Do you know a “p” orbital from an “s” orbital? Even a high school physics or chemistry level of understanding would inform you that atomic orbitals are dominated by quantum principles such as wavelength, interference, exclusion, and indeterminacy, which practically speaking do not apply on a cosmic scale until you approach extremes such as singularities.
1 Like
That is like saying… if darkness comes before sight then why should we insist on walking according to what see with our eyes open rather than trying to walk with our eyes closed? Just because ignorance comes before knowledge doesn’t mean we should act according to what we assumed or imagined in our ignorance rather than what our knowledge tells us now. Science has demonstrated to us that it reliably informs us about the world around us… how it works, how things happen, how things have happened, and how we can do more. Philosophy and theology have done nothing of the sort. Instead it gives many different answers which people disagree about until we find what science has to say about them. Some science can say nothing about, some it can prove right, and other it can prove wrong. Science can say nothing about whether God exists or not. Science has proven the claim of theology that the universe has a beginning. On the other hand, science has proven wrong the claims of philosophy/theology that…
- The earth is flat like a table and immovable. (Biblical description some have taken literally)
- Everything is a mental construct and reality is indistinguishable from our perception and understanding (philosophical idealism).
- The world was created from the remains of giant Ymir. (Norse belief)
- The earth is the center of the universe with everything in the sky moving around it. (common understanding from medieval times and before)
- The earth and the universe is only about 6000 years old. (theology of a few Christians)
- First came the earth out of chaos and then from the earth came the sky and the oceans. (Greek mythology)
- The origin of the species is a special creation of each kind independently by divine magic. (theology of a few Christians and Muslims)
- The universe was created by gods living on the earth long time ago. (Egyptian mythology)
By contrast to science, what we get from philosophy and theology is a vast diversity of different beliefs by different people with no way to find any agreement on which of these is correct. And for some of these science will never have anything to say. But science which is based on objective observation cannot be expected to tell us how to live our lives which requires subjective participation. So for some things we just have to choose what we are going to believe whether Christianity, atheism, Stoicism, Buddhism, or any one or combination of the thousands of different religions, theologies, and philosophies. The best we can hope from science is to inject a little rationality into our understanding of these to discard that which doesn’t agree with the objective evidence.
But if somebody demands that we choose between science and one of these religions or philosophies then the choice is as easy as the choice between life and death. I will choose science which saves lives. And only when science can tell me nothing will I turn to philosophy and religion to help me with the aspects of life which require subjective participation.
Scientific explanations are adequate for the work of science and forcing God into it demonstrably doesn’t help with the science. Shoving a big black box like God into the works doesn’t explain anything and only short circuits the scientific methodology. The rhetoric of religion, philosophy, lawyers, politicians, and used car salesmen have no place in science. It is fine for the rest of life – a bigger part of how the human world works than science frankly. But leave that out of science, because it only confuses things, and we have enough of it in the other parts of life.
1 Like
you see here is exactly where the problem lies…this is the very heart of the issue.
In academic circles, generally good grades are not based on truth…they are based on how well an argument has been put forward.
This would mean technically a scientific lie in academia could easily obtain a High Distinction using the exact same science as a scientific truth presented poorly that got a very low score.
Does this mean the High Distinction is the correct interpretation? Absolutely not!
Similarly, just because apparently a larger percentage of scientists around the world strongly oppose YEC, that does not mean that those scientists also care about or even understand the philosophical importance of God and Creation. They are not interested in the question “why did God create”?
We as Christians know exactly why God creates…he does it as an expression of his love.
therefore, because the vast majority of secular scientists do not care for God, we cannot take their interpretation as Gospel.
I find it extraordinary that any Christian would scoff and ridicule AIG and movements like them. Some of the research these guys are doing is going a long way towards addressing the very age old problem that Francis Collins highlights after “in the beginning God…” and it [AIG] is doing it far better than the non Christian model currently being put forward that Theistic Evolution is following.
Odd. Why do you conflate evidence with argument? These are two separate things. The methodology of science has developed to eliminate rhetorical flourishes as a basis for understanding, and to establish rigor in evaluating truth concerning nature. Philosophy maintained heavier objects fall faster; science demonstrated otherwise. Philosophy and theology are useless for such questions. Contrary to your insistence, a “foundation” is not needed; you just need to go out and actually measure the rate at which various things fall. That is it. That is all. There is nothing to add. And all such measurements, such as radiometric dating, cosmology, and geology converge to inform us that AiG and such organizations are promoting pseudoscience that has no more merit than flat earth ideas.
The Pillar of Truth Christian Church also bases their idea of science on scripture, here is a not half bad video they produced.. They regard belief in a spherical earth as compromise, maybe not a salvation issue but an authority issue. They also believe it is unbiblical to believe there were ever dinosaurs, and all the fossils are manufactured frauds. Why not? Once you throw out science, you may as well go whole hog.
It isn’t about authority. It is about evidence.
You may also want to consider that your post applies to YEC as well. Could it be that the YEC position is not the truth and you only accept it because of how the argument has been put forward?
2 Likes
WOW… I have no words for what I have just seen on their YouTube channel. But what is even more concerning is the stuff in the comments. Crumbs!
1 Like
That is not the case in the sciences at all. In science good grades are based on getting the correct answers. Putting out a good argument for the wrong answer doesn’t get you anything. How do we know what the correct answers are? They can be demonstrated by written procedures which give the same result no matter who does them or what they want or believe. That is what gives the results in science an objectivity you cannot find in the humanities including philosophy and theology, where things are largely based on rhetoric - i.e. the quality of the argument you give.
Yes, YEC and theology is founded on rhetoric and making an argument that sounds good with big questions. Like a lawyer or car salesmen they make what they are selling sound like something of huge and fantastic importance… and whether the client is guilty, the car is crap, or you frankly haven’t a clue as to why God created is something they never have to take responsibility for.
The world and history is filled with people who show all kinds of fervor for God and yet they do endless evil in God’s name. We know this for a fact because of how contradictory their actions are. We cannot take their interpretations as truth.
Scoff? Can the words of Jesus against the Pharisees be described as scoffing?
Matthew 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
No I do not scoff. For those who push lies in an effort to exclude people from from God’s grace and use the gifts of God to lord it over others, I have only condemnation. The Christian gospel is one of salvation by the grace of God quite different from the Gnostic gospel of salvation by knowing and believing “the right things.” The evidence for evolution is overwhelming but whether you believe this has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. Real science and theology are about completely different things.
Oh yeah. Like: “The stars are angels”, which got a ‘like’ from the author (is that even in the Bible?). And even better, over 900 comments and not a single “uncomplimentary” comment.
Edit: I asked in parentheses “is that even in the Bible?” Argh. I should have know, of course it is!
But wait, there’s more.
Here’s the ICR carrying an article, Stars in Heaven, by the one and only Henry Morris trying valiantly to explain it to us. Morris held a PhD in hydraulic engineering, so of course that more than qualified him to share his opinions on biblical exegesis. Regrettably the ICR doesn’t understand that the Law of Holes applies here.
3 Likes
That’s the arts, not the sciences, Adam. Eloquent arguments might get you good grades in art, or literature, or philosophy, or law, or politics, but not in science. In science, good grades very much are based on truth.
In any case, science isn’t just done in academia. It is also done in industry. Such as, for example, the oil industry. And in industry, a scientific lie most certainly would not obtain a High Distinction in anything. In industry, scientific lies can end up getting people killed.
The reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists strongly oppose YEC has nothing whatsoever to do with “not caring about the philosophical importance of God and Creation.” The reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists strongly oppose YEC is that science has rules. There are strict protocols that you have to adhere to and strict standards that you have to maintain. And YECism doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of those standards, let alone make the slightest attempt to stick to them.
The word you are looking for here is “rebuke,” not “scoff and ridicule.” If an organisation is fudging measurements, quote mining, making things up and misrepresenting raw evidence, then of course Christians who are competent to check such matters and hold them accountable should rebuke them firmly.
7 Likes
complete ********…you cant get a science degree without academic qualifications. It is fictitious to now think that the academia processes are then ignored.
and who rebukes TEism when it follows a secular model that is contrary to the Bible? This is my point, we take the astro physical observations and interpreter them from the world view of “there is no God”…TEism then uses that same scientific interpretation to make the claim that YECism is wrong because it takes the biblical theology first, and then attempts to discover real science that supports the biblical theology.
I do not see how that can be achieved when we start fudging around with gravity vs atomic attractions and claim that they may behave differently simply because secular world view science says it must be so. Why cannot the YEC scientific model be considered? Are we saying that Michael Behee, Stephen Myer, Kirt Wise, Andrew Snelling and all of those other scientists are wrong because they do not agree with the mainstream secular model?
Why should we do this when Stephen Hawking himself admitted that the origins of the universe remain unknown? I do not know why I should be expected to believe in a model that openly claims it cannot answer the most basic of all scientific questions…where did the energy and matter come from that is the Big Bang?
The answer I have recently read is…“it was always there”
Now see here is the problem with the “it was always there” answer.
- two gentlemen accidently discovered background microwave radiation that clearly proves the universe had an origin
- If there was a point of origin, that means that there is absolutely a beginning.
- If there was a beginning, how can any idiot make the claim it was always there? (it doesn’t even make any logical sense)
So when instead I read the Bible…
- In the beginning God
- created the heavens and the earth
- and he formed man out of the dust of the earth
- and he came down close and breathed the breath of life into mans nostrils and man became a living being.
- man sinned and was separated from God
- Wages of Sin is death
- God himself came down and paid the ultimate price for sin…he gave up his own life for his creation.
- God proves that Him creating is an act of love by dying for his creation in point 7 above.
9 One day, God is going to restore all of this nonsense back to its former glory. he is going to wipe away sin, tears, pain, death and there will be a new heaven and a new earth as the former that are full of sin will pass away.
There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away ." Revelation 21.4
I do not see how any of the above in the Bible narrative are not consistent across its pages, are not supported by history, and do not answer the questions of our existence that secular science remains unable to answer. I also do not see how it is possible to claim that death is unrelated to sin when clearly the very end of the plan of salvation outlined in the bibles pages specifically tells us, “there will be no more death”!
This has been said to you over and over again. ALL science is done from the “worldview” of agnosticism towards God existing or not:
- The Hall Effect
- The Heat Equation
- The Krebs Cycle
- The Friedmann Equation
- The Navier-Stokes Formula
- Beer’s Law
- Ohm’s Law
- Fick’s Law of Diffusion
- Foster’s Rule
- Law of superposition
- Principle of Original Horizontality
- Etc. Etc. Etc.
That’s not the reason YECism is wrong. But yet, YECism does science completely backwards and incorrect.
I’ve explained and so have others multiple times about gravity and atomic interactions. They don’t behave differently because “secular worldview science says it must be so.” They behave differently because they are different in reality and experiments confirm this over and over. If you don’t get this and just continue along the same path repeating falsehoods, there’s no point for this conversation (or any like it) to continue with you.
Because it’s wrong and has been demonstrated to be wrong for hundreds of years. First by geology, then physics, then biology, and every other field of science.
No, we are saying they are wrong because they are wrong.
Please stop using arguments like this. What does it matter what Stephen Hawking says? That’s not how science works. You don’t have a “prophet” who interprets all of reality for you and then you just take them at their word.
Right, so let’s be ignorant and ignore what science CAN explain, and pretend that because it can’t explain this one thing or that one thing, everything we know is wrong. You are basically saying,
“Ha, since science can’t explain X, therefore whatever I want is true!”
Do you see how that might be a bad argument?
3 Likes
Where, pray tell, did I say that you can? You’re putting words into my mouth there, Adam. Stop it.
People who are obeying the Bible themselves. In particular, people who are obeying these verses of Scripture:
13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16
And no, don’t you dare tell me that I’m taking those verses out of context. Don’t you dare tell me that they only apply when buying and selling is involved. Don’t you dare tell me that they don’t apply to science, or to any other subject where measurement is involved, for any other reason. Because to deny that those verses apply to science is to demand the right to tell lies about science.
Because the YEC “scientific” model does not have accurate and honest weights and measures, it’s as simple as that. It does not obey Deuteronomy 25:13-16. It even goes so far as to flat-out deny that it has to obey Deuteronomy 25:13-16. As such, it is not scientific, it is not Biblical, and it is not honest.
No they are not wrong because they “do not agree with the mainstream secular model.” They are wrong because they fudge measurements, misrepresent evidence, quote mine, exaggerate things out of all proportion, and dismiss basic standards of quality control as “rescuing devices.” These are failings that have nothing whatsoever to do with “secularism” but that flout the rules and standards of basic honesty that apply to everyone, Christians and secularists alike.
4 Likes
It has been. Evidence that the earth is ancient has piled up over the past few centuries. By the start of the twentieth century, the evidence was overwhelming and the debate over. There is no recent controversy.
It is not scientific, so there is no YEC scientific model. YEC is a mishmash of theology and apologetics; the science references are just ornamentation.
Atoms are not little galaxies. It is obvious that you do not have even a rudimentary understanding of classical or modern physics. That is OK, but if you have so little interest in the actual physics, why are you attempting to upend science with contrived folksy arguments? Both @jammycakes and I have pointed out that it is measurement and not philosophy which is central to science, and you have just ignored that.
Measurement not philosophy.
Measurement not theology
Measurement not rhetoric.
Measurement not debate points.
Measurement not dogma.
Scientific methodology is specifically about removing such distortions in the pursuit of knowledge about nature.
Not at all. Some are wrong because they distort the basic facts and body of data which incontrovertibly supports an ancient earth. In many instances, they are culpable of false witness.
If it matters, both Michael Behe and Stephen Myer recognize that the earth is billions of years old.
2 Likes
This is simply not correct. Science is based on a methodology of procedural honesty and objectivity – for honesty we test hypotheses rather than seek to prove them and for objectivity we come up with written procedures which anyone can follow to get the same results no matter what they want or believe. It is not based on a worldview except for some basic assumptions that the objective evidence does not lie – not some great conspiracy by undetectable liars fabricating the evidence to deceive us. Thus it is a basic part of the method that beliefs about God have no part and do not matter in the work of science. Many scientist have believed that all this objective evidence has been given to us by God to inform us how things are, and others have believe God has nothing to do with it. And this difference doesn’t matter because such beliefs are irrelevant to how science works.
There is a scientific worldview but it is a product of the scientific investigation by means of its methodology rather than the basis of science – namely that the universe operates according to space-time mathematical laws of nature. It cannot establish that there are no exceptions and it has in fact established that this is not a causally closed system, but those mathematical laws have proven reliable predictors of events.
Okay, I think we agree with each other though.
2 Likes
The problem is that this is something that is often badly explained, and explained in ways that are easily misunderstood by many Christians, especially YECs.
So if you say, “Science is done in ways that do not take beliefs about God into account,” many Christians will then hear, “Science is done in ways that actively oppose the concept of God having anything to do with it.” And they will hear it that way whether that is your intention or not.
And they aren’t being dishonest here either. It really, genuinely does sound like that. Or, at the very least, it has enough ambiguity in it that it could easily sound like that, especially to anyone who isn’t paying close attention and doesn’t have the same concept of exact, precise language that scientists and engineers are used to.
That’s why I’m always careful to emphasise that science is not about secularism. It’s why I’m careful to express it in terms of the rules that science has to adhere to, and to explain that the rules are exactly the same for Christian and atheist alike, and exactly the same whether God is involved or not.
3 Likes
I nitpick because in the efforts to promote compatibility between science and Christianity the precise language is important.
1 Like
That’s a good point, thank you for the helpful suggestion of rephrasing.
3 Likes
The YEC model has been considered. It failed. The evidence is not consistent with a young Earth, a recent global flood, or separately created species.
That is not what we are saying. We are saying that YEC’s are wrong because the evidence contradicts their claims. It’s about the evidence.
If you accept the evidence for the universe having a beginning then you accept the ancient age of the Earth and Universe.
We can lack the knowledge of where the energy at the origin of the universe came from and still know that the Earth is old, there was no recent global flood, and that all species share a common ancestor.