Science and the Bible...

[Tristen]

On 15/1/2016 at 4:02 AM, Bonky said:

Tristen while I agree that we may not have mathematical certainty about scientific claims of the past, I don't know that all claims are then necessarily affirming the consequent.  You used two wonderful examples of affirming the consequent and I see the clear pattern.  Someone is coming to a conclusion where there are obvious alternative causes.  Let me provide two scenarios that are similar but show where I'm coming from.

Scenario A.

One afternoon, my son comes home from work waking me up from a nap.  He says to me "Hey dad I'm heading out to a friends, I let the dog in by the way....he was outside begging to come back inside".   My son leaves the house and I soon see my dog shaking water off his coat.  I notice that my son wasn't wet but my dog is.  I say to myself "Hey someone hosed my dog down!".  

Scenario B.

One afternoon, my son comes home from work waking me up from a nap.  He says to me "Hey dad I'm heading out to a friends, I let the dog in by the way....he was outside begging to come back inside".   My son leaves the house and I soon see my dog shaking water off his coat.   I notice that my son wasn't wet but my dog is.  While I'm puzzled by this I decide to head to the store in town to get groceries.  As I get outside I notice everything is wet outside.  The whole car ride to the store I notice everything is wet.  Conclusion, it rained recently and my son was sheltered from the rain while my dog was not.

Is scenario B affirming the consequent?  This is why I said it depends on the scenario, how many data points do we have?  If you're making a conclusion on one small data point and ignoring other LIKELY possibilities then yeah you're committing a fallacy.   I don't think we can whitewash all scientific claims about the past and say they're affirming the consequent.   I realize my example wasn't about the deep past but I think the principle stands.  

Regarding your statement of the supernatural, would you say that the big bang has just as much going for it as the case for the existence of demons?  Another words because we don't have direct observable of either therefore they are both on par with each other in terms of support?  

I currently believe that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.  I do not hold this as an unshakable truth no.  I don't reject that a creator was involved but at the same time I don't affirm one either.   I'm sure Richard Dawkins would speak differently on this but then I don't have his training and background.  You asked about the Big Bang, as far as I know there are still competing models of our Universe and it's origin so yeah I see room for skepticism or criticism etc.  

 

Hi Bonky,

Affirming the consequent does not speak to the existence of a conclusion, or even the logic of a conclusion, but rather how much, and what kind of, confidence can be legitimately (logically) attributed to that conclusion.

All of the facts in your scenario can be alternatively interpreted to support a different story. For example; your son hosed the dog down before it rained, then dried himself before heading out. So whilst you can be personally confident in your conclusion, there is no mathematical way to distinguish your story, from the possibility that another story (even an unknown story) produced the same facts. Unlike current, natural phenomena (which can be experimented upon), there is no scientific way to determine which story is more “LIKELY”. Experimental science permits the use of controls to distinguish a tested effect from other variables/effects. When it comes to past claims, which scenario is more “LIKELY” is entirely dependent upon your subjective opinion/presuppositions, and not scientifically, mathematically determined.

The amount of “data points” is irrelevant to the kind of confidence being applied. If you attempt to attribute scientific confidence where only personal confidence (aka faith) is applicable, then you are Affirming the Consequent. Faith is required to fill in the logic gaps – to justify preferred acceptance of one story over the consideration of others.

 

 

You asked “I don't think we can whitewash all scientific claims about the past and say they're affirming the consequent”

I’m not trying to “whitewash” anything. I am simply trying to place such claims in their appropriate logical context. In the mainstream, these past claims tend to find themselves under the general umbrella of ‘science’ – implying the same kind, and levels, of confidence as produced by experimental science. That is simply not justified in logic.

 

 

“would you say that the big bang has just as much going for it as the case for the existence of demons?  Another words because we don't have direct observable of either therefore they are both on par with each other in terms of support?”

I think the term “support” is a bit nebulous. I would say they are equal in terms of legitimate scientific confidence (i.e. none – no scientific confidence without Affirming the Consequent). Most Christians would readily acknowledge that faith is required to believe in the supernatural – i.e. to fill in the logic gaps between relevant natural observations and conclusions. I suspect that particular logical challenge is rarely recognised by those promoting Standard Cosmology (or Common Ancestry).

 

 

“I currently believe that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth”

I have no problem with Natural Selection. It in no way contradicts the Biblical model of reality.

However, Natural Selection is a ‘selective’ process, not a creative process. Natural Selection only speaks to how environmental conditions can favour the prevalence of certain EXISTING genes over others. It does not speak to where those genes originally came from. Natural Selection cannot, by itself, account for “the diversity of life on Earth” from a Common Ancestor. To account for the origin of genes, Evolution Synthesis requires ancillary concepts; including many extremely fortunate genetic mutations.

 

[Bonky]

Tristen just so I understand, your alternative explanation is that my son was outside in the rain...hosing my dog down...then my son dried quick and came into the house to let me know he was going to a friends house?

I do get where you are coming from however, we can't leave out other possibilities when drawing conclusions.  

Edited January 18, 2016 by Bonky

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, Bonky said:

Tristen just so I understand, your alternative explanation is that my son was outside in the rain...hosing my dog down...then my son dried quick and came into the house to let me know he was going to a friends house?

I do get where you are coming from however, we can't leave out other possibilities when drawing conclusions.  

Bonky,

My argument is that, when it comes to claims about the unobserved past, there is no way to empirically establish that the story we consider to be ‘more likely’ has any more validity than any other story that can be contrived to suite the same facts (or even a story that we haven’t yet imagined). Our claim is thus logically unfalsifiable. That doesn’t mean it’s not true – only that no fact can obligate adherence to, or rejection of, our preferred story. Even seemingly contrary facts can be sidelined until we can figure out a new story to account for them in the context of our overall claim. That is, “We simply don’t know yet how these facts can exist in light of our model. It requires further investigation”. Since our claim is unfalsifiable, scientific confidence in our claim is impossible. Therefore, we cannot legitimately imply obligation to our story apart from faith.

 

Regarding your analogy – I interpreted the rain to have occurred between the hosing and your observation of the wet. I’m sure with effort, you could construct a hypothetical sufficiently specific as to narrow the range of plausible interpretations. But such specificity would not reflect the limited knowledge we actually have of the past.

 

You said; “we can't leave out other possibilities when drawing conclusions”

That seems to be my argument. I had a largely secular upbringing whereby I was only ever exposed to secular models of reality. That is - ‘people used to believe that the world was young, but now this impenetrable monolith called SCIENCE has set us straight – correcting the error of our former ignorance.’ In the context of exclusive exposure to secular models, the creationist claims represent the “other possibilities”. Getting people to give fair consideration to this alternative model is one of the main challenges for creationists.

 

 

[Bonky]

Tristen, I do hear what you're saying.   I personally feel that the weakness of the young earth camp is that it spends more time on trying to cast doubt on secular views rather than building a case for a young earth/Universe.  

I know in the past you've stated that bringing doubt to your opponents case is worthwhile and I tend to agree but doing that doesn't necessarily provide any additional strength to your case.   I think that's the case here.   

For example, Dr. Jason Lisle [Astrophysicist for ICR] states that comets obviously can't last forever.  At best, he says they'd last maybe 100 or 200K years.   So he's attempting to call into question how our solar system [or Universe] can be billions of years old.  What he's not doing is supporting a young earth.  

Who is the young earth version of Neil Degrasse Tyson?   Getting people to give fair consideration to alternative views is going to mean actually advertising them.  

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, Bonky said:

Tristen, I do hear what you're saying.   I personally feel that the weakness of the young earth camp is that it spends more time on trying to cast doubt on secular views rather than building a case for a young earth/Universe.  

I know in the past you've stated that bringing doubt to your opponents case is worthwhile and I tend to agree but doing that doesn't necessarily provide any additional strength to your case.   I think that's the case here.   

For example, Dr. Jason Lisle [Astrophysicist for ICR] states that comets obviously can't last forever.  At best, he says they'd last maybe 100 or 200K years.   So he's attempting to call into question how our solar system [or Universe] can be billions of years old.  What he's not doing is supporting a young earth.  

Who is the young earth version of Neil Degrasse Tyson?   Getting people to give fair consideration to alternative views is going to mean actually advertising them.  

Hi Bonky,

We have no choice but to redress the exaggerated confidence levels in secular models before presenting arguments in favour of our position. Exclusive exposure to the secular position promotes a false impression that anyone daring to question these models has somehow departed from reason. The most common response to me defending the creationist position in secular forums is to accuse me of being a dupe/fool, dishonest, blinded by my religion, and most commonly, scientifically illiterate in some respect (e.g. I must be ignoring all the evidence). There is rarely even the pretense of any intent to consider my provided arguments – just a desire to put me back in my place. The arguments for creationism do exist, and are readily available to those prepared to look. But evidence and arguments for creation does very little by way of undermining the secular backstory of “volumes”, nay “libraries”, nay “mountains” of evidence supporting the secular models.

So by necessity, in order to get people to even consider our arguments at all, the first step is to place these secular claims in their appropriate logical context – hopefully revealing that the scientific method not only permits consideration of unconventional positions, but encourages it.

 

I don’t think a creationist with celebrity status would make much difference. They would still have to contend with the almost ubiquitous impression of secular models being beyond rational scrutiny.

[siegi91]

On 12 January 2016 at 10:03 PM, completedbeliever1 said:

Science, creation, and truth.  We need to reason together, and come to a sound conclusion.  

I would like to have a discussion about why creation is the truth, while evolution is a lie that must be stopped. 

As I said in another post, it is a poison and our youth is its victim.

Please, let us have a rational debate, and come to a truthful resolution...

While I have studied evo vs creation for nearly 10 years, I am by no means an expert in all fields.  With that being said, I do know a thing or two about what is going on.  

I am neither right wing, nor left wing, and I most certainly am not politically correct.  

I am not racist, and I have no agenda.  (Creationists like myself are now called racist because we do not agree with evolutionists, and other...(just type into your browser, 'are creationists racist'?))  I simply see with my eyes, smell with my nose, hear with my ears, taste with my mouth, and feel with my hands.  

Anything said to me beyond this is your opinion, and one that should be kept to yourself. 

This is for anyone who wants to know more about evo vs creation.  

First we need to address your concerns. Which, apart from identifying evolution as a lie or a poison, are not very explicit.

So, what are your rational concerns about evolution?

 

 siegi

 

 

 

[completedbeliever1]

54 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

First we need to address your concerns. Which, apart from identifying evolution as a lie or a poison, are not very explicit.

So, what are your rational concerns about evolution?

 

 siegi

 

 

 

Thank you for your reply.

I have replied to this in another post (I think) in this thread.

[simplejeff]

On January 12, 2016 at 3:03 PM, completedbeliever1 said:

 evolution is a lie that must be stopped. 
As I said in another post, it is a poison and our youth is its victim.

Yes, it is a lie.  No*, it won't be stopped.  As it is written,, the wicked continue to get more wicked, while the righteous ((by faith in Messiah Yeshua, Yahweh's DOing)) continue to get more righteous.

 

*Except in those seeking Truth. Those who seek Yahweh find Him, that is His Promise of His WORD.

[arphax]

Hello all.  Very interesting topic, for sure.  Now within the scientific community, much evidence is surfacing pointing to the reality of "intelligent design" and not evolution.  Particularly "gene coding"

[Bonky]

I didn't think intelligent design nullified evolution or even common descent.  From what I've been reading it's the suggestion that life cannot arise w/o an outside intelligent agent.