why this is important

[LookingForAnswers]

Your comparison is faulty, more like those 4 agreeing on the 15 yard pass but disagreeing on what the shape of the football is.

You are quoting people of science on a topic of science while on the other hand comparing their views to bagels. Very dishonest in my opinion

[anthonyjmcgirr]

I think for me, as others have basically said, the study of science automatically assumes that God is not real and tries to explain the world naturally.  If you drop a modern scientist in the Garden of Eden, he will get the chance to observe the world all around him.  He will look at the trees, fully formed and budding fruit; same with animals.  He would meet Adam and Eve, created as adults and capable of reproduction.  He would see the stars in the sky.  he would see everything fully formed and come up with a very *logical* opinion that the earth must be billions of years old simply from the stars, not realizing God put them there only days before for man to use, that the trees were fully formed so man could have something to eat.  he would probably wonder why Adam and Eve didn't have belly-buttons, but think that at the very least, the earth was several decades old. 

 

We see the earth as old and so it is very *dumb* for a creationist to say, 'Hey the earth is 6,000 years old!' when they have all this *evidence* that says it's billions.  This is why science and faith are not compatible.  Not to mention if you even mention the term 'intelligent design', you are instantly kicked out of the club.  You lose all credibility and more than likely your job.  There is a major monopoly on atheistic, naturalist science and if you don't agree with their interpretation of the evidence, you are a nobody.

 

That's why there are creation scientists who do the same studies and can use the same evidence, but come up with a different interpretation of that evidence. 

[LookingForAnswers]

I think for me, as others have basically said, the study of science automatically assumes that God is not real and tries to explain the world naturally.  If you drop a modern scientist in the Garden of Eden, he will get the chance to observe the world all around him.  He will look at the trees, fully formed and budding fruit; same with animals.  He would meet Adam and Eve, created as adults and capable of reproduction.  He would see the stars in the sky.  he would see everything fully formed and come up with a very *logical* opinion that the earth must be billions of years old simply from the stars, not realizing God put them there only days before for man to use, that the trees were fully formed so man could have something to eat.  he would probably wonder why Adam and Eve didn't have belly-buttons, but think that at the very least, the earth was several decades old. 

 

We see the earth as old and so it is very *dumb* for a creationist to say, 'Hey the earth is 6,000 years old!' when they have all this *evidence* that says it's billions.  This is why science and faith are not compatible.  Not to mention if you even mention the term 'intelligent design', you are instantly kicked out of the club.  You lose all credibility and more than likely your job.  There is a major monopoly on atheistic, naturalist science and if you don't agree with their interpretation of the evidence, you are a nobody.

 

That's why there are creation scientists who do the same studies and can use the same evidence, but come up with a different interpretation of that evidence. 

 

Science is the study of the natural world, science is not designed to study the super natural, it is the wrong tool.  An expression I once heard that I like is that to use science to study the super natural is like using a yard stick to weigh a chicken, it wont work.    Those that try and use science to either prove or disprove God or anything of the super natural realm are both equally wrong, science cannot answer questions of the super natural.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

But then there are huge sects of science that are absolutely and totally wrong, but they are teaching kids these things as if they are true.  They force these atheistic ideas down the throats of college students, causing many of them to lose their faith, because how can the concept of God stand up against all this incredible *evidence* of evolution?  How can you study the natural world when it was created supernaturally by God?

Edited February 3, 2014 by anthonyjmcgirr

[Tristen]

 

 

 

Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts IMHO Philosophy and Faith seek truth. Science informs this endeavor. I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me to do that. Instead I studied because of awe and wonder. Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

 

'Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts"

 

Aren't Facts, TRUTH?

 

 

Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

 

Which debates are you referring too?  Why are they Tiresome?  Who are the 2 Parties?

 

 

"I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me"

 

I didn't either; but there appears to be Roosters in the Hen House......

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

 

"Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity."

Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

John Polkinghorne PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics Cambridge

'People who tell you that 'Science tells you everything you need to know about the world' or 'Science tells you that religion is all wrong' or 'Science tells you there is no God', those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons.'

John Polkinghorne PhD; Expelled, April 18 2008

 

William Provine PhD Professor of Biology Cornell

'Creationists will have to speak louder. I continue to support those who would like to have their voices heard in biology classes. I encourage the effort to limit the teaching of evolutionary biology until such time as evolutionists encourage a more inclusive participation of students. The very idea of the American Civil Liberties Union conspiring with evolutionary biologists to limit the free speech of the majority of the high school students in this country is grotesque.'

William Provine PhD; Darwinism, Design and Public Education 2003, p. 511

 

 

'Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.'

Phillip Johnson Professor of Law; Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, October 1990

 

 

'The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.

Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory.'

Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009

 

 

 

Hey Enoch, You said “Aren't Facts, TRUTH?”

 

Technically, the answer is no. Facts are observations; i.e. articles or data measurements. If they exist, they are rationally indisputable – but only given the unverifiable faith premise that observations can be trusted (which we generally all adhere to).

 

Truth is a claim about ultimate reality. It is an absolutist concept which places it beyond the scope of science. That is, science only attributes confidence and probability to claims about truth – but can never itself legitimately proclaim a truth (because we don’t know what we don’t know). There is always the possibility that some new discovery could undermine everything we previously thought we knew about an issue.

 

For the longest time, society has been under the misapprehension that science does deal in right/wrong, true/false etc. As such, scientists enjoyed the position of modern day prophets. A news article introduced with “scientists believe ...” had become the modern day equivalent of “thus saith the Lord”. And the scientific community did nothing to correct this false impression; addicted to their ideas being considered ‘gospel’ in broader society. In my opinion, this is why the scientific community became so offended by members of society having the gall to question them over climate change. I mean, how dare these unqualified peasants question our authoritaa – don’t they know that we are scientists – some even climate scientists? (But in reality, the scientific method has always permitted the scrutiny of any scientific claim.)

 

It is unfortunate that the scientific term “fact” is commonly misunderstood and misused to exaggerate scientific confidence in a particular, preferred truth claim (e.g. the claim that “Common Ancestry/evolution is a fact”).

 

 

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

 

 

 

You said “Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact”

 

Fact is a scientific term. Truth is a philosophical term. The problem with using general dictionaries is that they often include common-usage definitions, rather than etymologically correct definitions. In a scientific context, definitions have to be very specific so as to avoid equivocation.

 

If we assume that observation can be trusted, then observed facts are rationally indisputable - they either exist (can be observed), or they do not. As such, many confuse fact with truth – and like to use fact instead of truth so they sound more scientific. And as such, many common dictionaries will incorrectly define fact as truth.

 

The purpose of words is to distinguish between distinct concepts. This is what makes communication possible. Non-specific definitions impede effective communication because they promote equivocation. Therefore, it is not good enough to simply find a definition in a common dictionary. For rational communication, definitions have to be justified in logic.

[Guest shiloh357]

Science is the study of the natural world, science is not designed to study the super natural, it is the wrong tool. 

 

 Science cannot study the supernatural, but science can study God's creation and glorify God in His creation. That should be the primary goal of science.  Science beneifts man in many ways, but it's main goal should have been to glorify God in what He has made.  Instead, it was hijacked by humanists and atheists and any scientist whose faith informed how he interprets the evidence is rejected as a true scientist.

 

Those that try and use science to either prove or disprove God or anything of the super natural realm are both equally wrong, science cannot answer questions of the super natural.

 

Creationism doesn't claim to be able to prove God's existence, but rather interprets the created order in way that shows how God can be seen in what He has made.

[nebula]

I find it sad how few people want to discuss what they learn about God and His relationship to us as revealed through the Creation account [how silent the "Creation Theology" thread is]. Why is that?

 

 

In any event, here's how I perceive the problem.

 

Science looks to nature to explain nature. While those of us who believe in a Creator interpret nature through that lens, "science" will not because there is no substantial evidence by scientific analysis that a Creator exists. Without such verifiable evidence, it cannot be added to the equation. While we can argue until we are blue in the face that science should allow such to be in consideration for their interpretation, they won't do it. So even though data can be interpreted differently when one accounts for a Creator, until such a being can be verified, it won't happen.

 

Now I can admit a certain pro to this, even though their is the humongous con in yours and mine perceptions that they are missing the boat. The first Pro is is that without positively identifying the nature of the Creator, it would be impossible to nail down, by scientific standards, what He did and how extent a role He played. What I mean is that while we believe in the God of the Bible, other religions believe in other gods; how do we "prove" that our God is more "right" than their gods? Do scientists allow every religion to develop their own interpretation of the data and consider it valid science? Now I'm all for everyone having the right to believe what they want to believe, but could you imagine the confusion it would create for a group of biologists trying to work together on a subject relevant to the issue if they were allowed to apply whatever belief suited their fancy?

 

Now I am not saying this to justify the negating of God and the spiritual realm; but until you can appreciate the can of worms such an approach would open up, you cannot truly figure out a way to work out a resolution.

 

The second Pro I can appreciate is the tendency for those who believe in a Creator to stop investigating. What I mean is, science advances by asking such things as, "Why? How?" and seeking those answers. The unfortunate tendency with most believers is when confronted with the questions of why and how to respond, "God did it," and then move on. If Gregory Mendel had answered the question of, "Why do peas produce different color flowers?" with, "God did it that way," who know when the study of genetics would have opened up to us? (FYI, genetics has become a valuable tool for beneficial studies such as inherited diseases.) And yes, I've had many discussions with non-scientific-minded Creationists of such things as how the sun came to be, and they would respond, "God made it, and that's good enough for me!" Well, it's not good enough for me, nor is it good enough for science. That would be like seeking to know how a painting was made or how a ship was built and being told, "So-and-so made it, and that's all you need to know." No, I want to know what paints were used, did they utilize models or was it all from their head, what part was painted first, etc., or with the ship, what materials, what blue prints, what technology was implemented, why a certain design over another, and the like. Needless to say, scientists would rather not deal with the hands that built it, so to speak, but just focus on the building processes. (Even though for you an I, leaving "the hands that built it" out misses everything.)

 

 

Anyway, that's what I've pieced together from debating and discussing such things.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Well during my time here, I hope to get the creation thread going.  I love discussing this stuff. 

 

I still just see a lot of science as total 'theory' and it will never leave that realm of being anything more than that.  How can you declare fact on something no one as EVER witnessed?  How is the Oort Cloud fact?  It hasn't been seen!  How is the Big Bang fact?  Who was there to witness it?  If you believe in God, He was there.  He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever.  How did the dinosaurs die?  We still don't know. Again, no observational evidence.  But it did require the dumping of a large amount of sediments on dead carcasses, supporting the flood more than an asteroid or comet striking the earth. But still, all of these things are being taught as fact in schools and they're not! 

[Tristen]

 

 

 

It is true that our "world view" reflects how we interpret everything, even in science.

 

The weakness of science, as I see it, is forcing everyone to assume a Naturalistic world view - the view that "nature" is all that there is, no spiritual realm influencing us, no "supreme being" of any sort who is in command of it all.

 

When speaking of the things of the past, I take on the habit of saying such things as, "It is believed that," or "It has been concluded that," rather than, "It is." After all, is that nor more correct?

Yeah. I think the issue is, you are assuming naturalism, if even for a moment, to do it. Then, you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that. For me, at any rate, it's hard not to exist in tension between this implicit 'success' of science, associate that with naturalism, vs the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God.

 

 

 

"Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it? Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old? What does that affect anyway?"

 

 

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God’s highest authoritative communication to humanity. The primary purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to humanity, as well as His plan for our salvation. The Bible provides the fundamental premise of all Christian doctrine, ethics and philosophy including the nature of God and reason that salvation is necessary.

 

Opponents of Christianity have long understood that the most effective attacks against the Christian faith are those which undermine the reliability and authority of the Bible. Some non-Christian faiths have constructed their own scriptures through which they judge the Bible (e.g. Islam), others formulate new “scriptures”; permitting them to reinterpret the Bible (e.g. the Book of Mormon, Gnostic gospels etc.). Others simply change parts of scripture to suit what they believe (e.g. the Jehovah’s Witness Bible). There have been many recorded historical attempts to change the Bible; especially the New Testament (e.g. the Alexandrian manuscripts, Constantine’s attempt to standardise the Bible etc.).

 

Non-religious faiths (i.e. atheism, agnosticism) tend to prefer attacking the reliability of the Bible in other ways. For example, vast lists of alleged Bible contradictions have been formulated in an attempt to undermine the Bible; based on the implied accusation of logical inconsistency. In some cases they simply utilize the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule by mocking the supernatural claims made in the Bible (e.g. talking animals, “magical sky Daddy” & “zombie Jesus” etc.) – thinking themselves to be ever so clever. But by far the most aggressive and successful attacks against the authority of scripture are those claiming the Bible to be scientifically untenable.

 

Science (as we understand it) requires the assumption of a rationally ordered universe. That is, in order for us to be able to attribute scientific confidence to a claim, we have to assume that the laws which govern our universe are constant through time and space, and that identical experiments will thus yield identical results.

 

Scientific advancement stalled in several ancient cultures because they lacked any justification for assuming a rationally ordered universe. However, science prospered under the Christian paradigm which justifies this fundamental assumption (by invoking a rational Creator). This is why Christianity has been the foremost sponsor of scientific advancement for the best part of the last 2000 years; and why the founding scientists of almost all scientific disciplines were explicitly Christian; and why the oldest science universities (e.g. Oxford) were built by the church. Science was originally conducted to glorify the Biblical God through investigation of His creation.

 

However, roughly 300 years ago, a new paradigm was suggested for science which we now call naturalism. Naturalism is a paradigm whereby only natural explanations can be considered to qualify as truth – and therefore is a faith-based paradigm that unjustifiably prohibits the possibility of any supernatural interaction with the physical universe). This new paradigm has been so thoroughly adopted by the broader scientific community that it has become the only type of science that most people are exposed to. This creates the false impression that naturalistic science is logically superior to science performed from other faith-based perspectives.

 

This secular indoctrination of the naturalistic perspective makes it easy for its proponents to make unjustified, Innuendo-based claims that with their position; “you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that”; and to simply equate their own position as “science” with its “implicit 'success'” – with the obvious implication that opposing positions are not “science”. They furthermore demonstrate no knowledge of the predictive power and consistency of models formulated around alternative faith perspectives; and again appealing to logical fallacy (Innuendo and Strawman Misrepresentations) proceeding to falsely characterise opposing views as unscientific (i.e. “the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God”) in contrast against their own preferred, allegedly “scientific” perspective.

 

The defence of Biblical authority is of paramount importance to the success of Christian conversion and life. I have encountered many who outright reject Christianity because they think is it scientifically unsustainable based on what is taught in the Bible. And others who fall away from Christianity because they cannot reconcile their faith in naturalistic science with their faith in the reliability of the Bible. Yet as someone who is formally educated in science, I have never encountered an argument or evidence that would warrant a wholesale rejection of the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). I have searched, and I have found no objective scientific reason that would necessarily, logically bind anyone to the naturalistic models. In other words, as much as our culture and the secular scientific community would like you to believe that theirs is the only rational argument, their expressed levels of confidence in their own position is neither scientifically, or logically, justified. And there is therefore no legitimate reason for a Christian to believe they are obligated to distrust the account of history presented in the Bible. Any such adherence to secular models is based on faith in the naturalistic paradigm, not any objective consideration of the science itself.

 

Thanks for the contribution Tristen. I admit, I am unsure what your upshot is. I'm not sure what you are intending with my quotes. Are you thinking I am trying to promote naturalism or merely implicitly taken in? I don't think that experiences with God being unpredictable is inaccurate insofar as God is a Person and not a thing. Is your point that the dilemma I am experiencing is ultimately unnecessary? That may be so but not really the point of my OP.

 

 

 

You said “I'm not sure what you are intending with my quotes. Are you thinking I am trying to promote naturalism or merely implicitly taken in?”

 

When we are only ever exposed to one side of a debate from childhood, then we will be more inclined to believe that side. That is a common experience regarding Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology. It was certainly my experience before converting to Christianity. It is this constant, exclusive exposure to only one side of the debate which promotes the popular impression that Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology are essentially beyond question. As such, many in the Christian faith feel that they are logically obliged to make the clear teaching of the Bible conform to these naturalistic models.

 

Your quotes are reflective of this obligation. It is common in defence of these naturalistic models to utilise vague, innuendo-based statements rather than rational arguments. And this strategy is evident in your position. For example, your claim about “how powerful the predictions are” and its “implicit success” mean nothing until you justify the claims with evidence and argument. My own personal research indicates that chronologically, most of the so-called “predictions” of these models didn’t exist until after the discovery of evidence forced a theoretical change in the models - so that they now “predict” what was found. The trick is to use present tense; “Common Ancestry predicts A. And we find A – what a powerfully predictive model”. When in reality; “Common Ancestry used to predict B. But then we found A. So the model is tweaked so that it now predicts A.”. So I think it would benefit to consider whether or not the predictions attributed to secular models actually existed before the discoveries (I’m sure there must be some – but nowhere near as many as your rhetoric implies) and whether or not they really qualify as predictions or add any weight of evidence to the claim of predictive capacity (and further investigate how often the models have been wrong in their predictions).

 

 

 

“I don't think that experiences with God being unpredictable is inaccurate insofar as God is a Person and not a thing”

 

In the context of contrast, when you characterise your own position as “science”, you imply that your opposing position is unscientific - which again is meaningless until justified by evidence and argument. Then you mischaracterise the creationist position as relying upon “spiritual encounters with God”. But that is not the informed creationist position. I for one am happy to debate the models on the basis of scientific research. And there are many highly credentialed scientists, who are also creationists, who would be happy to do the same. Some of those are actively engaged in research with creationist implications.

 

This constant appeal to Innuendo and Unsupported Assertion demonstrates a bias towards ready acceptance of the secular scientific models, as opposed to a position informed by objective analysis of both sides of the argument.

 

 

“Is your point that the dilemma I am experiencing is ultimately unnecessary?”

 

I guess that is one of my points. The level of confidence commonly expressed in the secular models (usually absolute certainty) is not, and cannot, be logically justified by the scientific method. Furthermore, the scientific method explicitly permits the scrutiny of all scientific claims. Therefore, you are rationally permitted to consider the creationist position as a viable possibility, and there is no rational requirement for allegiance to the secular models.

 

 

 

“That may be so but not really the point of my OP”

 

You asked “why this is important” and "Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it? Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old? What does that affect anyway?"

 

It is important because this perception that Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry are beyond question (as opposed to what is taught in the Bible) is an unjustified and unnecessary stumbling block to the faith of many; both unconverted and converted.

[alphaparticle]

Tristen,

 

I am fairly sure you missed the point of my OP. The questions that begun it were rhetorical, the sorts of questions I've heard from some believers in response to people engaging into the 'creation debate'.

 

In the body of my post, I was not attempting to make any kind of argument. I was trying to describe my own personal struggle.