why I believe in Christ and evolution

[Spock]

I don't know, I was, for a couple months, really unsure what to do with the Bible. I read it and eventually the Spirit started speaking to me through the words, so I got a sense that yes, aside from some reasons for taking it seriously I had formed I had these experiences also that let me know something was different here. But- that I got after having believed in Jesus. That's my only point here.

 

Exactly, so your faith in Christ and your belief in the core gospel message are unwavering because you have experienced fellowship with God.  So even if you disagree on some minor doctrinal issues, and take scientific conclusions literally and a few bible verses symbolically this does not affect your core belief system.  I really don't see a problem with that.  I do prefer a literal approach to the bible though.

 

I do have a problem with your scientific beliefs though, lol!

I do not believe God intended Genesis to be a complete statement on the origins of the universe like some do here. In fact, doesn't the word say we know practically nothing compared to what we will know in Heaven?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth......... Dateless past, speculate all you want, but leave it at that.

 

I do agree with the dateless past. I am not a YEC because I take the bible literally.  But I do see literal days in Genesis 1, its pretty obvious to me that those days are literal because they mention the first light, morning and evening, the first day.  So to me the "Cambrian Explosion" of about 600 million years ago occurred just 6500 years ago, because after the literal creation week we can get dates from the bible. Due to my creationist stance, my views and YECs' views do often overlap.

Thanks for sharing this. Sounds good. If you are comfortable in this, this is what matters, especially if you studied with an open mind, which it sounds like you have. We will all find out sooner than later. Lol

[Enoch2021]

 

You said “I am not impressed by creationist attempts, no.”

 

Your being “impressed” is irrelevant to whether or not our arguments are rationally justifiable – especially as you have demonstrated bias in your perspective.

 

 

“If you are going into it with the sole goal of 'reinterpreting' evidence to make it work with Creationism, you can do that.”

 

Yes I can – meaning that the available evidence is consistent with the creationist model (based on the Biblical account of history), and that the model is therefore scientifically valid (or at least as valid as the secular models which employ the logically identical methodology).

 

If facts spoke for themselves, scientists would always agree on the conclusions. Scientific consensus is rare because in reality, facts don’t speak for themselves – they have to be interpreted. No interpretation occurs in a vacuum. Interpretation is a subjective process – highly dependent upon the faith presupposition of the interpreter (as all humans have a preferred faith version of reality). You prefer the secular models which were formulated within the logical framework of the naturalistic faith paradigm. I prefer the creationist model which is formulated within the logical framework of the Biblical-theistic faith paradigm. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that science conducted from one unverifiable faith perspective is more valid than science conducted in the other.

 

I understand that position. I was brought up in a secular household and didn’t even know that such a thing as creationists existed until after I converted to Christianity and was forced to consider the inconsistencies between my secular education and the clear teaching of scripture. I understand what it’s like to think that only the ignorant religious crazies would deny what I considered scientists to have “proven”. But on subsequent investigation, I discovered that the confidence commonly attributed to secular models is vastly exaggerated; beyond what is scientifically justified (or even scientifically possible). The worlds confidence in secular models is therefore based as much on faith as the creationist model. I found that there is no logical or scientific reason to obligate myself to the secular models. Most people do obligate themselves to the secular models because they are the only models most people have ever had the opportunity to consider. But the preference is based on faith rather than science.

 

The point is – because science requires scientists to interpret the evidence, and because scientists are humans with preferred faith presuppositions, all science is necessarily conducted within the framework of one faith perspective or another. And therefore all evidence is interpreted to be consistent with the preferred paradigm of the interpreter. That is, all scientists have to “first assume” something about “what is going on”. All interpretation requires context.

 

 

“I think this becomes necessary at some point as the way you need to interpret evidence to fit it into a 10k universe is stretched at best."

 

Now all you need to do is support that claim with rational argument. Otherwise it's just innuendo.

 

 

"I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this.”

 

I previously provided an answer to this question in which I demonstrated the highly speculative nature of all models dealing with the unobserved past (including the secular Standard Cosmology model). But that’s not the impression given by the secular scientific community. Nevertheless, the scientific method explicitly permits us to think for ourselves.

 

 

 

“There's nothing special about the evidence. It's the standard stuff you could find in any somewhat thorough book about evolution. Combine that with astronomy, some stuff about geology, cover radiometric dating etc.”

 

There is a lot of unjustified innuendo (i.e. logically fallacious arguments) in this statement. Given that the creationist claim is that all of the evidence can be, both individually and collectively, interpreted to be consistent with Biblical creationism, the claim is meaningless until you can demonstrate that a particular fact can only/exclusively be interpreted to support secular models over the creationist model.

 

Throughout my degree I studied many biology textbooks, all of which went to (often unnecessary) lengths to emphasise the secular models. I have no issue with the evidence, or even that it can be interpreted to be consistent with secular models. I consider all (secular and creationist models) to be scientifically valid. The secular community unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly and exclusively prefers the secular models. But that preference is not based on any demonstrated logical or scientific superiority.

 

 

“I didn't say anything about metaphors”

 

The default implication of your position is that the Genesis text should not be regarded as historical. If you don’t take a passage to be historical, then you are taking it in some sense symbolically. The same arguments apply whether metaphor, analogy or lyrical prose.

 

 

“Jesus used Genesis to illustrate His teachings. I don't think we can blithely assume He was using it as straightforward history, in the way we do when talking about history in history classes.”

 

Why not? Besides a predetermined adherence to secular science, how do you justify departing from the obvious message contained in the text itself? Jesus used Genesis as the historical antecedent for His message (e.g. for marriage). If it’s not based on historical reality, then the message itself becomes meaningless (i.e. if based on something considered not to have happened).

 

 

“The integrity of the Bible is unnecessary to being a believer.”

 

The Divine Inspiration of Scripture is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. I agree that it is not necessary for salvation; however as the source of the gospel itself, trust in the Bible speaks to the logical consistency of an individual’s faith confession.

 

 

“My belief in the Bible as a theological authority developed later.”

 

Which is the reason you posted this topic: – because you perceive that there are inconsistencies between your scientific education, and the most obvious rendering of Genesis. Rather than question the basis of secular science, you have preferred to perform mental gymnastics in an attempt to make the Bible conform to the secular scientific paradigm. My position is that you have done so unnecessarily. The Bible is eminently more trustworthy than any human pursuit.

 

Right, so I could pick  my favorite 'paradigm', creatively 'interpret' all the evidence to fit the paradigm, and see how long I am employed. If you are clever enough, yeah I agree, you can interpret it how you want. But, some facts force themselves on you, and some models allow for you to have such incredible predictive power it becomes altogether compelling to think there is something to it.

 

I suppose I'm having trouble responding to your post because I'm not seeing much specifically to respond to here. Your message seems to be, 'you interpret evidence based on the paradigm you currently accept'. But if that were always and only the case, I don't see how discoveries, particularly of the mold-breaking type, are ever made.

It will always be 'speculative' to look at events in the past, but in this case, it's even always inference. Sometimes we are actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky.

 

You said “Right, so I could pick my favorite 'paradigm', creatively 'interpret' all the evidence to fit the paradigm, and see how long I am employed.”

 

Again with the innuendo?

 

My point is that all scientific investigation follows the pattern you mock. Presupposition is a necessary part of the scientific process because interpretation is conducted by humans who all have a personally preferred faith perspective of reality. The influence of the naturalistic faith premise isn’t as obvious to you because it is the default paradigm of secular science (and the only one most of us were exposed to growing up). It therefore isn’t stated because everyone is assumed to be “on the same page”. But the origin of the naturalistic framework by the scientific community can be traced back to the late 1700s (perhaps to geologist James Hutton). It’s subsequent, practically ubiquitous adoption by the modern scientific community does not logically necessitate the invalidation of other faith perspectives.

 

The existence of the naturalistic faith paradigm is demonstrated by the fact that I can approach the evidence from a different paradigm and come to a different conclusion. That would not be logically possible if the facts spoke for themselves.

 

Both paradigms are unverifiable and both have a limiting influence over science. Naturalism only permits natural explanations to be accepted as truth. They will sometimes patronise religious people by allowing some nebulous ‘God is behind the scenes, pulling the strings’ concept, but the main motivation of this paradigm is to limit explanations to those which render the concept of God unnecessary.

 

 

“some facts force themselves on you”

 

Here is where you would need to be more specific. I am happy to consider any fact which you think only renders itself to a single interpretation (i.e. consistent with only one model whilst being logically impossible to interpret from an alternative perspective).

 

 

“some models allow for you to have such incredible predictive power it becomes altogether compelling to think there is something to it”

 

Which models would those be?

 

The Standard Cosmology model has demonstrated inconsistency with the facts since its inception; which is why it has had to be constantly revised to incorporate unobserved concepts such as Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy etc. – all formulated because new evidence did not fit the existing model.

 

How predictive is evolution theory?

* According to evolutionary theory, similar or identical morphological traits in separate species are considered to have been inherited through a common ancestor. However, if the trait does not exist in any putative common ancestor, then evolutionary theory postulates that the traits must have evolved independently; through convergent evolution (where distantly 'related' species arrive at a similar or identical ecological solution). That is, evolutionary theory predicts that we will observe identical traits in separate species due to a) inheritance through a common ancestor or b) through independent convergent evolution. No possible observation could contradict this prediction.

* Evolution theory predicts change (i.e. evolution) and non-change (i.e. evolutionary stasis). That is, evolution theory predicts the entire scope of possible observations.

* In the event of putative change (evolution), evolution theory predicts both positive, adaptive change (forward evolution) and revertant, backwards change (degenerative evolution).

 

So I agree that evolution theory is powerfully predictive – but only because it predicts every possible outcome (i.e. is logically unfalsifiable). Now I don’t think that makes it necessarily untrue, but it does render any boasting about its predictive capacity to be meaningless.

 

 

“I suppose I'm having trouble responding to your post because I'm not seeing much specifically to respond to here”

 

Since the creationist position is that all of the evidence interpreted to be consistent with secular models can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, there is little point to me providing specific unsolicited examples – because I am fully aware that someone approaching the evidence from a naturalistic perspective can provide a naturalistic interpretation of the same evidence. The only way to test the creationist claim is for someone promoting the secular models to provide a specific fact which they believe can only be interpreted to be consistent with their preferred model.

 

My position is that if evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with multiple models, then all of those models represent scientifically valid hypotheses. You seem to be of the opinion that, even though the evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with multiple models, only one should be considered scientifically valid and worthy of consideration. Why – because it’s the one you grew up with and are most comfortable with (i.e. confirmation bias), or because it’s the most popular among scientists (Appeal to Authority and Consensus fallacies), or is there some other reason?

 

 

“Your message seems to be, 'you interpret evidence based on the paradigm you currently accept'”

 

I would re-word it as ‘everyone approaches the interpretation process from the perspective of their own preferred faith paradigm”. The current default among most scientists is the naturalistic faith paradigm (which is currently so ubiquitous as to give the false impression of being the only valid perspective – to the point where it is commonly assumed beyond the need for acknowledgement).

 

 

“if that were always and only the case, I don't see how discoveries, particularly of the mold-breaking type, are ever made”

 

Paradigms are only frameworks. The limitations of each are not as stringent as your comment implies. Naturalism only permits natural explanations as possibilities. Biblical-Theism permits natural and supernatural explanations. So which is really more restrictive?

 

 

“Sometimes we are actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky.”

 

This is a romanticised untruth. When you look in the night sky, all you observe are photons of light as they enter your eye. The history of those photons is then speculated by extrapolating current observations over billions of years in the past and super-massive distances – none of which was directly observed.

 

 

Tristen....

 

Let me save you and Alpha some time.

 

You're not speaking the same language.  You are speaking to "Scientific Evidence"; hence the "Scientific Method" and he is not.  You might as well hammer that out....it's the Rate Limiting Step....and save some time,   or not. 

 

Predictions??....Punctuated Equilibrium and Convergent Evolution are both POST-dictions.  For it to be PRE-  that means before.  They're clearly nothing more than Ad Hoc Observations to save the hypothesis.

 

 

"{evolution} It's used to design medication."

 

Really??.....

 

Marc Kirschner PhD Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences

 

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."

Dr. Marc Kirschner:  The Boston Globe,  October 23, 2005

 

 

Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences)

 

'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.'

Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005

 

More Ad Hoc Observations

 

 

In short, this is evolution in a nutshell and 99% of all you'll ever see:

 

All you have is an assumption "evolution did it" with Ad Hoc OBSERVATIONS!  The Whole Theory is a classic TEXTBOOK: Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy....

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)

2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)

3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

is = to....

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;

2) I feel very full;

3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have eaten Baby Short-Back Ribs??

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

I don't know, I was, for a couple months, really unsure what to do with the Bible. I read it and eventually the Spirit started speaking to me through the words, so I got a sense that yes, aside from some reasons for taking it seriously I had formed I had these experiences also that let me know something was different here. But- that I got after having believed in Jesus. That's my only point here.

 

Exactly, so your faith in Christ and your belief in the core gospel message are unwavering because you have experienced fellowship with God.  So even if you disagree on some minor doctrinal issues, and take scientific conclusions literally and a few bible verses symbolically this does not affect your core belief system.  I really don't see a problem with that.  I do prefer a literal approach to the bible though.

 

I do have a problem with your scientific beliefs though, lol!

 

ha! well, I suppose your last bit is where we could have further discussion if you'd like.

 

Bring it on!

 

Another thread perhaps, sure, sounds good.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

You said “Right, so I could pick my favorite 'paradigm', creatively 'interpret' all the evidence to fit the paradigm, and see how long I am employed.”

 

Again with the innuendo?

 

My point is that all scientific investigation follows the pattern you mock. Presupposition is a necessary part of the scientific process because interpretation is conducted by humans who all have a personally preferred faith perspective of reality. The influence of the naturalistic faith premise isn’t as obvious to you because it is the default paradigm of secular science (and the only one most of us were exposed to growing up). It therefore isn’t stated because everyone is assumed to be “on the same page”. But the origin of the naturalistic framework by the scientific community can be traced back to the late 1700s (perhaps to geologist James Hutton). It’s subsequent, practically ubiquitous adoption by the modern scientific community does not logically necessitate the invalidation of other faith perspectives.

 

The existence of the naturalistic faith paradigm is demonstrated by the fact that I can approach the evidence from a different paradigm and come to a different conclusion. That would not be logically possible if the facts spoke for themselves.

 

Both paradigms are unverifiable and both have a limiting influence over science. Naturalism only permits natural explanations to be accepted as truth. They will sometimes patronise religious people by allowing some nebulous ‘God is behind the scenes, pulling the strings’ concept, but the main motivation of this paradigm is to limit explanations to those which render the concept of God unnecessary.

 

 

“some facts force themselves on you”

 

Here is where you would need to be more specific. I am happy to consider any fact which you think only renders itself to a single interpretation (i.e. consistent with only one model whilst being logically impossible to interpret from an alternative perspective).

 

 

“some models allow for you to have such incredible predictive power it becomes altogether compelling to think there is something to it”

 

Which models would those be?

 

The Standard Cosmology model has demonstrated inconsistency with the facts since its inception; which is why it has had to be constantly revised to incorporate unobserved concepts such as Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy etc. – all formulated because new evidence did not fit the existing model.

 

How predictive is evolution theory?

* According to evolutionary theory, similar or identical morphological traits in separate species are considered to have been inherited through a common ancestor. However, if the trait does not exist in any putative common ancestor, then evolutionary theory postulates that the traits must have evolved independently; through convergent evolution (where distantly 'related' species arrive at a similar or identical ecological solution). That is, evolutionary theory predicts that we will observe identical traits in separate species due to a) inheritance through a common ancestor or b) through independent convergent evolution. No possible observation could contradict this prediction.

* Evolution theory predicts change (i.e. evolution) and non-change (i.e. evolutionary stasis). That is, evolution theory predicts the entire scope of possible observations.

* In the event of putative change (evolution), evolution theory predicts both positive, adaptive change (forward evolution) and revertant, backwards change (degenerative evolution).

 

So I agree that evolution theory is powerfully predictive – but only because it predicts every possible outcome (i.e. is logically unfalsifiable). Now I don’t think that makes it necessarily untrue, but it does render any boasting about its predictive capacity to be meaningless.

 

 

“I suppose I'm having trouble responding to your post because I'm not seeing much specifically to respond to here”

 

Since the creationist position is that all of the evidence interpreted to be consistent with secular models can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, there is little point to me providing specific unsolicited examples – because I am fully aware that someone approaching the evidence from a naturalistic perspective can provide a naturalistic interpretation of the same evidence. The only way to test the creationist claim is for someone promoting the secular models to provide a specific fact which they believe can only be interpreted to be consistent with their preferred model.

 

My position is that if evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with multiple models, then all of those models represent scientifically valid hypotheses. You seem to be of the opinion that, even though the evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with multiple models, only one should be considered scientifically valid and worthy of consideration. Why – because it’s the one you grew up with and are most comfortable with (i.e. confirmation bias), or because it’s the most popular among scientists (Appeal to Authority and Consensus fallacies), or is there some other reason?

 

 

“Your message seems to be, 'you interpret evidence based on the paradigm you currently accept'”

 

I would re-word it as ‘everyone approaches the interpretation process from the perspective of their own preferred faith paradigm”. The current default among most scientists is the naturalistic faith paradigm (which is currently so ubiquitous as to give the false impression of being the only valid perspective – to the point where it is commonly assumed beyond the need for acknowledgement).

 

 

“if that were always and only the case, I don't see how discoveries, particularly of the mold-breaking type, are ever made”

 

Paradigms are only frameworks. The limitations of each are not as stringent as your comment implies. Naturalism only permits natural explanations as possibilities. Biblical-Theism permits natural and supernatural explanations. So which is really more restrictive?

 

 

“Sometimes we are actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky.”

 

This is a romanticised untruth. When you look in the night sky, all you observe are photons of light as they enter your eye. The history of those photons is then speculated by extrapolating current observations over billions of years in the past and super-massive distances – none of which was directly observed.

 

 I'm not trying to insult you, and if I come across like that at all I apologize. I suppose I just don't really get what it is you're getting at in a substantive way. You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways". I still don't know how to respond to that. If I have a theory which predicts what we will see out to 12 decimal places, it certainly seems to be onto something.You could, no doubt, come up with an alternative story, but when I predict the 13th decimal point why should I take you seriously?

 

Evolution is falsifiable. Were you to find a mammals in the precambrian, there would be a serious problem. It is used to make predictions, as it has been used to predict morophological structures, and degree of relationship to other animals, of animals thought to be at a certain strata at specific locations, and they are found. It's used to design medication. While it's interesting that you use convergent evolution of features to count against the larger theory as a means of demonstrating how it is unfalsifiable, it is still strongly supportive evidence if you look at the specifics (e.g.. the wings in bats vs the wings in birds).

 

Yes, it's true, I assume the photons that we detect have a source from a natural object that produced them. It's true. Why shouldn't I make that assumption?

 

I suppose the larger question is, how does this relate to the OP? You don't think there is any reason I should see the evidence as supporting 'old' universe, evolution etc., rather than YEC? I didn't really start this thread to get into the specifics of what these evidences are, I intentionally kept that vague.

 

 

You said “I'm not trying to insult you, and if I come across like that at all I apologize”

 

No apology necessary. I have not been insulted. Perhaps I have come across as insulted in my attempt to be concise [yes – contrary to appearances, I have actually attempted to keep it short]. I do find the use of logical fallacies (such as innuendo) to be somewhat frustrating – because they represent a departure from rational discussion. But nothing I’ll lose sleep over.

 

 

“I suppose I just don't really get what it is you're getting at in a substantive way”

 

OK – Facts require interpretations. Evidence is defined as a fact which has been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” of that position). ALL facts are interpreted within the framework of the interpreter. That means – every fact which has been interpreted to support Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology has been interpreted from a particular faith perspective (i.e. presupposed, yet unverified assumptions about reality); namely naturalism, but also subsequent paradigms such as uniformitarianism (which proposes we assume processes we observe today have continued unchanged into the unobserved past) and even Common Ancestry itself.

 

NOW – creationists do this also. But you have only criticised creationists for interpreting evidence from a starting premise.

 

 

“You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways"”

 

Not “if you are clever enough” – that is innuendo that you have added to imply that a stretch of the imagination is required.

 

But facts can absolutely be interpreted multiple ways. That is why the scientific method requires experimentation – to separate out the incorrect interpretations from the list of possibilities.

 

 

“I still don't know how to respond to that”

 

It’s a testable claim. If you have any facts that you believe can only be interpreted to fit your preferred secular models, then I would be happy to consider them.

 

 

“If I have a theory which predicts what we will see out to 12 decimal places, it certainly seems to be onto something.You could, no doubt, come up with an alternative story, but when I predict the 13th decimal point why should I take you seriously”

 

Why resort to false analogy? By this analogy you assume that creationism must submit to the role of second responder. You think the evidence belongs to evolution, and that creationism has to ‘wait its turn’ to respond to the evolutionist interpretation. Creationism is not a response to evolution. It is a separate model in its own right.

 

 

“Evolution is falsifiable. Were you to find a mammals in the precambrian, there would be a serious problem”

 

Would this “serious problem” constitute a wholesale rejection of Common Ancestry by the scientific community (which would be the appropriate outcome of true falsification) or would it just be labelled a “serious problem”. Surely the scientific community could simply claim that they hadn’t yet figured out how the fossil arrived at this stratum of rock, or that the samples used to ‘date’ the rock had been contaminated, or some such. And to be fair, it is logically possible that some future discovery could explain how the mammal arrived in this layer - in the context of the secular model. But it’s this very possibility which permits us to set aside the actual evidence and allows us to preserve our preferred paradigm. Therefore the theory is unfalsifiable. No weight of evidence could ever justify an unmitigated rejection of Common Ancestry.

 

 

“It is used to make predictions …”

 

Big bold claims of predictions without evidential support are meaningless. More-so when the theory a) predicts the full spectrum of reality and b) has a demonstrated history of being malleable enough to conform to any contrary evidence. Adjusting theories to suite the evidence is a legitimate part of the scientific process. But equating ‘adjusting a theory to suit the evidence’ with ‘predicting the evidence’ is logically specious.

 

 

“While it's interesting that you use convergent evolution of features to count against the larger theory as a means of demonstrating how it is unfalsifiable, it is still strongly supportive evidence if you look at the specifics (e.g.. the wings in bats vs the wings in birds).”

 

And it may very well be true. Unfalsifiable has never meant untrue. Unfalsifiable only speaks to our capacity to attribute scientific confidence to a claim. Of course you can find “strongly supportive evidence” – the theory encompasses every possible observation. Nothing we find could possibly contradict the prediction. Everything we find is therefore necessarily consistent with the prediction.

 

In reality, evolution theory originally taught that similar traits only spoke to inheritance – the theory was later adjusted to include convergence to account for genetic analysis demonstrating otherwise.

 

 

“I assume the photons that we detect have a source from a natural object that produced them. It's true. Why shouldn't I make that assumption”

 

You are assuming the entire history of the photon based on limited data. You are making assumptions regarding the velocity and path of the light. You are making assumptions about the interpretation of certain properties of light (e.g. what redshift means over vast distances and time). You are making assumptions about the shape of the universe (which would theoretically impact the path of the light). You are making assumptions about what lies in the vast distances between the originating star and the Earth and how that might affect the properties of the light (such as all that dark matter and dark energy and associated gravity). You are assuming that God did not create and “stretch out the heavens” in accordance with the Biblical account. You are assuming no time dilation has occurred with the expansion of the universe (whether Biblical or Inflation).

 

You are making quite a lot of assumptions. And I have no problem with that, so long as you recognise that they are merely assumptions stemming from scientific observations – not scientific observations themselves. My response was to your claim that we are observing the past when we look at the night sky. That claim is incorrect.

 

 

“You don't think there is any reason I should see the evidence as supporting 'old' universe, evolution etc., rather than YEC”

 

No – the opposite is true. I fully understand how someone brought up in a secular society would prefer the secular interpretations of the evidence (I myself had never heard of creationism until I was a young adult). But if you look at the issue objectively (i.e. set aside all that you have been taught to be “proven” and consider the issue from a perspective untainted by personal bias), I believe you will find that the creationist model is equally valid and as logically justifiable as the secular models.

 

The reason for your post was to discuss reconciling secular models to the Biblical account. What I am suggesting is that you are neither scientifically, or logically, obligated to maintain allegiance to the secular models. So the solution is easy – trust the Biblical account as written.

 

 

“I didn't really start this thread to get into the specifics of what these evidences are, I intentionally kept that vague.”

 

I understand. But if you make vague claims about “the evidence”, the only way to demonstrate my position is to require an account of that evidence; to delve into the specifics (unless you are prepared to take my word for it ).

 

Let me put it this way. If you start finding rabbit-like mammals in the precambrian, I would abandon the theory of evolution. If phylogenetic trees start predicting relationships that don't match up with the fossil record in a serious way, I would abandon evolution. There are plenty of potential routes of falsification as far as I'm concerned.

 

It's true, I assume photons work a certain way across the universe, namely, the way they work here. Over space and time. The uniformity of nature is not an assumption I'll likely challenge unless observations somehow derail it.

 

As far as the last bit, I merely wanted to explain how I think about this, and why I believe that way I do. That required some statement about how the facts appear to my mind.

[alphaparticle]

 

You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways".

 

I took a course in college that looked at the issue this way.

 

That is, we were taught how people found information, what we call the data, then how different people interpreted that data, and then how people evaluated the plausibility of the interpretations.

 

So, yes, creativity can lead you to many weird interpretations, but very few of those are even plausible upon further investigation.

 

Yes, I agree. There is the issue of plausibility, coherency with the rest of the facts we accept as true, and what do we do when we have a theory that makes *specific* predictions about the world.  I suppose I'd say it's not so easy to abandon scientific models which are wildly successful that way.

[alphaparticle]

 

Enoch,

 

I actually don't understand what your issue is, why you think it's important, or how you think science is done by scientists. I don't actually get what you think the upshot is here.

 

First, "observations AND experimental results" by syntax suggests that observational evidence is, by itself, a way of gathering scientific evidence. So while I am not that interested in how science is defined by wikipedia in the first place, I don't think the definition actually serves your purposes at all.

 

and

Second, So astronomy is not science in your estimation? This is a yes/no question.

 

You can dance around all you want Alpha but if you post something that doesn't conform to the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"; hence, "Scientific Evidence" I'll stop you in your tracks.

 

 

"science is defined by wikipedia in the first place"

 

ahhh, too funny.  First it's "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" that we're talking about here.... and, would you like me to have it notarized?

 

Please post ANOTHER or Your Definition (preferably not an arbitrary one) and CITE SOURCE.

 

 

"Second, So astronomy is not science in your estimation? This is a yes/no question."

 

Here's my exact answer in the previous message....

 

"ahhh I see, we're playing word games with "Science" and "Scientific Evidence".  Well science is the pursuit of knowledge or state of knowing.... So technically yes, it is science by definition.  HOWEVER; any evidence heretofore that is attributable to said science MUST display in it's Methodology, the "Scientific Method".  If No "Scientific Method", it's not Scientific Evidence. Period, End of Story!"

 

My answer is in there

 

I don't understand your point. Even though I think your wider strategy is bogus, the very definition you posted doesn't support what you are saying. Observation was one method explicitly stated by which scientific evidence could accrue. That's precisely what a science like astronomy does, make detailed observations.

[nebula]

 

"Second, So astronomy is not science in your estimation? This is a yes/no question."

 

Here's my exact answer in the previous message....

 

"ahhh I see, we're playing word games with "Science" and "Scientific Evidence".  Well science is the pursuit of knowledge or state of knowing.... So technically yes, it is science by definition.  HOWEVER; any evidence heretofore that is attributable to said science MUST display in it's Methodology, the "Scientific Method".  If No "Scientific Method", it's not Scientific Evidence. Period, End of Story!"

 

My answer is in there

I don't understand your point. Even though I think your wider strategy is bogus, the very definition you posted doesn't support what you are saying. Observation was one method explicitly stated by which scientific evidence could accrue. That's precisely what a science like astronomy does, make detailed observations.

 

I think he's trying to not say No, even though the only answer he could give is No, but he knows saying No will create problems in his defense.

 

???

[alphaparticle]

I suppose perhaps nebula, but then there is the point that even the definition he keep positing accepts observation as a way of obtaining scientific evidence, and astronomy clearly does that. I have tried to state that a few times now. So even while I can't say I'd really lose sleep over some arbitrary definition of science to start with, the definition from wiki is wide enough to allow in astronomy and cosmology.

 

But the even further confusion, and more fundamental confusion, I have here is what any of this really has to do with my OP. Not much I don't think? Of course, Enoch, if you have something to say about this I will be sure to read.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"Second, So astronomy is not science in your estimation? This is a yes/no question."

 

Here's my exact answer in the previous message....

 

"ahhh I see, we're playing word games with "Science" and "Scientific Evidence".  Well science is the pursuit of knowledge or state of knowing.... So technically yes, it is science by definition.  HOWEVER; any evidence heretofore that is attributable to said science MUST display in it's Methodology, the "Scientific Method".  If No "Scientific Method", it's not Scientific Evidence. Period, End of Story!"

 

My answer is in there

I don't understand your point. Even though I think your wider strategy is bogus, the very definition you posted doesn't support what you are saying. Observation was one method explicitly stated by which scientific evidence could accrue. That's precisely what a science like astronomy does, make detailed observations.

 

I think he's trying to not say No, even though the only answer he could give is No, but he knows saying No will create problems in his defense.

 

???

 

 

"Observation was one method explicitly stated by which scientific evidence could accrue."

 

Please don't say Scientific Evidence.  You're talking about observing or analyzing data that comes after Step 4....there's a reason they're in Steps...so you can start with Step 1 and finish with Step 7.  OBSERVATION is not in the Scientific Method alone.....its Accompanied very shortly after and beside it by: A PHENOMENON.  It reads Observe a Phenomenon.  Ya see, you can Observe a Rock till the cows come home but it's not A PHENOMENON....it's a Rock; therefore, NO GO for Step 1.  You could force it; this is how it would look....

 

Step 1:  OBSERVE a Phenomenon.... A Rock

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research.....yep, there's Rocks out there

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement) ......Is this a Rock?

Step 4: TEST/Experiment.......  Yep, it's a Rock

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results......It's a Rock

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis.....Yep, it's a Rock

Step 7:  Report Results...We found more Rocks!!

 

 

As for the rest....well, can't make it anymore clear, I think I needed it know the "Scientific Method" to pass 7th Grade General Science

 

 

The only thing I can think of is reading comprehension issue or Eye Sight; let me do this, for the third time....

 

"ahhh I see, we're playing word games with "Science" and "Scientific Evidence".  Well science is the pursuit of knowledge or state of knowing.... So technically yes, it is science by definition.  HOWEVER; any evidence heretofore that is attributable to said science MUST display in it's Methodology, the "Scientific Method".  If No "Scientific Method", it's not Scientific Evidence. Period, End of Story!"

 

See it now??....note the caveat, it starts with HOWEVER

 

 

"but he knows saying No will create problems in his defense."

 

[Tristen]

 

 

 

 

 

You said “Right, so I could pick my favorite 'paradigm', creatively 'interpret' all the evidence to fit the paradigm, and see how long I am employed.”

 

Again with the innuendo?

 

My point is that all scientific investigation follows the pattern you mock. Presupposition is a necessary part of the scientific process because interpretation is conducted by humans who all have a personally preferred faith perspective of reality. The influence of the naturalistic faith premise isn’t as obvious to you because it is the default paradigm of secular science (and the only one most of us were exposed to growing up). It therefore isn’t stated because everyone is assumed to be “on the same page”. But the origin of the naturalistic framework by the scientific community can be traced back to the late 1700s (perhaps to geologist James Hutton). It’s subsequent, practically ubiquitous adoption by the modern scientific community does not logically necessitate the invalidation of other faith perspectives.

 

The existence of the naturalistic faith paradigm is demonstrated by the fact that I can approach the evidence from a different paradigm and come to a different conclusion. That would not be logically possible if the facts spoke for themselves.

 

Both paradigms are unverifiable and both have a limiting influence over science. Naturalism only permits natural explanations to be accepted as truth. They will sometimes patronise religious people by allowing some nebulous ‘God is behind the scenes, pulling the strings’ concept, but the main motivation of this paradigm is to limit explanations to those which render the concept of God unnecessary.

 

 

“some facts force themselves on you”

 

Here is where you would need to be more specific. I am happy to consider any fact which you think only renders itself to a single interpretation (i.e. consistent with only one model whilst being logically impossible to interpret from an alternative perspective).

 

 

“some models allow for you to have such incredible predictive power it becomes altogether compelling to think there is something to it”

 

Which models would those be?

 

The Standard Cosmology model has demonstrated inconsistency with the facts since its inception; which is why it has had to be constantly revised to incorporate unobserved concepts such as Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy etc. – all formulated because new evidence did not fit the existing model.

 

How predictive is evolution theory?

* According to evolutionary theory, similar or identical morphological traits in separate species are considered to have been inherited through a common ancestor. However, if the trait does not exist in any putative common ancestor, then evolutionary theory postulates that the traits must have evolved independently; through convergent evolution (where distantly 'related' species arrive at a similar or identical ecological solution). That is, evolutionary theory predicts that we will observe identical traits in separate species due to a) inheritance through a common ancestor or b) through independent convergent evolution. No possible observation could contradict this prediction.

* Evolution theory predicts change (i.e. evolution) and non-change (i.e. evolutionary stasis). That is, evolution theory predicts the entire scope of possible observations.

* In the event of putative change (evolution), evolution theory predicts both positive, adaptive change (forward evolution) and revertant, backwards change (degenerative evolution).

 

So I agree that evolution theory is powerfully predictive – but only because it predicts every possible outcome (i.e. is logically unfalsifiable). Now I don’t think that makes it necessarily untrue, but it does render any boasting about its predictive capacity to be meaningless.

 

 

“I suppose I'm having trouble responding to your post because I'm not seeing much specifically to respond to here”

 

Since the creationist position is that all of the evidence interpreted to be consistent with secular models can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, there is little point to me providing specific unsolicited examples – because I am fully aware that someone approaching the evidence from a naturalistic perspective can provide a naturalistic interpretation of the same evidence. The only way to test the creationist claim is for someone promoting the secular models to provide a specific fact which they believe can only be interpreted to be consistent with their preferred model.

 

My position is that if evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with multiple models, then all of those models represent scientifically valid hypotheses. You seem to be of the opinion that, even though the evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with multiple models, only one should be considered scientifically valid and worthy of consideration. Why – because it’s the one you grew up with and are most comfortable with (i.e. confirmation bias), or because it’s the most popular among scientists (Appeal to Authority and Consensus fallacies), or is there some other reason?

 

 

“Your message seems to be, 'you interpret evidence based on the paradigm you currently accept'”

 

I would re-word it as ‘everyone approaches the interpretation process from the perspective of their own preferred faith paradigm”. The current default among most scientists is the naturalistic faith paradigm (which is currently so ubiquitous as to give the false impression of being the only valid perspective – to the point where it is commonly assumed beyond the need for acknowledgement).

 

 

“if that were always and only the case, I don't see how discoveries, particularly of the mold-breaking type, are ever made”

 

Paradigms are only frameworks. The limitations of each are not as stringent as your comment implies. Naturalism only permits natural explanations as possibilities. Biblical-Theism permits natural and supernatural explanations. So which is really more restrictive?

 

 

“Sometimes we are actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky.”

 

This is a romanticised untruth. When you look in the night sky, all you observe are photons of light as they enter your eye. The history of those photons is then speculated by extrapolating current observations over billions of years in the past and super-massive distances – none of which was directly observed.

 

 I'm not trying to insult you, and if I come across like that at all I apologize. I suppose I just don't really get what it is you're getting at in a substantive way. You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways". I still don't know how to respond to that. If I have a theory which predicts what we will see out to 12 decimal places, it certainly seems to be onto something.You could, no doubt, come up with an alternative story, but when I predict the 13th decimal point why should I take you seriously?

 

Evolution is falsifiable. Were you to find a mammals in the precambrian, there would be a serious problem. It is used to make predictions, as it has been used to predict morophological structures, and degree of relationship to other animals, of animals thought to be at a certain strata at specific locations, and they are found. It's used to design medication. While it's interesting that you use convergent evolution of features to count against the larger theory as a means of demonstrating how it is unfalsifiable, it is still strongly supportive evidence if you look at the specifics (e.g.. the wings in bats vs the wings in birds).

 

Yes, it's true, I assume the photons that we detect have a source from a natural object that produced them. It's true. Why shouldn't I make that assumption?

 

I suppose the larger question is, how does this relate to the OP? You don't think there is any reason I should see the evidence as supporting 'old' universe, evolution etc., rather than YEC? I didn't really start this thread to get into the specifics of what these evidences are, I intentionally kept that vague.

 

 

You said “I'm not trying to insult you, and if I come across like that at all I apologize”

 

No apology necessary. I have not been insulted. Perhaps I have come across as insulted in my attempt to be concise [yes – contrary to appearances, I have actually attempted to keep it short]. I do find the use of logical fallacies (such as innuendo) to be somewhat frustrating – because they represent a departure from rational discussion. But nothing I’ll lose sleep over.

 

 

“I suppose I just don't really get what it is you're getting at in a substantive way”

 

OK – Facts require interpretations. Evidence is defined as a fact which has been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” of that position). ALL facts are interpreted within the framework of the interpreter. That means – every fact which has been interpreted to support Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology has been interpreted from a particular faith perspective (i.e. presupposed, yet unverified assumptions about reality); namely naturalism, but also subsequent paradigms such as uniformitarianism (which proposes we assume processes we observe today have continued unchanged into the unobserved past) and even Common Ancestry itself.

 

NOW – creationists do this also. But you have only criticised creationists for interpreting evidence from a starting premise.

 

 

“You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways"”

 

Not “if you are clever enough” – that is innuendo that you have added to imply that a stretch of the imagination is required.

 

But facts can absolutely be interpreted multiple ways. That is why the scientific method requires experimentation – to separate out the incorrect interpretations from the list of possibilities.

 

 

“I still don't know how to respond to that”

 

It’s a testable claim. If you have any facts that you believe can only be interpreted to fit your preferred secular models, then I would be happy to consider them.

 

 

“If I have a theory which predicts what we will see out to 12 decimal places, it certainly seems to be onto something.You could, no doubt, come up with an alternative story, but when I predict the 13th decimal point why should I take you seriously”

 

Why resort to false analogy? By this analogy you assume that creationism must submit to the role of second responder. You think the evidence belongs to evolution, and that creationism has to ‘wait its turn’ to respond to the evolutionist interpretation. Creationism is not a response to evolution. It is a separate model in its own right.

 

 

“Evolution is falsifiable. Were you to find a mammals in the precambrian, there would be a serious problem”

 

Would this “serious problem” constitute a wholesale rejection of Common Ancestry by the scientific community (which would be the appropriate outcome of true falsification) or would it just be labelled a “serious problem”. Surely the scientific community could simply claim that they hadn’t yet figured out how the fossil arrived at this stratum of rock, or that the samples used to ‘date’ the rock had been contaminated, or some such. And to be fair, it is logically possible that some future discovery could explain how the mammal arrived in this layer - in the context of the secular model. But it’s this very possibility which permits us to set aside the actual evidence and allows us to preserve our preferred paradigm. Therefore the theory is unfalsifiable. No weight of evidence could ever justify an unmitigated rejection of Common Ancestry.

 

 

“It is used to make predictions …”

 

Big bold claims of predictions without evidential support are meaningless. More-so when the theory a) predicts the full spectrum of reality and b) has a demonstrated history of being malleable enough to conform to any contrary evidence. Adjusting theories to suite the evidence is a legitimate part of the scientific process. But equating ‘adjusting a theory to suit the evidence’ with ‘predicting the evidence’ is logically specious.

 

 

“While it's interesting that you use convergent evolution of features to count against the larger theory as a means of demonstrating how it is unfalsifiable, it is still strongly supportive evidence if you look at the specifics (e.g.. the wings in bats vs the wings in birds).”

 

And it may very well be true. Unfalsifiable has never meant untrue. Unfalsifiable only speaks to our capacity to attribute scientific confidence to a claim. Of course you can find “strongly supportive evidence” – the theory encompasses every possible observation. Nothing we find could possibly contradict the prediction. Everything we find is therefore necessarily consistent with the prediction.

 

In reality, evolution theory originally taught that similar traits only spoke to inheritance – the theory was later adjusted to include convergence to account for genetic analysis demonstrating otherwise.

 

 

“I assume the photons that we detect have a source from a natural object that produced them. It's true. Why shouldn't I make that assumption”

 

You are assuming the entire history of the photon based on limited data. You are making assumptions regarding the velocity and path of the light. You are making assumptions about the interpretation of certain properties of light (e.g. what redshift means over vast distances and time). You are making assumptions about the shape of the universe (which would theoretically impact the path of the light). You are making assumptions about what lies in the vast distances between the originating star and the Earth and how that might affect the properties of the light (such as all that dark matter and dark energy and associated gravity). You are assuming that God did not create and “stretch out the heavens” in accordance with the Biblical account. You are assuming no time dilation has occurred with the expansion of the universe (whether Biblical or Inflation).

 

You are making quite a lot of assumptions. And I have no problem with that, so long as you recognise that they are merely assumptions stemming from scientific observations – not scientific observations themselves. My response was to your claim that we are observing the past when we look at the night sky. That claim is incorrect.

 

 

“You don't think there is any reason I should see the evidence as supporting 'old' universe, evolution etc., rather than YEC”

 

No – the opposite is true. I fully understand how someone brought up in a secular society would prefer the secular interpretations of the evidence (I myself had never heard of creationism until I was a young adult). But if you look at the issue objectively (i.e. set aside all that you have been taught to be “proven” and consider the issue from a perspective untainted by personal bias), I believe you will find that the creationist model is equally valid and as logically justifiable as the secular models.

 

The reason for your post was to discuss reconciling secular models to the Biblical account. What I am suggesting is that you are neither scientifically, or logically, obligated to maintain allegiance to the secular models. So the solution is easy – trust the Biblical account as written.

 

 

“I didn't really start this thread to get into the specifics of what these evidences are, I intentionally kept that vague.”

 

I understand. But if you make vague claims about “the evidence”, the only way to demonstrate my position is to require an account of that evidence; to delve into the specifics (unless you are prepared to take my word for it ).

 

Let me put it this way. If you start finding rabbit-like mammals in the precambrian, I would abandon the theory of evolution. If phylogenetic trees start predicting relationships that don't match up with the fossil record in a serious way, I would abandon evolution. There are plenty of potential routes of falsification as far as I'm concerned.

 

It's true, I assume photons work a certain way across the universe, namely, the way they work here. Over space and time. The uniformity of nature is not an assumption I'll likely challenge unless observations somehow derail it.

 

As far as the last bit, I merely wanted to explain how I think about this, and why I believe that way I do. That required some statement about how the facts appear to my mind.

 

 

You said “Let me put it this way. If you start finding rabbit-like mammals in the precambrian, I would abandon the theory of evolution”

 

Excellent! So if I understand your standard correctly, in general terms, if I were to demonstrate to you an example of a species found in rock layers that are radically inconsistent with the evolutionary account of history (i.e. say, at least 500 million years out of place), you would reject Common Ancestry?

[i assume you understand that I wouldn’t be so bold as to ask such a question unless I could provide such an example]

 

 

“If phylogenetic trees start predicting relationships that don't match up with the fossil record in a serious way, I would abandon evolution. There are plenty of potential routes of falsification as far as I'm concerned.”

 

This one is a bit tricky in the sense that when a fossil is found ‘out of place’ (i.e. inconsistent with evolutionary predictions), the evolution story is changed to accommodate the new evidence (e.g. by a range expansion or other measure). So any example would necessarily be post-hoc. That is, it would have to be along the lines of; “Evolution theory previously predicted A. New evidence contradicted A. Therefore, in light of the new evidence, evolution theory now predicts B”. Scientific journals are saturated with such examples. Nevertheless, it’s your party, so I am happy to provide some examples if that is all it will take for you to reconsider your confidence in Common Ancestry.

 

I noticed that you added the caveat, “in a serious way” to your standard. Seems to me like an emergency, subjective back-door to your standard. You would have to quantify what “in a serious way” means before I could determine which examples are appropriate.

 

I think your proposal of this standard demonstrates the distinction between reality and public impression. Anyone involved in biology knows that phylogenic trees are constantly being rearranged to accommodate new evidence. In many cases, disputes arise between scientists stemming from differing molecular methods yielding different phylogenic associations. Yet outside of the scientific community, the impression is given that every organism fits nicely and neatly onto Darwin’s tree of life (with maybe the occasional puzzle here and there). I have noticed a particular affinity for the word “elegant”; used to describe to describe the overwhelming consistency of the whole evolution story, and how it so seamlessly and effortlessly fits the evidence. But that impression does not represent the scientific reality.

 

 

“I assume photons work a certain way across the universe, namely, the way they work here. Over space and time. The uniformity of nature is not an assumption I'll likely challenge unless observations somehow derail it.”

 

None of the assumptions I listed pertained to the “uniformity of nature” (though this itself is an assumption). The list I provided in the previous message demonstrated a very broad range of assumptions; well beyond the “uniformity of nature”.

 

When considering the history of the photon, your confidence in a particular version of its history indicates to me that you have not considered the magnitude of your assumptions when compared to the observational limitations. I think it is telling that these magnitudes of extrapolation are only ever accepted by science when they pertain to ideas that contradict the Biblical account of reality (radiometric dating is another example of small (100 or so years of) observations being extrapolated to billions of years of unobserved history).

 

 

“I merely wanted to explain how I think about this, and why I believe that way I do. That required some statement about how the facts appear to my mind”

 

I assumed by you posting that you were interested in a discussion.

 

You seem to be under the impression that you have to ‘manipulate’ or reject parts of the Bible which to not comply with the popular secular models of reality. I simply provided an argument demonstrating that there is no objective scientific or logical obligation for you to do so.