big bang continued

[alphaparticle]

 

Tristen,

 

With regards to your post to me, I think it is the case that you misunderstand my intentions. I acknowledge it may be, and probably is, even, a matter of my not being particularly clearly in my thread. I simply wanted to express frustration and also, express for those who may be in a similar boat as me my veiws so they are aware there are others with similar struggles. It isn't my intention to suggest that everyone else is dumb. Your attempt to read between the lines in that was inaccurate.

 

To everyone, in general,

 

it is simply the case I often find it hard to be a believer and be in the groups that I am in. Maybe you find that frankly irrelevant to the topic, and I understand it if you do, but I think it is rather important that people know there are Christians out there who do not dismiss evolution, or the big bang, as they are the accepted scientific models by the vast majority of people in the relevant fields. I find it important to for certain believers and seekers to know this.

 

 

Hi alphaparticle,

 

I think I have understood your position just fine. You disagree on a couple of issues with some Christians in your circle;

- You think that a consistent world-view can be maintained between the Bible, and secular historical models. The Christians around you disagree.

- You think that the issue is unimportant. The Christians around you disagree.

 

So it is likely that you are being challenged on your position – which is a cause of frustration for you.

 

I still think the inconsistency lies with you. Since you consider the issue to be unimportant, you are expecting these Christians to act as if they consider the issue to be unimportant.

 

If I might be so bold as to offer advice – You are not obligated to engage on this issue. Ideally, you would be secure enough to be able to get amongst it on any issue, but since, by your own admission, you are becoming frustrated, you could just say when challenged “I have made a decision that I’m going to leave this issue to God’s correction (if He deems it necessary) because it has become a source of distraction and frustration for me” (or some other polite way of saying “This conversation isn’t going to happen”). If they continue to push, then you can say “So what you are saying is that you have no confidence in God’s capacity to correct me?”

 

 

 

“I think it is rather important that people know there are Christians out there who do not dismiss evolution, or the big bang, as they are the accepted scientific models by the vast majority of people in the relevant fields”

 

Ultimately, if you know the Lord, then God is able to correct whichever of us needs it as He deems fit; assuming we are open to correction. However, statements like the one above are a source of sincere concern because they indicate a readiness to accept the world’s story over the Biblical account – without due consideration for the logic employed.

 

For example, creationists do not “dismiss” anything. We disagree that Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology represent the only rational interpretations of the available evidence, and we disagree with the scientifically (and logically) unjustified levels of confidence often expressed in these models, and we disagree with the common claim that our disagreement demonstrates us to be, in any respect, scientifically ignorant. Our disagreement and right to scrutinise any scientific claim is explicitly permitted under the scientific method.

 

Acceptance by the scientific community has never been a legitimate source of scientific confidence – especially when we are dealing with historical models of unobserved claims. Logic simply doesn’t permit confidence from this source. It combines the two logical fallacies Appeal to Consensus and Appeal to Authority.

 

 

 

“I find it important to for certain believers and seekers to know this”

 

I’m not sure why. Presumably you think that by conceding these points we make the gospel more appealing to outsiders.

 

I’m not trying to negate your right to an opinion. My disagreement is based on the experience that I have never seen anyone impressed by an attempt to combine the Bible with secular models. Most people have recognised that these secular models are formulated with the intention of explaining reality without God. So they respond by either patronising us as having a half-truth (i.e. we are almost to a point where we’ve figured out that there is no need for God), or by criticising out capacity for reason. Richard Dawkins has demonstrated both of these strategies; in one sense describing Christians as “otherwise sane” or “They half-believe in the Bible but how do they decide which parts to believe literally and which parts are just allegorical?”; yet in another context he describes the attempted combination of secular models with the Bible as “Barking mad”.

 

Since these represent the usual responses (at least in my experience), even if you disagree with us, you must be able to understand why we consider these issues important, and why we feel obligated to passionately defend our position. I empathise that discussing these issues with Christians makes you feel isolated and frustrated – that should not be the case. Christian fellowship should provide a place where we feel safe discussing any issue.

 

No, you don't understand my intentions and you seem to think you understand those a great deal from what are really sparse words. Your entire post above misses what I attempted to communicate with you with my last post, in kind of an enormous way... which further affirms to me you missed the point. Again, I am not blaming you for this, just pointing it out as a matter of fact. I am not effectually communicating to you what I have in mind. You really, have, *seemingly*, no idea what I mean to get at. I think believers in these circles will likely understand it though, and that is why I posted my OP. It's odd insofar as, I find for whatever reason I'd like to be understood on this, insofar as what I am really getting at is absolutely the biggest spiritual struggle I've had, and have had, off and on for the 2 years since I have converted. Yet, on the other hand, I am not sure how to adequately explain it.

[Macs Son]

When a thread starts out and remains being called "Big Bang Continued" it infers the Topic being Discussed is indeed the "Big Bang". When we look at the evidences and exegete the Scriptures around a single topic it lends clarity. When we switch the subject during a conversation one could take that as being an evasive tactic. This topic has clearly devolved into a discussion of evolution, no pun intended. Now I think the topic of evolution could have several different micro-topics unto itself. When others tell me the two are related because they utilize the same secular logic I'm baffled.

Darwin made a conjecture, random selection, and I happen to believe it was a bad one. He stated that the fossil evidence would either substantiate his conjecture or dismiss it. We clearly do not see transitional forms of species that Darwin predicted we would find, even though the fossil record we now have is exhaustive. Yet clearly old premises and theories die hard. Aristotle's view of universe was upended by men like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton but it took centuries of evidence to do so. To be fair there was also incorrect Biblical interpretation from most Biblical Scholars of the day which were aligned against scientists who were merely after the truth. Now I maintain that the truth of God is found in all creation. "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork." All truth belongs to God and the job of science, knowledge truly called" is to translate the truth of all witnesses and interpret what it is telling us. Most importantly we as Christians need to interpret the Word of God, sometimes exhaustively, in order to better mine its truths. Truths don't conflict with one another. Although there may, at first glance, appear to be contradictions even between passages in the Bible I believe that is just the Lord's way of urging us to look deeper for resolution. Historically Secular Science in large part has done the same but the difference between exegetical scholarship and scientific scholarship is this. As Christians we already affirm that the Bible being the Word of God already holds God's truth. It is merely interpretation of Scripture in the light of all Scripture that can reveal to us the more difficult truths. Secular Science, however, can only find truths that subjugated to the physical realm. That is not so bad as again, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork." However this is done by a multiplicity of conjecture, some being dismissed by a lack of evidence and some being dismissed after better evidence is found. Once conjectures appear to be true they become postulates and once evidence weighs heavily in favor of it they become theories and are not upended until the weight of further evidence or improvements upon it can be substantiated. The scientific method was formulated by Christians who loved truth so we should not knock it. Also Jesus told us we should worship the Father in Spirit and Truth.

That said I believe this thread has been hijacked and believe we diverge from the topic at hand. There is a simply a world of difference between Big Bang theory and evolution both evidentially as well as with respect to Scripture and I believe it lends to a lack of focus overall, not only the topic itself but to orderly debate on the forums in the general sense.

Anyhow I'm off my soapbox. Now back to our regularly scheduled program which of course has been preempted by evolution and never to return.

In Christ, Pat

Edited July 3, 2014 by Macs Son

[Bonky]

Hey Bonky, you said “Affirming the consequent occurs only when such affirmation is said to provide proof for the antecedent”

 

This is incorrect. Any level of confidence in the antecedent requires the logic gap to be filled with the same assumption.

There is other evidence that is offered to support common descent, it's not like this is the only evidenced being put forward and resting entirely on that. Again, we have a known mechanism that offers a very credible explanation for why these similarities exist. You are looking at this single piece of evidence in a vacuum so to speak and crying foul.

 

 

 

My point is that the entity “proof” as you are using it, doesn’t actually exist in any legitimate sense. You are miss-defining “proof” to mean some form of absolute verification (i.e. in a pseudo-scientific sense) – a definition which cannot be logically sustained. So using “proof” this way to support your definition of Affirming the Consequent is also illegitimate.

I'm not sure I follow, I'm agreeing with you that we're not going to get absolute proof with genetic evidence for common descent. I think evolution however is the best model to explain it.

 

“We have only one natural mechanism for various genetic markers to be handed down to future generations...genetic inheritance”

 

Actually, prokaryotes and viruses can employ various horizontal gene transfer mechanisms (which becomes very problematic when they are used to support inheritance models like Common Ancestry).

I hate to be the one to point this out but we're not prokaryotes.

 

 

 

“Now you'll argue that a "Designer" placed these similarities there, but using Occam's razor I can easily choose common ancestry as the best explanation”

 

Since you have left this as an Unsupported Assertion, I’ll have to make assumptions about what you mean based on my own previous conversations.

Well I know that you're a Christian that views the Genesis creation account as a literal historical event. I know that you reject common ancestry, so the only other explanation I could think of is that we [humans and chimps] just happened to independently evolved with the same retroviruses [genetic signatures if you prefer]. You even said yourself that you would assume they came from the "mind of the Designer".

I really would prefer to have a discussion that is a bit more relaxed. I really feel like you are on some high alert to find any kind of flaw with anything I say.

 

Occam’s Razor states that “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”. In application, it means that we should prefer the argument with the least entities (logical steps) between premise and conclusion – over those arguments which require more complexity.  Now atheists sometimes try to suggest that God qualifies as an extra logical entity – but that is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the theory. God is the premise of our argument – not an entity between the premise and conclusion. It’s easy to see why this might appeal to an atheist; since removing the premise removes the entire foundation of an argument. But this was never the purpose of Occam’s Razor. Some have subsequently attempted to redefine these "entities" as natural observations. I assume I don't have to explain to you why I consider this a biased redefinition.

 

I would suggest that the theistic explanation is far more parsimonious than the secular explanation. In fact, our opponents often ridicule our position for its simplicity; mischaracterizing it as “Godidit”.

We're going to differ on the occams razor so it seems. With regard to "Goddidit", I think what people are doing is making fun of the employment of the supernatural when it's convenient to solve a problem. I know you don't care for my Newton example but it's shows the problem with using the supernatural to explain things.

Nevertheless, Occam’s Razor is not a law of logic. It’s a good rule-of-thumb, but there always remains the possibility that the more complex explanation represents the truth.

I agree, so long as the complex explanation is actually explaining something.

 

 

If these genetic segments are biologically functional, then their existence is no more predicted by common descent, than by design. In both systems, similar organisms are expected to have similar information enabling them to fill similar habitat niches.

Yet there are mammals that live in these same niches that don't share these segments. I'd also be curious, if biological function is indicative of design, what would genetics segments with harmful characteristics be indicative of?

 

 

 

“it's not about proof, but just the idea that evolution [in my opinion] offers a better explanation”

 

Whilst your conclusion is subjective, you are now employing the correct amount of measured language. It is my opinion that Biblical creation offers a better explanation of the history of life.

To the origin of life maybe, not sure about the "history" of it.

[Bonky]

[Tristen]

 

 

 

 

Hi Bonkey, you said “There is other evidence that is offered to support common descent, it's not like this is the only evidenced being put forward and resting entirely on that. Again, we have a known mechanism that offers a very credible explanation for why these similarities exist”

 

This is simply more Innuendo and Unsupported Assertion.

 

What do you mean by “a known mechanism”? Genetic changes are observed in populations, however no observation has demonstrated the kind of genetic change that would be necessary to ‘evolve’ a human from a simpler organism. There are speculations and counter-speculations regarding how this might have occurred, but othing founded in observation. The actual observed mechanisms of genetic change overwhelmingly corrupt genetic material. Even if we do, one day, observe the appropriate type of change, it would not logically mandate that this mechanism explain all of the current complexity of life on earth.

 

And the phrase “very credible explanation” is entirely subjective. What we actually have is a logically possible (yet entirely unfalsifiable) explanation.

 

 

 

“You are looking at this single piece of evidence in a vacuum so to speak and crying foul”

 

I think this analysis ignores the context of my response. In context, I responded to the example you provided – so yes, my response technically was to a “single piece of evidence”. I think this discussion has demonstrated that I am happy to deal with any facts you care to provide.

 

And I was not “crying foul” about anything. I was merely demonstrating that any claimed scientific confidence derived from historical models is entirely dependent upon unverifiable assumptions.

 

 

 

    “We have only one natural mechanism for various genetic markers to be handed down to future generations...genetic inheritance”

Actually, prokaryotes and viruses can employ various horizontal gene transfer mechanisms (which becomes very problematic when they are used to support inheritance models like Common Ancestry).

“I hate to be the one to point this out but we're not prokaryotes”

 

No, but we do catch viruses, and it is their capacity to transfer genes horizontally which forms the basis of your ERV evidence.

 

Nevertheless my response was appropriate for the claim you made.

 

 

 

“Well I know that you're a Christian that views the Genesis creation account as a literal historical event”

 

I wouldn’t use the term “literal”, but yes, historical.

 

 

 

“I know that you reject common ancestry”

 

This is somewhat of a mischaracterization; as it implies a lack of consideration on my part. I have considered and formally studied the justifications (in evidence and logic) for both Common Ancestry and Biblical creationism – and I disagree that Common Ancestry is the only valid way to interpret the available evidence. Such exclusive confidence defies both logical and scientific justification. And there is therefore no objective scientific reason for any Christian to compromise their faith in the Biblical account.

 

 

 

“so the only other explanation I could think of is that we [humans and chimps] just happened to independently evolved with the same retroviruses [genetic signatures if you prefer]”

 

Or – they are part of the original genetic information which was programmed by the Designer and has nothing to do with retroviruses. They are simply part of the original program – along with all our other genes. If they have a function, then there is no reason to assume they are anything other than original programming; information used in whatever creatures the Designer saw fit.

 

 

 

“I really would prefer to have a discussion that is a bit more relaxed. I really feel like you are on some high alert to find any kind of flaw with anything I say”

 

I understand that impression. My issue is that in almost every discussion I have on the issue, the people on the other side of the debate rely heavily on an “everybody knows” story. That is, since most people have been exclusively exposed to the secular perspective (in books, documentaries, school, university etc.), we don’t have to explain ourselves because almost everybody already knows we’re right. Therefore, rather than actually breaking down and examining the logic used to support the secular position, they feel free to rest their case on logical fallacy; assuming that everyone (apart from the religious nuts) is already on-board – but without actually providing a supporting argument or making any attempt to consider the issue from the opposing perspective. They are simply taking advantage of widespread confirmation bias to avoid giving a rational account of their own position. You have echoed this strategy in several of your points.

 

My job is to consider and respond to your comments as sincerely and thoroughly as reasonable in the context of this forum. Since you seem more sincere than most I encounter on your side of this debate, I am more than happy to make the effort. But I don’t think I’d be doing you (or my position) any favours by letting these false strategies slide.

 

 

 

“Yet there are mammals that live in these same niches that don't share these segments”

 

And you claim I’m “on some high alert to find any kind of flaw with anything”? I think many of your response (especially in this post) indicate exactly the same.

 

I did not suggest that all segments of DNA must be shared by creatures sharing a similar niche. The creationist model expects that the more similar two organisms are (i.e. the more morphological traits they share), the more likely they are to have larger amounts of genetic material in common. That is, the more alike they are, the more likely they are to require more of the same genetic information; best enabling them to survive and compete in similar environments.

 

 

 

“if biological function is indicative of design, what would genetics segments with harmful characteristics be indicative of?”

 

It somewhat depends which harmful genes you are referring to. In general, I would consider harmful genes to be corruptions of the intended design. For example, cancerous tumours result from corruptions to proto-oncogenes and/or tumour suppressor genes (which normally function together to regulate cell growth).

 

 

 

It is my opinion that Biblical creation offers a better explanation of the history of life.

“To the origin of life maybe, not sure about the "history" of it.”

 

And you accuse me of being overly pedantic? The Biblical model describes both the origin and history of life.

 

 

“From my observations, the primary supporters of intelligent design are evangelical Christians”

 

Obviously creationists subscribe to an intelligent Designer. But the ID movement (sometimes IDM) is independent of creationism. Most of the people publically associated with IDM (including the leadership) do not subscribe to Biblical creation. They don’t actually choose a designer – they simply argue that the evidence is indicative of intelligence, and against stochasticity. That is, they have no problem with Common Ancestry per se (though there are some Biblical creationists in their mix), but they will dispute the claim that evolution occurred by chance or purely natural processes.

 

Some confusion stems from the propaganda surrounding IDM publically confronting naturalistic evolution. Defenders of naturalistic evolution label them ‘creationists in disguise’ as part of some ad-hominem/Innuendo-based fallacy. But this view is simply uninformed. The two positions are not formally affiliated in any respect.

 

 

“Intelligent design advocates, bring in a bigger mystery to try to account for this”

I don’t know what the big “mystery” is. We believe that God created life in all its complexity. You believe that complex life arose through a series of natural processes.

“The explanation for what "God" is and it/his existence is not well explained. I often end up hearing that this being is "outside space and time", I guess that's just something we afford theists so that the claim sounds remotely possible”

 

We don’t need you to “afford” us anything. The Bible explicitly describes God as “eternal”. Whether you have the capacity to be objective beyond your own position is all on you. I suppose we could have a philosophical discussion about what eternal means – but full comprehension of the nature of God is no more necessary to the validity of our model, than fully comprehending the naturalistic source of the Big Bang singularity is to Standard Cosmology.

 

 

 

    “I've done a little research and I'm trying to find examples of other organisms that we share ERV's with. If it's only primates, that to me is support for common ancestry”

    - only if you assume them to be retrovirus fragment inserts. Otherwise they no more support Common Ancestry than sharing protein coding genes.

“While conclusive evidence is lacking, there is research to suggest [with younger ERV's] that these inserts are associated with disease. [singh SK (June 2007). "Endogenous retroviruses: suspects in the disease world". Future Microbiology 2 (3): 269–75]”

 

This paper speaks to the possible roles that these segments play in some human disease. It doesn’t actually provide (or attempt to provide) evidence for the origin of these segments. It simply states the assumption (i.e. “About 8% of the human genome is derived from the retrovirus like elements. It is expected that these are possibly the remnants of retroviral infections which occurred during primate evolutions”), then proceeds to make a case independant of this assumption (also, it’s a review – not a research paper). [Note: these are not criticisms – they state their assumptions and that is as much as you can ask. But I don’t think this paper means what you think].

 

Though the paper provides references that might go through why they are considered viral segments. I would encourage you to go through some of those and examine the evidence and assumptions utilised to come to this conclusion (esp. refs 4 & 5).

 

 

 

    I am defining true atheism.

“Labels are just that, labels”

 

The purpose of words is to differentiate between logical entities. Nailing down definitions is fundamental to effective communication. Otherwise we open the door to logical fallacies such as Equivocation.

 

 

 

“How does one verify the non-existence of something???”

 

You can’t. Neither can you verify or falsify an unobserved claim about the past or the supernatural.

 

 

 

    Both theism and atheism make claims about what lies beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe (atheism claims that there is no God beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe, but it’s still a claim).

“And this still doesn't properly state where I stand. For me to say "there is no God" I would have to be omni-knowledgeable. I am not, so therefore that position is nonsense”

 

Yes – the wider atheistic community recently figured out that making the true atheistic claim renders them subject to accusations of faith (perish the thought). Some stopped calling themselves atheist; preferring something like ‘agnostic with atheistic preferences’. Others, like Richard Dawkins, started to mitigate their language to “There probably is no god” (and notably, without any supporting justification for their probability claim). But this is still a confidence claim for an unverifiable supposition – so it still employs faith.

 

 

 

    Everyone who makes a claim is responsible to provide an account of their position. I think it is you who is desperate to avoid having to provide an account of your position. In doing so, you are trying to stack the deck of the conversation so that only the religious position is subject to scrutiny.

“A claim in the affirmative perhaps. I see no responsibility for someone to account for their disbelief in bigfoot”

 

Every claim is an affirmative claim. Clever negative semantics don’t change the underlying logic of a claim. “disbelief in bigfoot” is logically identical to the belief that bigfoot doesn’t exist. If you take a position, you are making a claim – which is subject to scrutiny.

 

 

 

    If they are engaging in a debate on the subject, then yes – they are making a claim, and therefore obligated to give an account of their position. No objective process would only permit the scrutiny of only one side of an argument. You can’t have one party taking pot shots at their opponents, but refusing to defend their position; claiming immunity from such scrutiny.

“That's the benefit of not asserting that there's an undetectable being interacting with our world”

 

So only those who disagree with you are obligated to defend their position. But how can they disagree with your position when you are “not asserting” a position? Convenient. Yet your alleged ‘non-position’ seems to find a good deal of disagreement with me on a good many issues.

 

 

 

    So there is no objective standard constituting “sufficient evidence”? Therefore the concept of “sufficient evidence” is meaningless in a context where everyone is influenced by unverifiable faith presupposition.

“You mean the kind of "unverifiable faith presupposition" that Yeti probably doesn't exist?”

 

Yes this is an “unverifiable faith presupposition” – though it might be a stretch to premise an entire model of reality on this assumption.

 

 

 

“Unless there is a time where the supernatural decides to manifest itself in the natural. I don't leave out that possibility”

 

Even if it did, we could only observe and measure the natural manifestation, not the underlying supernatural cause.

 

 

 

“Keep in mind, so far I haven't seen you describe or define the supernatural in such a way that would differentiate it from something that doesn't exist! Can you do this?”

 

No. In fact I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that any claim that is not a current, natural, phenomena, can, through logical necessity, only be investigated indirectly – through modelling the putative effects of the claim, then comparing the model against the currently available evidence. The logical weakness of this approach is that scientific confidence in the initial claim can only be derived through Affirming the Consequent. This applies for both historical and supernatural claims.

 

 

 

“Well technically one could argue that's there actually a competing explanation. If someone would suggest an alien spaceship was the cause of a burnt section of land, I would bet we find a lot of people who wouldn't even consider that a good explanation [or an explanation at all]”

 

- And yet more unsupported Innuendo about the poor quality of my position.

 

The rational quality of an explanation is determined by the supporting arguments – not allegiance to a particular presupposed framework. Anyone who claims this to not be an explanation does not understand the meaning of the word “explanation”.

 

 

 

“Under your paradigm, we can't rule out "evil spirits" as an explanation for illness correct?”

 

Yes. And like the “alien spaceship” explanation; the rational quality of an explanation is determined by accompanying argument – not allegiance to some pre-existing paradigm.

 

 

 

“Even if you disagree somehow, you have been championing the idea that we include "supernatural" explanations, so we should leave that open to all kinds of "faith paradigms" right?”

 

I would say ‘consider’ rather than “include” – but generally yes.

 

 

 

“I believe that naturalism has been an effective approach to describing and explaining our natural world”

 

But we are not disputing explanations about our current natural world; our disagreement is regarding unobserved and unverifiable claims about the past and the supernatural. Since there is no way to naturally observe these claims, there is no objective way to legitimately gauge the ‘effectiveness’ of our “approach”.

 

 

 

“That's right, I assume no supernatural intervention because we keep not needing it”

 

Our starting assumptions influence how we ultimately deal with the facts; i.e. which interpretations we prefer. They impact which interpretations you prefer as much as they impact mine.

[Bonky]

Tristen, I've come down with the flu pretty hard yesterday so I'm just now getting a chance to reply. Instead of addressing every point, I feel like we're at the stage to assess where we've come over the past few days or so [plus I don't have it in me to write for a half hour]. I think you've raised some good challenges with the pollen that was found to be out of place so to speak. Overall however, what I see more is the creation camp simply coming up with theoretical criticisms and ultimately resting on "we don't know for sure we weren't there". Or criticism that ultimately don't amount to much.

The ice core response was a good example. Some statements are made about how there are cases where an anomaly can be mistaken for a year of snowfall. So let's say this happened so often the ages are off by %50. We're still talking ages way beyond what we would see in a 7000 year old planet.

So I don't see creationism really truly accounting for anything, I just see it offering at times borderline comical alternatives. The verneshot example for instance, I had to look it up as I hadn't heard about it before. Here it turns out to be a hypothetical scenario by a guy referred to as "the father of science fiction".

So in the end, yes, I happily admit I have "faith" in the mainstream scientific community. I trust that they're on the right track, but ultimately if they're not, then I expect that we'll find that out eventually. On the other hand, I don't see creationists offering something better [explanation] in it's place. I know you expressed frustration in that creationists aren't usually taken seriously or spoken of in a good light. You have to remember the "face" of creationism over the past couple decades has been the likes of Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort [the banana guy]. A while back I realized that there was a Christian apologist who I really thought had it together, William Lane Craig. It dawned on me that I never really heard him address evolution and deep time etc., so I decided to investigate this. It turns out that Craig is highly critical of the young earth movement, enough to refer to it as "embarrassing".

So if one wants, they can embrace this world view anyway and try to make it sound like it's based in science...I'm just not seeing it. I'm just seeing the rejection of uniformitarianism but no basis for it.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Bonky

[AnythingIsPossible]

Tristen & Bonky

 

This is a great discussion here for what it's worth I'm enjoying it.

 

@ Bonky on the theist side I too enjoy Craig and John Lennox though not a philosopher as such he does present things in a more down to earth manner I enjoy.  On the atheist side I have always enjoyed Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett. I have also enjoyed some of Dawkins writings and enjoyed watching him on T.V. when I was younger when he's talking science, though he is on my level as a philosopher (a lay man).

 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing if there are any new developments in this debate, and thank you both for the time you have taken to think about your answers, instead of just taking pot-shots at each other.  It also helps me develop responses when asked about my faith and to discard some nonsense too.

 

Andy

[Macs Son]

Hi Pat,

The Biblical creation account incorporates the creation of both the universe and life. The naturalistic models separate these into temporally disparate events. Since the same logic is used to justify both, and since it is this logic I am questioning, it shouldn’t matter whether we are dealing with Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang) or Common Ancestry.

 

Later you went on to say:

Hi Pat, you said “I have not heard what logic determines the that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang evidence are linked.”

 

I can think of at least two logical links;

1) The motivation of the naturalistic faith, applied to both of their models - to explain the origins of life and the universe without any involvement of a God.

2) The existence of an alternative perspective which describes the origin of life and the universe in the same context (i.e. the Genesis creation week). That is, these two events are intrinsically linked in the Genesis account. If we only consider the issue from one perspective, then we are failing to be objective.

Hi Again Tristen,

Let's get the Calvin and Luther thing off the table. I wasn't trying to imply Calvin was "in the Bible" when I said he was a Biblical giant. The context for the term "Giant" was as a Biblical exegete and I'm sure many commentators would agree with that assessment. Anyway to your first point only. Let's see where this takes us.

1. You believe you see motivation and intent to eliminate God from His Creation by men and women that use the scientific method to eradicate God as a factor, but this seems to be rather a sweeping prejudicial and predilection against science and scientists who are actually very much real believers. I Think there's a world of difference between astronomy and evolutionists (some, no doubt who may fit the mold of motivations which you propose). Actually, in the case of astronomy, the thing that got them into science in the first place was a love for creation and a desire to both investigate and examine the glory of God's great creation. Now for centuries it was men of faith who actually achieved the lion's share of great discoveries. I love this quote by Francis Bacon.

 

A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God.

I think this is so true because the universe itself also testifies and witnesses to us the Glory of God's handiwork.

I even see this as Einstein progressed in trying to unravel some of the mysteries of the universe. Einstein, who certainly was NOT a Christian but one who also said he was quite taken by the luminous figure of Jesus left us little doubt that his source of inspirational pursuit was the desire to discover the truths of the universe and what He perceived to be the grand intelligence of God, the designer and architect of the physical world.

 

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

- The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17.

 

 

Compare this with Luther and Calvin

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. - Luther's Tischreden.

Obviously Luther was not immune to misinterpreting Holy Scripture. Few of us these days would disagree with Heliocentric theory but it was dangerous in those days to disseminate the truth of what the heavens were telling us and no one was quite willing to think the Scriptures were saying something quite different than most of the zealots of the day were proclaiming as the truth. No one today I believe has a problem with the Scripture that was a stumbling block for them. I know I don't.

 

Psalm 93:1b, "He hath also established the world, it shall not be moved."

Psalms 104:5-6 "He hath founded the earth upon its foundations, so that it shall not be moved for ever."

The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion.

By what means could it (the earth) maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?

"Indeed we are not ignorant that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in its center."

http://m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comment3/comm_vol01/htm/vi.htm

 

I've never been able to see why this has become such a sticking point for us or why we think that longer periods of the days of creation go against the Bible” - earlier post from Pat

 

It’s a “sticking point” for me because I am being asked to make the Bible say something that it doesn’t actually say, in order to conform it to highly speculative, unfalsifiable models of unobserved history; which were specifically formulated to explain the universe without God - when there is no objective scientific reason for me to distrust what the Bible actually says; without having to read any extraneous concepts into it. The popular propaganda implies that anyone with the gal to question the secular models is somehow scientifically ignorant – but that propaganda is not rationally justified.

So let's start by addressing point #1, which I believe is an inference or at least some suspicion on your part that there's some sort of massive sinister plot or work to undermine the God of the Bible. This really is not much different than what history shows us took place back to the days of the inquisition and the early protestant reformation. As I said in an earlier post, "all truth is God's truth", and investigating the truth I believe is a good thing. There have been many errors in interpretation of Scripture which have taken Christianity and the Church down some pretty bad roads in the past and these by some rather skilled exegetes who rose to prominence, probably not intentionally, as somewhat the final arbiters of God's Word. It's my hope that we can see through the lens of 16th and 17th century Christians, that they too had mistakenly thought the motivations of these early pioneers in astronomy and science were misguided creants who were attacking God's Word, when in actuality they were simply Christians who both read their Bible but also sought out the truths that the Universe itself was witnessing to us about God's wonderful creation.

I propose that it is no different today. Sure there are detractors to be sure who, as you say, try and eliminate God by sophistry and slight of hand hiding behind complex string theory and quantum mechanics but their arguments are circular. Einstein by his own words would have condemned them as mere egotists with no eye towards the unraveling the real beauty and mystery of the universe. As Paul's letter to the Romans implies deep down we all know when we look out upon the heavens that their was a grand hand, the hand of God, behind it. I'll leave the post to point #1 alone until we achieve resolution or just agree to disagree.

 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

Good night and may the Lord Bless you and your family.

In Christ, Pat

Edited July 9, 2014 by Macs Son

[Tristen]

Tristen, I've come down with the flu pretty hard yesterday so I'm just now getting a chance to reply. Instead of addressing every point, I feel like we're at the stage to assess where we've come over the past few days or so [plus I don't have it in me to write for a half hour]. I think you've raised some good challenges with the pollen that was found to be out of place so to speak. Overall however, what I see more is the creation camp simply coming up with theoretical criticisms and ultimately resting on "we don't know for sure we weren't there". Or criticism that ultimately don't amount to much.

The ice core response was a good example. Some statements are made about how there are cases where an anomaly can be mistaken for a year of snowfall. So let's say this happened so often the ages are off by %50. We're still talking ages way beyond what we would see in a 7000 year old planet.

So I don't see creationism really truly accounting for anything, I just see it offering at times borderline comical alternatives. The verneshot example for instance, I had to look it up as I hadn't heard about it before. Here it turns out to be a hypothetical scenario by a guy referred to as "the father of science fiction".

So in the end, yes, I happily admit I have "faith" in the mainstream scientific community. I trust that they're on the right track, but ultimately if they're not, then I expect that we'll find that out eventually. On the other hand, I don't see creationists offering something better [explanation] in it's place. I know you expressed frustration in that creationists aren't usually taken seriously or spoken of in a good light. You have to remember the "face" of creationism over the past couple decades has been the likes of Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort [the banana guy]. A while back I realized that there was a Christian apologist who I really thought had it together, William Lane Craig. It dawned on me that I never really heard him address evolution and deep time etc., so I decided to investigate this. It turns out that Craig is highly critical of the young earth movement, enough to refer to it as "embarrassing".

So if one wants, they can embrace this world view anyway and try to make it sound like it's based in science...I'm just not seeing it. I'm just seeing the rejection of uniformitarianism but no basis for it.

 

 

 

Hi Bonky – hope you’re feeling better.

 

You said “Overall however, what I see more is the creation camp simply coming up with theoretical criticisms and ultimately resting on "we don't know for sure we weren't there"”

 

It’s a valid “theoretical criticism”. Our incapacity to directly observe the claimed history introduces a massive logical gap in the interpretation process. However, I have not left it at that; I have demonstrated a different model with different assumptions and different interpretations of the very same evidence used to support secular models. The very existence of these alternative models logically demonstrates that faith paradigms directly influence the interpretation process.

 

 

 

“Or criticism that ultimately don't amount to much”

 

Can you understand how statements like these don’t actually mean anything to me?

 

In my assessments of the evidence, I have considered the underlying logic of each claim, I have separated the actual facts from the theoretical assumptions and interpretations, and I have demonstrated alternative assumptions and interpretations for the very same facts. Then you respond with a statement that my arguments “don't amount to much”. Apart from pointing out the obvious fallacy, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to respond. You’ve criticised my position, but without providing any rational justification for your criticisms. You’ve provided me with nothing of substance to defend. This is kind-of what I mean by resting on the “everybody knows we’re right” story (mentioned in the previous post).

 

 

 

“The ice core response was a good example. Some statements are made about how there are cases where an anomaly can be mistaken for a year of snowfall. So let's say this happened so often the ages are off by %50. We're still talking ages way beyond what we would see in a 7000 year old planet”

 

If that’s your impression, you missed most of my argument. Maybe I didn’t explain it very well.

 

The first logical concept when considering ice cores is that - we cannot observe years or “ages” in ice cores. All we can observe are those things which we have selected as markers (e.g. depth hoar is a common marker).

 

 

The second major theoretical concept is that - what we assume about the history of the ice deposition before we examine the facts will determine how we interpret the observations;

 

- If we assume that the ice core represents millions of years of standard annual deposition, then all those years of deposition would compress the deeper layers to millimetres thick. Therefore, any markers at that small scale will be assumed to represent an annual layer (and we are happy to acknowledge the possibility of some minute error).

 

- However, if we assume that the ice core represents ~4000 years of deposition and compression; including a ~700 year period of rapid, volatile deposition following the global flood - then the deeper annual layers would have undergone less compression (than the millions of years model), and therefore remain meters thick – containing thousands of markers deposited every year; generally several times per day over the ~700 year period. Apart from assumption, there is no actual way to differentiate any single year from a sub-annual marker.

 

Now depth hoar formation, one of the common ice core markers, has been observed to occur multiple times per year; generally associated with individual storm events. Now;

 

- if we assume the layers are millimetres thick due to millions of years of deposition and compression, then you must, by necessity, assume that any discovery of a depth hoar layer represents a year of deposition.

 

However;

 

- if we assume the layers are metres thick due to only thousands of years of deposition and compression, including an initial volatile period of rapid deposition, then each depth hoar layer could simply represent a sub-daily change in weather conditions.

 

So how the observations are interpreted is entirely dependent upon the starting assumptions of the interpreter.

 

 

 

“So I don't see creationism really truly accounting for anything, I just see it offering at times borderline comical alternatives”

 

Innuendo and Appeal to Ridicule – more meaningless logical fallacy.

 

 

 

“The verneshot example for instance, I had to look it up as I hadn't heard about it before. Here it turns out to be a hypothetical scenario by a guy referred to as "the father of science fiction"”

 

You have misunderstood what you have read (or the writers didn't understand what they were talking about). Verneshots are named after “the father of science fiction”, Jules Verne, because the proposed mechanism is similar to a moongun in one of his novels. The scientists who proposed verneshots are from Geomar (Kiel University in Germany) - Jason Phipps Morgan, Tim Reston and Cesar Ranero.

 

But you are correct that they are hypothetical. Hypothetical logic forms the basis of all hypotheses (along with the initial observations). Verneshots not only account for the currently observed evidence, they also solve the problem of the highly unlikely coincidental profile of continental basalt floods associated with impact craters – i.e. they render the meteorite explanation of these craters to be unnecessary.

 

You were offering a very elaborate scenario based on an unobserved assumption about the origin of a crater – as though there could be no question about the context of crater formation. I demonstrated that there is more than one way to interpret this fact (the crater). [which is one of the main points of our discussion]

 

 

 

“So in the end, yes, I happily admit I have "faith" in the mainstream scientific community. I trust that they're on the right track, but ultimately if they're not, then I expect that we'll find that out eventually. On the other hand, I don't see creationists offering something better [explanation] in it's place”

 

In the absence of supporting argument, none of this means anything beyond an unsupported expression of your opinion.

 

 

 

“I know you expressed frustration in that creationists aren't usually taken seriously or spoken of in a good light. You have to remember the "face" of creationism over the past couple decades has been the likes of Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort [the banana guy]”

 

So? …You're discussion is with me. Refusing to consider arguments based on personality associations is specious. It’s just another example of Innuendo fallacy.

 

In reality, the primary creationist organisation is CMI – an organisation run primarily by highly credentialed scientists. None of the abovementioned people are directly associated with CMI. Since at least 2002, CMI has been at odds with many of the teachings of Kent Hovind. There was a previous affiliation with Ken Ham, but they parted ways in 2005. Ray Comfort is an evangelist who advocates Biblical creationism, not a scientists – his expertise is theological/philosphical. I think we established in an earlier post that you were unfamiliar with the informed creationist position. Your impression that these personalities are representative of creationism confirms this.

 

I am unfamiliar with the teachings of any of these people. I had some exposure to Ken Ham maybe 15 years ago – I don’t remember having any issue with him, but if you find something he says questionable, I am happy to give my take on his arguments (independent of any vague innuendo about his person).

 

 

 

“A while back I realized that there was a Christian apologist who I really thought had it together, William Lane Craig. It dawned on me that I never really heard him address evolution and deep time etc., so I decided to investigate this. It turns out that Craig is highly critical of the young earth movement, enough to refer to it as "embarrassing"”

 

Which, in the absence of any supporting argument, is merely an Appeal to Ridicule.

 

 

 

“So if one wants, they can embrace this world view anyway and try to make it sound like it's based in science...I'm just not seeing it”

 

It would be nice if you could justify this innuendo with a supporting argument – so I actually have something to respond to. You have provided me nothing whatsoever to justify my questioning any claim I have made. And when I provide a rational answer, you default to innuendo and other logical fallacies – then you ironically insinuate that I, as a creationist, am the one who has departed from critical reason.

 

Ultimately, we are dealing with issues of faith – so you have nothing to lose by objectively considering the possibility of an alternative position. You can never be obligated to agree with any unverifiable assumption.

 

 

 

“I'm just seeing the rejection of uniformitarianism but no basis for it”

 

Well – for starters, all conclusions derived from uniformitarianism are utterly reliant on extrapolations of ridiculous magnitudes based on unobserved, unverifiable assumptions (so a logical basis for rejection). For finishers, it is inconsistent with observations of a world being currently remoulded rapidly through catastrophe – volcanism, flooding, erosion etc. - (e.g. the island of Surtsey) – as well as increasing recognition of past catastrophic moulding  (e.g. the Spokane Flood) - (so an evidential basis for rejection).

[Tristen]

 

Hi Pat,

The Biblical creation account incorporates the creation of both the universe and life. The naturalistic models separate these into temporally disparate events. Since the same logic is used to justify both, and since it is this logic I am questioning, it shouldn’t matter whether we are dealing with Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang) or Common Ancestry.

 

Later you went on to say:

Hi Pat, you said “I have not heard what logic determines the that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang evidence are linked.”

 

I can think of at least two logical links;

1) The motivation of the naturalistic faith, applied to both of their models - to explain the origins of life and the universe without any involvement of a God.

2) The existence of an alternative perspective which describes the origin of life and the universe in the same context (i.e. the Genesis creation week). That is, these two events are intrinsically linked in the Genesis account. If we only consider the issue from one perspective, then we are failing to be objective.

Hi Again Tristen,

Let's get the Calvin and Luther thing off the table. I wasn't trying to imply Calvin was "in the Bible" when I said he was a Biblical giant. The context for the term "Giant" was as a Biblical exegete and I'm sure many commentators would agree with that assessment. Anyway to your first point only. Let's see where this takes us.

1. You believe you see motivation and intent to eliminate God from His Creation by men and women that use the scientific method to eradicate God as a factor, but this seems to be rather a sweeping prejudicial and predilection against science and scientists who are actually very much real believers. I Think there's a world of difference between astronomy and evolutionists (some, no doubt who may fit the mold of motivations which you propose). Actually, in the case of astronomy, the thing that got them into science in the first place was a love for creation and a desire to both investigate and examine the glory of God's great creation. Now for centuries it was men of faith who actually achieved the lion's share of great discoveries. I love this quote by Francis Bacon.

 

A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God.

I think this is so true because the universe itself also testifies and witnesses to us the Glory of God's handiwork.

I even see this as Einstein progressed in trying to unravel some of the mysteries of the universe. Einstein, who certainly was NOT a Christian but one who also said he was quite taken by the luminous figure of Jesus left us little doubt that his source of inspirational pursuit was the desire to discover the truths of the universe and what He perceived to be the grand intelligence of God, the designer and architect of the physical world.

 

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

- The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17.

 

 

Compare this with Luther and Calvin

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. - Luther's Tischreden.

Obviously Luther was not immune to misinterpreting Holy Scripture. Few of us these days would disagree with Heliocentric theory but it was dangerous in those days to disseminate the truth of what the heavens were telling us and no one was quite willing to think the Scriptures were saying something quite different than most of the zealots of the day were proclaiming as the truth. No one today I believe has a problem with the Scripture that was a stumbling block for them. I know I don't.

 

Psalm 93:1b, "He hath also established the world, it shall not be moved."

Psalms 104:5-6 "He hath founded the earth upon its foundations, so that it shall not be moved for ever."

The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion.

By what means could it (the earth) maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?

"Indeed we are not ignorant that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in its center."

http://m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comment3/comm_vol01/htm/vi.htm

 

I've never been able to see why this has become such a sticking point for us or why we think that longer periods of the days of creation go against the Bible” - earlier post from Pat

 

It’s a “sticking point” for me because I am being asked to make the Bible say something that it doesn’t actually say, in order to conform it to highly speculative, unfalsifiable models of unobserved history; which were specifically formulated to explain the universe without God - when there is no objective scientific reason for me to distrust what the Bible actually says; without having to read any extraneous concepts into it. The popular propaganda implies that anyone with the gal to question the secular models is somehow scientifically ignorant – but that propaganda is not rationally justified.

So let's start by addressing point #1, which I believe is an inference or at least some suspicion on your part that there's some sort of massive sinister plot or work to undermine the God of the Bible. This really is not much different than what history shows us took place back to the days of the inquisition and the early protestant reformation. As I said in an earlier post, "all truth is God's truth", and investigating the truth I believe is a good thing. There have been many errors in interpretation of Scripture which have taken Christianity and the Church down some pretty bad roads in the past and these by some rather skilled exegetes who rose to prominence, probably not intentionally, as somewhat the final arbiters of God's Word. It's my hope that we can see through the lens of 16th and 17th century Christians, that they too had mistakenly thought the motivations of these early pioneers in astronomy and science were misguided creants who were attacking God's Word, when in actuality they were simply Christians who both read their Bible but also sought out the truths that the Universe itself was witnessing to us about God's wonderful creation.

I propose that it is no different today. Sure there are detractors to be sure who, as you say, try and eliminate God by sophistry and slight of hand hiding behind complex string theory and quantum mechanics but their arguments are circular. Einstein by his own words would have condemned them as mere egotists with no eye towards the unraveling the real beauty and mystery of the universe. As Paul's letter to the Romans implies deep down we all know when we look out upon the heavens that their was a grand hand, the hand of God, behind it. I'll leave the post to point #1 alone until we achieve resolution or just agree to disagree.

 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

Good night and may the Lord Bless you and your family.

In Christ, Pat

 

 

 

Hey Pat, You said “You believe you see motivation and intent to eliminate God from His Creation by men and women that use the scientific method to eradicate God as a factor, but this seems to be rather a sweeping prejudicial and predilection towards science and scientists who are actually very much real believers. Actually the thing that got them into science in the first place was a love for creation and a desire to both investigate and examine the glory of God's great creation. Now for centuries it was men of faith who actually achieved the lion's share of great discoveries.”

 

The naturalistic faith premise can be traced through history. I agree that the foundations of modern science were accomplished within the theistic paradigm. The naturalistic concept of explaining reality without God appeared around the late 1700s. It was essentially ubiquitous in the scientific community by the early 1900s – such that most people today have only ever been exposed to science interpreted to conform to the naturalistic faith premise (in schools, university, scientific documentaries, science text books etc.). This exclusive exposure to naturalistic explanations has biased much of society to falsely (though sincerely) think that this is the only valid way to look at the evidence. I myself was unaware that there was any such thing as a creationist until I converted to Christianity as a young adult.

 

Those early proponents of the naturalistic paradigm (such as Hutton & Lyell) were not shy about revealing their anti-theistic motives. Many modern scientists (including Dawkins) are also open about their anti-theistic motives. Scientific journal editors are also happy to extol their anti-creationist bias. Many scientists have lost careers subsequent to their creationist beliefs being exposed; there's even one instance of an evolutionist losing his career after suggesting that creationists should be engaged in discussion. Consider my discussion with Bonky – the secular/atheist motivation is not about considering the logical merit of each argument, but devoted to formulating a story that accounts for the evidence without God – then simply assuming that story to be automatically superior to all other explanations. It’s a matter of; ‘since I already have an explanation that is consistent with my faith (i.e. explains the facts without God), why should I even bother with giving fair consideration to an alternative perspective? “I have no need”.’

 

I am obviously aware that there believing scientists. However, if they choose to apply naturalistic assumptions (such as “long-ages” & uniformitarianism) to their investigations, then they are introducing bias onto the interpretation process. I have no problem with this so long as the assumptions are acknowledged. It only becomes problematic when one deviates from objectivity by implying that these assumptions are the only valid assumptions – and all others should be excluded from consideration.

 

I think it is also important to distinguish between operational (repeatable, experimental) science and historical science. These assumptions have little impact on operational scientific investigation; i.e. they don’t impact our capacity to develop new medicines or build a better rocket. These assumptions primarily impact how we apply the evidence to historical models of the unobserved past. To properly understand the debate, you have to be able to understand the distinction between the operational and historical process.

 

 

 

“Few of us these days would disagree with Heliocentric theory but it was dangerous in those days to disseminate the truth of what the heavens were telling us”

 

Apart from a brief period towards the latter part of the reign of Pope Urban VIII, I think your impression here does not reflect historical reality. For the centuries of history surrounding this brief period, there was no danger in advocating a heliocentric theory. Obviously, with the evidence they had, Calvin and Luther disagreed with heliocentric theory – and presented arguments for their position. Such debate has been encouraged for most of church history.

 

 

 

“I believe is an inference or at least some suspicion that there's some sort of massive sinister plot or work to undermine the God of the Bible”

 

From a spiritual perspective, I believe that the Bible teaches that there are evil forces in play with the specific goal of undermining “the God of the Bible”

 

From a human/temporal perspective, I simply believe that people will advocate for the account that best suits their currently held faith perspective (i.e. confirmation bias). So yes, atheists prefer interpretations of the facts that agree with their naturalistic faith – and will actively promote that perspective. I, likewise, will prefer the interpretations of the facts that are consistent with my faith. My main objections are;

- Since the naturalistic faith is now close to ubiquitous in the scientific community, it is presumed to have increased logical legitimacy over other faith perspectives. This assumption is logically unjustified.

- Proponents of naturalistic interpretations tend to arbitrarily dismiss arguments that disagree with their faith paradigm – without any rational consideration of the opposing position.

 

 

Whilst I disagree with the secular historical models, I have given them fair consideration. And I understand their appeal to people of naturalistic faith. I consider these models to be valid; given the premise. But advocates of these models will rarely give fair consideration to my position. They find it difficult to comprehend why they should have to give any consideration to an alternative perspective (which is somewhat ironic for those who are supposedly scientifically trained).