Which is more likely? That some inexplicable force can cause electrons, atoms, molecules, cells and organs to violate the known laws of physics and chemistry, or that wishful thinking, error, ignorance or fraud make it appear so? Which is more likely that the comment popularized by Mark Twain that there are, "lies, damned lies or statistics" is in operation or that a miracle has taken place? For make no mistake about it, intercessory prayer is a miraculous process, and no more amenable to scientific study than the existence of God. So to claim to have found evidence for its existence is equivalent to having discovered evidence for the existence of God.

Apparently Mr. David Hodge (and "researchers" of his ilk) has never had a course in the philosophy of science, because if he had, he would be aware of the "lemon test" for miracles.

In 1748 the great Scottish philosopher, David Hume, said that "(n)o testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be even more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. . . " Hume concludes his point by saying: "When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

This admonition by Hume is the bedrock principle for the scientific study of the physical world. To violate it is to admit that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, including evolution and astronomy, do not operate according to the evidence of four-hundred years of painstaking discovery.

There is incredible irony in "experiments" and "meta-analyses" such as Hodges' involving intercessory prayer. He is claiming to have found evidence of a most trivial kind that could even be mistaken for a statistical artifact, from an alleged Power of the most unimaginable magnitude. Power that presumably was the source of the astounding creation of hundreds of billions of galaxies, which are composed of hundreds of trillions of stars, dotted with singularities and "black holes" possessing immense gravity and crushing annihilatory densities; all of which are dancing with exquisite accuracy in spectacular elliptical orbits over a time- and distance-span of 14 billion light years; Power that has designed astonishingly complex molecular systems, composed of amazingly intricate atomic foundations; all operating according to the mechanics of gravity and other little-understood forces that bind atomic nuclei together while swarms of electrons maintain their balance around their stupendously dense centers in microscopic imitation of the grander galaxies; Power that orchestrated the rules of light propagation and spectrums of colors all arranged in fantastically diverse, visible, as well as invisible, wavelengths and patterns.

Meanwhile, experimenters like Hodge seek evidence of this breathtaking immensity by statistically manipulating numbers and probabilities to find a barely measurable difference on some ambiguous criterion between groups of people who were prayed for and a few others who were not (e.g., a difference in blood pressure between one group with hypertension who were prayed for and another group that was not.) It is as if one were asking a composer with a quadrillion times the musical capacity and comprehension of a Ludwig Von Beethoven to demonstrate his musicianship by writing out the notes to "Three Blind Mice."

So I ask the intelligent and scientific reader, which is more likely, that four centuries of the accumulated knowledge of all combined scientific disciplines is wrong, or that Hodge is either ignorant, careless or deceitful?

The so-called meta-analysis of Hodge is nothing more than a statistical shell game. The author states that the "results are small but significant at the .015 level." This canard will go unnoticed by the overwhelming majority of readers, but let's look at what it means.

The phrase "statistically significant" means, that there is some chance that the result is an accidental finding when, in fact, there really is nothing to be found.

In many instances of scientific investigation, it is reasonable and appropriate to say, "Yes there is a chance that this is untrue, but only appears to be true, so (for the time being) we�ll accept it as probably true." But not when accepting the possibility of miracles.

Here the stakes have to be extraordinarily higher, because we, in effect are accepting "The Infinite" as a manipulable cause and should be very cautious when doing so. Why, because to accept the manipulation of The Infinite is to destroy the position of science as the best way of interpreting the physical world. To accept that Hodge�s work has meaning is to discount the ideas of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Darwin and all the other geniuses of scientific thought, and say (to paraphrase Hume) that "the falsehood of Hodge's testimony would be more miraculous, than that these giants have all been right."

Posted by: Gil Gaudia, Ph.D. at March 26, 2007 6:51 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):