that elevate it beyond “personal faith”? Christianity, for example, presents historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this event can be reasonably argued as historically probable, it challenges Phelan’s dismissal of religion as inherently unempirical.

Historical Probability and Religious Claims

Distinguished scholars of the historical Jesus acknowledge that history operates within categories of probability rather than certainty. N. T. Wright explains:

I use the word “probable” in the common-sense historians’ way… that is to say, as a way of indicating that the historical evidence, while comparatively rarely permitting a conclusion of “certain,” can acknowledge a scale from, say, “extremely unlikely,” through “possible,” “plausible,” and “probable,” to “highly probable.”⁶⁾N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Fortress (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), p. 687

John Meier likewise states:

I will content myself with such general judgements as ‘very probable,’ ‘more probable,’ ‘less probable,’ ‘unlikely,’ etc.⁷⁾John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Doubleday (New York, NY: 1991), Vol. 1, p. 33

JSimilarly, James Dunn affirms:

almost certain (never simply ‘certain’), very probable, probable, likely, possible, and so on. In historical scholarship the judgement ‘probable’ is a very positive verdict.⁸⁾James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Eerdmans (Grand Rapid, MI: 2003), p. 103

Interestingly, Phelan himself acknowledges this distinction:

As one of several approaches to the acquisition of knowledge, the scientific method is, above all, empirical. It differs from non-scientific approaches such as mathematics and logic, history, music, and the study of artistic expression in that it relies on measuring phenomena in some way.⁹⁾Jay Phelan, What is Life?: A Guide to Biology (Third Edition), W.H. Freeman & Company (New York, NY: 2015), p. 29

Here Phelan concedes that history is not empirical science, yet he repeatedly treats evolutionary history as though it were.

The Origin of Life: A Contradiction in Cell Theory

The inconsistency of Phelan’s reasoning becomes more evident when he addresses the cell theory:

The facts that (1) all living organisms are made up of one or more cells and (2) all cells arise from other preexisting living cells are the foundations of cell theory, one of the unifying theories in biology, and one that is universally accepted by all biologists. As we see in Chapter 10, the origin of life on earth was a one time deviation from cell theory; the first cells on earth probably originated from free-floating molecules in the oceans early in the earth’s history (about 3.5 billion years ago). Since that time, however, all cells and thus all life have been produced as a continuous line of cells, originating from these initial cells.¹⁰⁾Jay Phelan, What is Life?: A Guide to Biology (Third Edition), W.H. Freeman & Company (New York, NY: 2015), p. 87

Here, the very foundation of evolutionary theory rests upon an exception to established empirical science. Phelan admits the origin of life was a “one time deviation” from cell theory. By his own description, this event is neither observable nor repeatable, making it a philosophical assumption rather than empirical science. The insistence on a naturalistic origin of life stems not from evidence, but from atheistic presuppositions.

Changing Beliefs

Finally, Phelan asserts:

The scientific method (observation, hypothesis, prediction, test, and conclusion) is a flexible, adaptable, and efficient pathway to understanding the world, because it tells us when we must change our beliefs.¹¹⁾Jay Phelan, What is Life?: A Guide to Biology (Third Edition), W.H. Freeman & Company (New York, NY: 2015), p. 8

This statement is clearly intended to suggest that religious beliefs must yield to scientific discovery. Yet, when examined critically, it is the atheistic commitment to naturalistic evolution that fails to meet the criteria of empirical science. If one applies the same method of critical evaluation Phelan promotes, the conclusion is unavoidable: it is not faith in God that must be abandoned, but rather the philosophical presuppositions underpinning evolution.