When does science help us understand God?

[Tristen]

Hi Jerry, you said; “We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth”

 

That is the propaganda. In reality, there is no evidence whatsoever that any Bible-believing community has ever thought the earth to be flat – let alone killed people for their disagreement. This is a classic Strawman fallacy. A lie about an opponent’s beliefs is presented for the purpose of claiming that the church has been wrong in the past, so maybe they should redeem themselves by adhering to evolution (i.e. not making the same mistake again). The unfortunate implication of this misrepresentation is that its presenter is either ignorant or dishonest.

 

And no-one has ever been killed by Christianity for their heliocentric views. Certainly not Galileo; who a) was not “put to death”, and b) blamed the Ptolemy/Aristotle-believing, academia for pressuring the church into prosecuting him (see his “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina”, 1615).

 

 

 

“In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us”

 

This is simply more unsubstantiated propaganda.

 

Claiming that the Christian church (or pre-Christian, Hebrew orthodoxy) ever taught that the earth was flat is a demonstrable lie – traceable to the fictitious claims of Washington Irving in his book “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus” (1828); where he claimed that flat earth believing Christians tried to dissuade Columbus for fear he would sail off the end of the world.

 

The irony of the heliocentric issue is that it was 2 devout and studied Christians (first Copernicus, then Galileo) using scientific observations to question the prevailing (non-Christian) paradigm of their time. Framing these issues as science vs. religion is therefore logically specious.

 

 

 

“For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?”

 

I’m going to henceforth ignore the “round-earther” reference because the premise has no basis in reality.

 

Galileo’s presentation in 1610 was initially well received by the church (including by the man who would have him prosecuted after becoming pope). By 1615, Galileo became aware of hostility to his ideas; that “academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors” (“Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina”, 1615) who subsequently “had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from their very pulpits with unwonted confidence, thus doing impious and inconsiderate injury not only to that doctrine and its followers but to all mathematics and mathematicians in general”. Then, after a series of trials (defended by Jesuits), Galileo was finally, successfully prosecuted in 1633 (i.e. 23 years after presenting his initial, heliocentric findings). There are many more details and issues contributing to Galileo’s ultimate undoing, but your impression of the church immediately “railing” against the prospect of a heliocentric paradigm is utterly false.

 

 

 

“What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?”

 

Firstly, I would need to know what you mean by “evolution”.

I, as a YEC, have no issue with Natural Selection.

I, as a YEC, have no issue with speciation (through isolation and Natural Selection).

I, as a YEC, have no issue with genetic mutations (even rarely beneficial mutations).

I, as a YEC, have no issue with changes of allele frequencies occurring in populations.

As a YEC, the only issue I have with “evolution” is when it is defined to mean Common Ancestry – the proposal that all life on earth is related through a series of ancestors common to all current living forms. [since the only antagonism is between creationism and Common Ancestry, the following assumes that by “evolution”, you mean Common Ancestry.]

 

Secondly, your framing of this question presupposes the truth of Common Ancestry – as though it had been verified beyond question. Science is supposed to be objective. A legitimately scientific question does not presuppose the answer, but uses critical thinking to subject all claims to equal scrutiny. If evidence could show Common Ancestry to be unequivocal, then there would be no need for debate. But it cannot. Therefore I have every rational (and scientific) right to subject Common Ancestry to scrutiny. The job of science is NOT to “convince” me of the ultimate truth of any claim, but to demonstrate the rational plausibility of that claim (yet I already consider Common Ancestry to be a viable explanation – given the naturalistic faith assumption). So what will it take for you to give fair consideration to actual creationist arguments/interpretations/explanations of the evidence? I understand that I can never “convince” you of my position without changing your faith perspective – but that doesn’t mean you can’t objectively analyse the logical consistency of my position (i.e. whether the conclusions and arguments are logically consistent with the premise within which they were formulated).

 

Third, in reality, science derives confidence through observations and repeated testing. But we are debating claims about the unobserved/untested past. We cannot go back in time to make the necessary scientific observations and tests required to justify scientific confidence in these claims. Therefore all claims regarding the past (both theistic and naturalistic) are unfalsifiable. There is no weight of evidence which could force a surrendering of any of these ideas. Even directly contrary evidence could just be a case of "we haven't yet figured out how this evidence fits our hypotheses"; which itself is a logical possibility – but a possibility which allows us to prefer a paradigm in spite of the facts.

 

Fourthly, the creationist position is that all of the very same facts which have been interpreted to support naturalistic models (such as Common Ancestry), can be alternatively interpreted to support the Biblical model of reality. So, grandiose claims and Innuendo regarding the amounts of evidence (even supposed “overwhelming evidence”) supporting Common Ancestry are meaningless in the context of this testable claim.

 

So to your question, no evidence can “convince”, but certain evidences could make the Common Ancestry model more rationally viable;

 

1)

Any single fact which could only, exclusively be interpreted to be consistent with naturalistic models, to the detriment of the Biblical model of reality. That is, there would have to be no logical way to render the fact(s) consistent with the static aspects of the Bible-based model. But if I can interpret the fact to be consistent with the Biblical model, then its existence does not logically favour one position over the other – it goes back to an issue of faith preference.

 

2)

As someone studying genetics, to make Common Ancestry plausible to me, I would have to observe of all of the following in a single example;

* Genetic information (a new gene) which is novel in quantity (in an additive sense) – i.e. an addition to the number of actual nucleotides in the organism’s genome (not just a change to existing information). A transposon insertion or gene duplication may accomplish this.

* Genetic information which is novel in quality – i.e. information in the new gene that demonstrates a function which is brand new to the organism. In this case, we would have to figure out how the new gene mutated to such a degree that it transcribes a new function, whilst leaving other genes conserved.

* The new gene would have to be selectively beneficial to the organism/population.

* The new gene would have to be heritable.

* And all would have to be observed in exclusively eukaryotic organisms/populations.

 

None of these would come close to justifying the currently expressed confidence (often certainty) in Common Ancestry – however, they would at least provide a plausible starting point for such confidence.

 

 

 

“Google Flat Earth Society – Index”

 

Ironically, Daniel Shenton, the current president of the Flat Earth society is a professed evolutionist.

 

 

 

“If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener”

 

Until our opponents can provide a rational defence of their position, or a rational argument outlaying the logical weaknesses of our position – then they have given us no reason to respect their “views”. Appeal to Consensus is a logical fallacy because the popular position is not necessarily correct. Appeals to Ridicule and Innuendo are logical fallacies because they rely on unsupported insinuation rather than rational argument.

 

I have a “science education”. If the “views” expressed against my position are expressed outside of the context of a rational argument, then those views have no rational merit. If all my opponents have to offer is empty rhetoric and logical fallacies, then I have all-the-more reason to be confident in my position.

[jerryR34]

 

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)".

No, sorry, that is not how it works.  Evolutionary science has already shown how a cat has evolved from a single cell with much help from the fact that cats exist. 

 

In evolution, predictive often means we will be able to predict what a cat ancestor we don't know of now will look like based on an older example and a current example.  If you don't understand this, you probably have an issue with the meaning of scientific theory - i.e. delve more into science definitions...

 

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. 

 

Are we to give up because we have only had the scientific method unconstrained by religion for a few hundred years when some of these processes take hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years? 

[anthonyjmcgirr]

There's a lot of dumb assumptions being made here.  Because I'm a Creationist, I think ALL science is bad and wrong?  That's not correct.  I just don't sit back and believe that science is 100% true and every theory it professes to be correct actually is.  I believe alternate theories and it is NOT the same as saying the earth is flat even though it has been proven not to be.  You are essentially insulting us by lumping us in with those who think the earth is flat. 

 

What is wrong with having alternate theories?  The theory of evolution has NO physical evidence to back it up.  It remains only a theory.  So the difference between observable evidence and un-observable evidence is one will always be a theory.  You can't prove things that you suppose happened billions or millions of years ago.  No one was there to observe it happening.  No one has ever observed macro-evolution (or one species evolving into something different).  Even in the fossil record we are missing millions of transitional forms. 

 

There are plenty of PhDs who have their own theories and are creationists and to me it makes sense and fits with my worldview.  You don't have to be a total idiot to accept creationism so stop with the assumptions. 

[Sim_Bahai]

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

 

 

In my (Baha'i) opinion, science cannot answer questions about religion, just like religion is not supposed to solve scientific problems. Both science and religion must support each other, like two wings of a bird, because with one wing alone, no bird can fly. Science teaches us *how* the world is, but religion teaches us *why* it is. Science without religion will become empty materialism, but religion without science becomes mere superstition.

 

I don't think the descriptions in the Bible should be confused with science. They're often symbolical and mythological descriptions of what happened.

 

For example, I believe when science proves there was a "big bang" or something, that's how God created the world. Science helps us to understand *how* God did that. But it will never teach us *why* God did it, for which purpose, or what is right and wrong. Science only knows true and false, which is why we need religion.

 

Baha'u'llah (whom Baha'i consider a divine prophet) confirmed Adam was the first man. But he also says, in the next sentence, that there were divine prophets even before Adam. How is that possible? Many Baha'i, including myself, believe that to mean that evolution is true and Adam was a symbolical person, the first person the moment man had crossed the evolutionary line between animal and human.

[jdxp]

It's a good thing there's no hungry people out there that need feed or prisoners that need comforting, and doubly good that all the souls we see in our daily lives are saved and bound for paradise. Now we can concentrate on the important things, like determining whether atheists are pagans, polytheists, or witches, and deciding if the earth is six thousand or ten thousand years old. I am so disenchanted.

[other one]

I'm trying to figure out how you have the time to be here with all those things that need to be done.

[jdxp]

I'm trying to figure out how you have the time to be here with all those things that need to be done.

 

And I will have to answer to Almighty God and pay the price for the time I have squandered on this and every other forum. Forums I went to for faith and reassurance. Forums I searched for as a baby Christian, as someone justly called me, hoping to find brotherhood. But instead I found internecine nonsense. All I found was Christians fighting Christians and the random nonbeliever. Instead of being filled with strenght, I was set upon by despair.

 

But I thank God that in His wisdom He used this forum, and all the others, to chastise me, to push me into actually going out into the world and helping people in need, as Jesus Christ commanded.

[LuftWaffle]

 

I'm trying to figure out how you have the time to be here with all those things that need to be done.

 

And I will have to answer to Almighty God and pay the price for the time I have squandered on this and every other forum. Forums I went to for faith and reassurance. Forums I searched for as a baby Christian, as someone justly called me, hoping to find brotherhood. But instead I found internecine nonsense. All I found was Christians fighting Christians and the random nonbeliever. Instead of being filled with strenght, I was set upon by despair.

 

But I thank God that in His wisdom He used this forum, and all the others, to chastise me, to push me into actually going out into the world and helping people in need, as Jesus Christ commanded.

 

 

Some might say that the reason atheism has become rather popular is precisely because Christians have stopped discussing and answering people's questions. God gives many people many different roles. Some are apologists, some exhort, some chastise, some counsel, some evangelise, some comfort etc.

 

If you feel called to make a difference in a certain arena, then do so and do it well, but don't judge those who have a different call. Where people are keenly pursuing the truth, disagreements are inevitable. Even Peter and Paul had disagreements. Christians ought to be marked by their love in the face of strong disagreements, not a shallow unity propped up by avoiding disagreement.

[Guest]

Some might say that the reason atheism has become rather popular is precisely because Christians have stopped discussing and answering people's questions. God gives many people many different roles. Some are apologists, some exhort, some chastise, some counsel, some evangelise, some comfort etc.

 

If you feel called to make a difference in a certain arena, then do so and do it well, but don't judge those who have a different call. Where people are keenly pursuing the truth, disagreements are inevitable. Even Peter and Paul had disagreements. Christians ought to be marked by their love in the face of strong disagreements, not a shallow unity propped up by avoiding disagreement.

 

 

 

Men Of Iron

 

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. Proverbs 27:17

 

~

 

And I will have to answer to Almighty God and pay the price for the time I have squandered on this and every other forum.

 

Forums I went to for faith and reassurance.

 

Forums I searched for as a baby Christian, as someone justly called me, hoping to find brotherhood.

 

But instead I found internecine nonsense.

 

All I found was Christians fighting Christians and the random nonbeliever.

 

Instead of being filled with strength, I was set upon by despair.

 

But I thank God that in His wisdom He used this forum, and all the others,

 

to chastise me,

 

to push me into actually going out into the world

 

and helping people in need, as Jesus Christ commanded.

 

~

 

Beloved,

 

Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share.

 

But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people.

 

I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives.

 

The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude:1-3-4 (NLT)

 

Please Do Not Despair

 

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. Luke 23:34 (ESV)

 

But Rejoice

 

However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." Luke 10:20 (NIV)