Why I believe in Creation not Evolution.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Science is the testing of observation and empirical data against claims using carefully constructed procedures designed to eliminate human error and bias. Faith is belief something in spite of the evidence.

O LLC, this is just indefensible. Try to establish this in a way that you can demonstrate, because this is simply not the case at all.

Check this out:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

(Richard Lewontin, Review of Sagan's 'The Demon-Haunted World', in New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp.28,31

When Mary Schwitzer discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones, she notes "I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said, 'Well, what data would convince you?' And he said, 'None.'" (source: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna)

To suggest that what passes as science is somehow unbiased is simply ignorant of what transpires.

That is why it is called 'Faith'.

Merriam Websters:

Faith (noun) - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

This is a terrible definition of faith. Faith is any belief in which someone has an investment regarding reliability.

I have faith in my wife. That isn't because there's no evidence that she's faithful, but because she's demonstrated evidence of fidelity. If there was good enough evidence that she was unfaithful, at some point I'd probably have to accept such evidence as proof.

If I were to accept the definition according to Merriam Websters, I would have to stop saying that I have faith in God and young earth creationism since they're based on evidence and reason, but that evolution is based on faith since it's based on irrational, counter-intuative, empirically falsified philosophical materialistic reductionism.

But that doesn't get us anywhere, so why don't we examine evidence instead of making unsubstantiated generalizations?

[Don Fanucci]

Out of the millions of scientists on the planet, you cherry pick a handful of statemnets that are about God.

If I listed some obscure backyard scientists then you might have a point, but some of the names are highly respected scientists that are making irresponsible statements. Stephen Hawking and Edwin Hubble are representatives of their fields.

Two would be consistent with my claim of a handful out of millions, and these two are not biologists.

Then you have Scientific American making a clear statement when they refused to hire an experienced science writer, not because of merit or lack thereof, but because he believed in creation. Again this isn't some obscure example but a very popular and highly esteemed scientific magazine making decisions based on an anti-religious bias instead of sticking to doing science.

You've been told over and over again how faith does not fit into science, no matter what religion we are talking about. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Are you aware that we make a distinction between origins science and operational science?

Let me make a declaration so that I can refer to it, in future.

Declaration S1

We YECs (if any YECs here object let me know) distinguish between origins science and operational science. We define origins science as the speculations about the unobservable and untestable past that attempt to explain how natural phenomena and processes came about, (macroevolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory etc).

We define operational science as the study of processes that is observable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable in the present (chemistry, medicine, physics, information science etc)

We do not have any objections to proper repeatable, testable, falsifiable operational science, however we do object to naturalistic origins science.

Given declaration A above, I trust you understand that we do not have a problem with medicine, as it is testable and repeatable in the present.

As I've noted, creation science isn't science, so no, I'm not familiar with the terms "origins science and operational science" since they are not scientific terms, they are religious terms.

[LuftWaffle]

Hi D-9,

Thank you for your calm and peaceable response, it is refreshing.

I'm saying that the methodology of science has nothing to do with religion. It's no surprise that the history of science involves religion as it is fairly ubiquitous among time and cultures around the world. There are many religious scientists out there and they do just fine work, however they don't integrate their religion into their methodology (with the exception of creation "scientists").

Indeed religion is fairly ubiquitous, but is still just pagan cultures or the Eastern cultures that produced this flowering of science. It is the Christian culture in particular and the reason for this is simply because Christianity believes in a rational God of order and therefore believes that the created universe must be rational and orderly. The very foundation of science is a logical outflow of the Christian worldview.

This is why I'm saying that the objection, that allowing for supernatural explanation in terms of origins will not affect the progress of science because historically science was born from precisely that idea. Again note the distinction we make between origins and operational science. Methodological naturalism is a good rule to apply to operational science, but applying it to origins rules out anything but natural origins, but bring it into the world of religion, whether one admits it or not.

I think we have to distinguish between the personal stances scientists take (they are people too after all) and the scientific methodology. Also I think we need to distinguish between debunking God versus debunking physical claims about God's actions and so forth. For example if you say God made a world wide flood, such a flood would have left certain physical marks (namely a world wide sediment layer) and we can go out and see if the evidence supports a world wide flood. It is sort of bringing God in through the back door as claims about God are connected through physical evidence, however the science itself only deals with the physical evidence and not ultimately about God's actions or existence.

I do distinguish between the methodology and the scientists personal stances, but as I said to Sam Vimes, science is practised by people, not by methodologies. Many philosophers of science have written about how bias is unavoidable, and moreso when respected scientists and scientific institutions send a bold and clear message. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is the case with all scientists that there's a deliberate conspiracy or a 'kabal of evil' and some often accuse. But there is a philosophical bias undergirding modern science especially in origins science. A spirit of the age, if you will.

Also, I think I've picked up vibes here and other places as well that sort of say that if God is ignored in science than science is anti-God. I think there's a fundamental passe of understanding in how the silence of God works within the scientific method. As philosopher of science Pennock said, "to say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing".

Again, we must distinguish between origins and operational science. Allowing only natural explanations for origins is a religious move, especially when one considers that origins science is for the most part unobservable and not repeatable, but is instead relies on deductions made by interpreting evidence against a particular philosphical worldview.

As evolutionary biologist Richard Dickens points out, "Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:

Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural"

While the chemicals bubbling in a lab or the electrons flowing through a conductor may be agnostic in terms of religions, there is a philosophical bias at work and it affects how the evidence is interpreted long before the scientists enters the lab.

This is exactly why science must remain silent on the issue of God; science simply isn't the right tool to engage the supernatural head on.

Note, however that I'm not talking about science itself but the allocation of science, as I also pointed out to Sam Vimes. The choice to burden science, and excluding any intelligent causation in answering origins questions is not a scientific choice but a philosophical one and by implication a religious one.

If a man puts a "Whites Only" sign above the door of a public restroom then that man isn't saying anything about black people, yet by exclusion that man is making a very strong political statement.

Likewise, where it comes to origins, allowing only material causes, makes a strong religious statement.

Edited April 21, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

Two would be consistent with my claim of a handful out of millions, and these two are not biologists.

Well if you want biologists, then Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould would certainly qualify, but bear in mind we're talking about science and the philosophical bias behind it in general and not biology in particular.

You've been told over and over again how faith does not fit into science, no matter what religion we are talking about. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Perhaps that's the problem. Simply telling me that I'm wrong and ridiculing and demeaning creationists are no substitute for a well reasoned response.

Are you aware that we make a distinction between origins science and operational science?

Let me make a declaration so that I can refer to it, in future.

Declaration S1

We YECs (if any YECs here object let me know) distinguish between origins science and operational science. We define origins science as the speculations about the unobservable and untestable past that attempt to explain how natural phenomena and processes came about, (macroevolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory etc).

We define operational science as the study of processes that is observable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable in the present (chemistry, medicine, physics, information science etc)

We do not have any objections to proper repeatable, testable, falsifiable operational science, however we do object to naturalistic origins science.

Given declaration A above, I trust you understand that we do not have a problem with medicine, as it is testable and repeatable in the present.

As I've noted, creation science isn't science, so no, I'm not familiar with the terms "origins science and operational science" since they are not scientific terms, they are religious terms.

There is nothing religious about the terms or their definitions.

Science does not get to decide whether or not a term is valid or acceptable in a discussion. There is a clear distinction between origins and operational science as per the definitions I gave, and this distinction is where the crux of the issue lies. There is no reason whatsoever compelling me to submit to only using terms or distinctions that are acceptable by evolutionists, in fact, such a demand belies your inability to even try to see things from any other perspective and the perspective you already hold.

[LuftWaffle]

I missed this point in my previous post:

Science doesn't say that it is the only tool, however many people put a lot of weight on what science comes up with because it has a wonderful track record of improving our day to day lives and understanding the natural world. Science is grounded in naturalism, either it is a valid way to engage the natural world or it isn't.

But again lets ask which category of science is the one that improves our day to day lives, origins science or operational science?

Consider this excerpt of a paper published by Philip Skell:

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I missed this point in my previous post:

Science doesn't say that it is the only tool, however many people put a lot of weight on what science comes up with because it has a wonderful track record of improving our day to day lives and understanding the natural world. Science is grounded in naturalism, either it is a valid way to engage the natural world or it isn't.

But again lets ask which category of science is the one that improves our day to day lives, origins science or operational science?

Consider this excerpt of a paper published by Philip Skell:

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word

[Isaiah 6:8]

Declaration S1

We YECs (if any YECs here object let me know) distinguish between origins science and operational science. We define origins science as the speculations about the unobservable and untestable past that attempt to explain how natural phenomena and processes came about, (macroevolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory etc).

We define operational science as the study of processes that is observable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable in the present (chemistry, medicine, physics, information science etc)

We do not have any objections to proper repeatable, testable, falsifiable operational science, however we do object to naturalistic origins science.

Given declaration A above, I trust you understand that we do not have a problem with medicine, as it is testable and repeatable in the present.

D-9 this is how I feel and he speaks for me. Since I am attempting to take a break from debates that get my mind going I am going to bow out of this thread for the time being.

[LuftWaffle]

Humm...I guess we will have to disagree about the fundamental nature of science. I'll add a few more responses and let it go here. Otherwise, we'll just go in circles.

1 & 2) I think you are still confused. Now you are confounding one's personal belief system with the scientific method. To me the difference is obvious. Evidently, it is not to you.

3) I believe I did address your point - repeating it doesn't facilitate our discussion.

Hi Sam,

I want to thank you for straightforward and sincere response. I prefer this type of open and honest dialogue and whether we agree or not, if we can walk away from this discussion having learnt a little about each other's views then progress has been made.

Something I mentioned in an earlier post: Sometimes the impression exists that creationists believe that there is a general deliberate conspiracy to remove the supernatural from science, and by your response to my points 1 and 2 I think it may be necessary to explain this a little better. I, don't think there's a large scale conspiracy. Yes, there are certain organisations that are deliberately pushing evolution and deliberately attempting to undermine and cast doubt on the supernatural. NCSE, Scientific American and even NatGeo comes to mind. There are also science heros such as Dawkins, Hawking, Hubble, Gould etc. that are trying to push a philosophy along with doing science. However, I don't believe your run of the mill scientist is consciously part of any scheme. I do, however, believe there is a spirit of the age which is anti-god at its core and which impacts on everything we do, whether we're conscious of it or not. Even Christianity has changed through the years and has become more secular.

To illustrate my point I always refer to the divorce rate in Western culture. It's not that there's a deliberate plot by certain covert individuals or organisations to devalue marriage, it's just that people in general don't value it as much anymore. It's the consequence of ideas promoted through philosophies, pop culture, the media, the arts, music, consumerism etc. that originated in the 1800s and is coming to fruition.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't hate scientists and I don't believe that they're generally bad people playing games. So in terms of what you said about me confusing personal belief systems with the scientific method, it's not a personal belief system as much as a philosophical bias, and I sincerely believe that most scientists aren't even aware of this because the bias is ambient. It's all around, and it does affect the way we do science. The quotes from scientists I posted is the manifestation of precisely that.

In my point 1 I addressed the idea that believing in the supernatural and approaching science from within that belief will hamper scientific progress and I still haven't seen a valid argument against this.

In my point 2 I gave examples of where science in practise is anti-supernatural. My explanation at the beginning of this post explains why. Pointing to the scientific method doesn't change what happens in practise. The scientific method is a set of rules regarding science, but the scientific method cannot by it's mere existence remove bias.

In every country in the world (as far as I know) murder is against the law, shall we then conclude that because such a law exists murder doesn't happen anywhere in the world? No, murders happen because laws and rules and guidelines alone don't stand in a causal relationship to anything. That's why you need law enforcement.

But what law enforcement exists where the scientific method is concerned? Peer Review? The problem with peer review is that it doesn't test so much for truth as it tests for acceptability. What's acceptable is not necessarily what is true and vice verse. Where creationism is concerned it's even worse because anything hinting at creationism is excluded from peer review because it's considered unscientific, and then considered as unscientific because it's not peer reviewed.

My third point was that allocating science as the tool to tell us about origins assumes naturalistic origins. This assumption is not scientific but philosophical. The scientific method cannot tell you what things can be determined scientifically and what would need another epistomological tool. The scientific method can only tell you how to conduct research once you've determined that whatever you're studying is within the scientific realm.

I'm labouring the point because it's a valid one where it comes to origins science.

What I keep finding from posting on this site is how different base assumptions and views are between creationists and scientific minded folks. It's very difficult to even have a discussion on these issues since we can barely find common ground on which to agree on basic things like the nature of evidence. It's quite fascinating and frustrating at the same time.

You are absolutely right, my friend. The divide goes right down to the base assumptions. But there is common ground, its the data. To come to any conclusion regarding science three things come together 1) data and 2) an interpretation of the data. The interpretation depends on 3) a base worldview. I think evolutionists tend to call us stupid and ignorant because they think we reject data, but we don't, and that's why it sucks when we're ridiculed as if we believe in a flat earth or we reject gravity and such. Our differences don't lie with the facts, but with our worldviews, and our interpretations differ because our worldviews differ, which leads to different conclusions. In order to understand creation, you cannot look at it through evolutionary glasses. Which is why scientists can spend years believing in evolution and then suddenly become creationists, when they recognise the 3 things that conclusions are built on and they scrutinise not only the data, but the foundations as well.

On the predictive power of evolution, I think a new thread might be best for that. Go ahead and start one if you wish.

If you don't mind I'd rather not. My time is rather limited lately.

Blessings

[Don Fanucci]

Well if you want biologists, then Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould would certainly qualify, but bear in mind we're talking about science and the philosophical bias behind it in general and not biology in particular.

Gould is long dead. Dawkins is probably the major protagonist to creationists, and he has also done some nice reasearch. So there is one living. I'd counter with Francis Collins, certainly and equal to Dawkins, and probably a superior. I have not doubt there are indeed many scientists that are outright hostile to Christians, for one, there is a large Jewish representation in science, so there is likely a heightened antagonism to Christians. Having said that, scientific philosophers are very much like creationists. They are commenting on other's work. Most rank and file scientists really don't have the time, or the research scope to worry about how their studies relate to God. It is just not relevant to their work and more importantly, their work does not address it.

Perhaps that's the problem. Simply telling me that I'm wrong and ridiculing and demeaning creationists are no substitute for a well reasoned response.

Not unbderstanding a poinyt is one thing, and most people are more than happen to patiently explain something. But mixing science and faith is not doable for a simple reason, there is not way to test and measure faith. That's not hard to understand, but when creationists keep on insisting on it, its tough to remain patient. And I've made the point over and over again. If you have a way to fit faith into the scientific method, I promise I will listen patiently. But really, you can't claim faith should be incoporated into science but not have any way to measure an outcome that occurs because of faith.

There is nothing religious about the terms or their definitions.

Science does not get to decide whether or not a term is valid or acceptable in a discussion. There is a clear distinction between origins and operational science as per the definitions I gave, and this distinction is where the crux of the issue lies. There is no reason whatsoever compelling me to submit to only using terms or distinctions that are acceptable by evolutionists, in fact, such a demand belies your inability to even try to see things from any other perspective and the perspective you already hold.

Acceptable is really not an issue. It is more like logical, well founded, and scientific. Take the "kinds" argument many posts ago. Although that term has been around for decades, it really hasn't been advanced with any scientific research. As I've noted, if it were a legtimate scientific phenomenon, there would be extensive research on it and it would be mainstream by now. There isn't and its not.

[LuftWaffle]

Hi D-9,

I'm curious, what does "D-9" stand for?

I think you're placing too much emphasis on Christianities role in science; lets not forget that Christianity was the dominant religion in Europe for over a thousand years before science came to the light, or that the ancient Greeks had a primitive version of science, or that while Christian Europe was muddling around the dark ages, Islam was the oasis of scientific thought.

While you may choose to downplay Christianity's role in the flowering of science, even some evolutionists admit that modern science was founded upon the belief that the universe was ordered and rational:

"The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." - L. Eiseley: Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It

You cannot argue that an overwhelming number of the pioneers of science were creationists such as Newton, Kepler, Tesla, Pasteur etc.

Either way, we're digressing from the point. Note what it is that I'm arguing here: I'm not saying that ALL science comes from Christianity, and neither am I saying that Christian belief is necessary for science. I'm responding to the claim that belief in creation will hamper science and I think history clearly shows that such a claim is unfounded.

The rest of my response is directly at both your and Don Fanucci's post as both posts seem to overlap.

It is a caricaturisation to say that faith cannot be subjected to scientific study, for the simple reason that we're not arguing that faith be subjected to scientific study. The Bible makes claims about nature and these claims can be investigated scientifically as they relate to nature.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Geology professor Steve Austin is currently conducting research around the dead sea and I'm very excited to see what he finds.

What he is investigating are Biblical earthquakes.

Here's how it works: The dead sea lays down salt layers continually. Seasonal pollen is also layed down in these layers, so it becomes possible to derive a sort of timeline from core samples. Now whenever an earthquake happens in the vicinity of the dead sea, the top layer which is currently forming becomes disrupted (pollen and salt and mud mix together forming a messy layer)

So in short Steve Austin's assumption based on his creationist worldview, is that one should be able to match up earthquakes mentioned in the Bible and the age in which it occured with it's representative age in the core samples.

I understand he's already been able to match up some layers with historical earthquakes as well as two earthquakes mentioned in the Bible. He believes that he may be able to find the massive earthquake that happened when Jesus died on the cross using this method. Time will tell.

What is my point? Steve Austin's research may be inspired by faith and one could say that the end goal is a faith concept, but he is using science in his investigation not faith. I don't think you or Don would have a problem with his general methodology, would you?

Creationism is branded as unscientific because its conclusion is religious, but as with Steve Austin's research, it is possible to conduct a proper scientific investigation into a religious claim.

That's why it's a caricaturisation to state that creationism isn't scientific by pointing only to the underlying worldview and ignoring the science.

Where origins science is concerned there are two competing worldviews, creationism and materialism. Neither of these are scientific, both of these are philosophical. You cannot test materialism in a lab and neither can you verify creationism in a lab. Now as I said to Sam Vimes, in a scientific investigation three things come together 1) facts/data 2) interpretation upon 3) worldview. Methodological naturalism is a guideline on how to interpret facts. In other words methodological naturalism deals with 1 and 2 only. It says nothing about 3, it cannot because the underlying worldview lies beyond the scope of what methodological naturalism governs.

The scientific status quo is currently misusing methodological naturalism to exclude an 'unwelcome' worldview, which is a philosophical decision and, as I said, a religious move.

In this light can you see what is wrong with your statement that, "science is about testability and we cannot test the supernatural" as well as Don's statement, "...you can't claim faith should be incoporated into science but not have any way to measure an outcome that occurs because of faith..."

We're not arguing that the supernatural be tested directly, but rather that materialism not be the only worldview against which scientific facts are interpreted.

Edited April 24, 2011 by LuftWaffle