Oh boy. Just another article parroting the line that “assumptions” is some kind of magic shibboleth that lets you make things up and invent your own alternative reality.
2 Likes
It’s interesting to me who they name when they quote and who is just “the author.” Deb Haarsma, MIT trained astrophysicist and president of BioLogos doesn’t get named. J Richard Middleton, President of the Canadian Evangelical Theological Association (2011–2014) and President of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies (2019–2021), professor of Exegesis and Biblical Studies doesn’t get named, he just gets lumped in as basically the same as Bart Ehrman, who gets a hyperlink, of course. Jim Stump, vice president of BioLogos, philosophy phD, and recognizable author doesn’t get named. Keith Furman, phD in biology with expertise in molecular genetics and biochemistry doesn’t get named. Bethany Sollereder, a theologian who teaches at Oxford, is just “the author,” even though Smith interacts extensively with her ideas.
Pastor Leonard J. Vander Zee gets a name.
They do not pass on the chance to name that false teacher tool of Satan Pete Enns, so of course, he gets credit for what he said.
And I, forum moderator extraordinaire get a name this time for authoring such a fine comment on a comment board, though I didn’t get cited at all when Bryan Osborne wrote a whole article on something I actually composed with care.
It’s all just very strange to me.
5 Likes
So now it’s historical and “operational” science? It used to be “observational.” But I guess when you try to split science into arbitrary categories you can call them whatever you want.
3 Likes
In response to my contention that YECs equate science with “human wisdom,” Calvin Smith says,
Now while some biblical creationists may have said such things, I know of exactly zero professional creation apologetics organizations (certainly not the Answers in Genesis ministry) that have made such a claim (i.e., it’s a strawman argument).
Well, that’s why I put a link to the ICR article making those claims right there, because I link to the articles I am referencing so people can read the context for themselves. It’s a good editorial practice. (Hint, hint)
2 Likes
The answer to their magic shibboleth is, of course, that assumptions are constrained by basic rules of honesty and accuracy, and so too are challenges to those assumptions. Just because something is “historical science” rather than “operational science” or “observational science” or whatever they call it this week doesn’t justify exaggerating or downplaying error bars, or claiming that rock formations aren’t fractured when in reality they are.
2 Likes
Their arguments quickly fall apart in their articles on flood geology where they use the very same assumptions. You can’t reject radiometric dating because you refuse to accept the constancy of radioactive decay and then turn around and accept the constancy of other physical features like the density of water and rocks. Could you imagine the look on their faces if you refused to accept flood geology because they ASSUMED rocks were denser than water in the past? Every attempt they make at a science-ish article is filled with the very same assumptions that are used for such things as radiometric dating.
3 Likes
Also, “historical science” is observational science, just usually not where you can directly replicate it. You also can’t replicate any of the following: a global flood, miracles, changes in fundamental constants, creation of organisms, or past climate; at least not if your IRC finds out. I still have yet to come up with a definition beyond “historical science is the stuff I don’t like”.
2 Likes
The reason you don’t understand your brothers and sisters who accept the science of biology is that you think secular science and Christian science are two different things.
Ask 1000 Ph.D. scientists, and at least 999 will say that there is only science. Having a common set of rules for doing science allows people of every belief (or none) to contribute, as those who bear the image of God, to understanding the universe God created. (Even if they don’t always understand that they bear the image of God and that God created the universe.)
This is not in the least what is happening.
If you were a Ph.D. scientist, you would understand this.
Are you a Ph.D. scientist? What qualifies you to speak authoritatively about whether YEC authors are using the exact same observations as other scientists? You have an awful lot of confidence in your own ability to parse the fine points of scientific discourse, so I am interested in learning what Ph.D. program(s) you have pursued.
This is a great point. John Calvin was 100% convinced that the Scriptures clearly taught that the sun revolves around a fixed earth, for example.
Are you a better scholar of the Bible than John Calvin, @adamjedgar? If not, what makes you think that you cannot possibly be wrong about the Bible’s teaching about the age of the universe, when Calvin turned out to be wrong about the solar system?
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
5 Likes
Finally, found the time to watch this video - a very enjoyable 2-hour rabbit hole! Thanks for sharing, @Beaglelady!
Firstly, the video itself is excellent and Erika is super knowledgeable and very funny. The museum content on the other hand is sometimes funny, but often tragic bordering on the horrifying. My big takeaway was that the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are interested in 3 things - money, indoctrination, and peddling lies (I use those last two words purposefully and intentionally).
2 Likes
Thanks so much for watching! Erika (Gutsick Gibbon) is well on her way to being a great science communicator. She will be getting a PhD in paleoanthropology.
4 Likes
Absolutely, I’ll be watching (and watching) her channel with great interest.
2 Likes
While public identification as homosexual has certainly increased in the past few decades, there is no reason to think that homosexual behavior has changed in frequency during that same period.
Homosexual behavior has been noted in countless human societies over the past several thousand years.
In addition, it is common elsewhere in the animal kingdom (bonobos, ducks, penguins, bison, walruses, elephants, and the list could grow far, far longer).
I am not arguing that the behavior is morally permissible for anyone; just because a human may have a particular urge does not mean that acting on it in a particular way is moral, ethical, or spiritual.
(I do care about my brothers and sisters who may feel such an orientation, though, and want to hear them out and let them know they are loved and appreciated.)
NO. The fact that you are making this argument show that you have some serious misunderstandings about biology.
Altruistic behaviors by definition do not fit your narrow definition of survival optimization, yet they occur widely in the animal kingdom. Cross-species adoptions or fostering is just one example. A hypothesis popular among biologists is that the altruistic behaviors are the side effect of instincts that ultimately do promote the propagation of the genetic code.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
4 Likes
Dr. Erika is hysterical! I can’t get enough of her content.
2 Likes
I think she could one day become one of our top science communicators! I just found out that she did her own animation for the opening sequence of her videos.
3 Likes
She seems to have good relationships with YEC’s as well. Other science content creators, as well as general atheistic YouTubers, always graciously specify their subject to distinguish the different views that Christians have. It’s a far cry from the generalized, evil, Other that some Christian groups create.
3 Likes