This statement may be generally true, but I think the relevant point to consider is that evolution is one of the most established concepts. It has been fought and tested hard for a century and a half, and all the tests add up to affirmation of the theory. In the modern day we can safely say that there is no longer any worthwhile argument to be made against the ancient age of the earth or common descent—at least, as far as science is concerned. Especially since genetic testing has confirmed the interrelatedness of the tree of life, those who have not deeply studied the data but still insist on ‘questioning’ it do not have any impact on the established scientific consensus.
2 Likes
The reality is that science is far far more immune to ideology than anything in religion including the Bible. Ideology cannot change the results of the written procedures science gives us because they give the same result no matter what you believe. There are no hooks in the mathematics of science for ideology to twist and distort meaning the way there is in the words of the Bible. What ideology affects is how the science is used, whether it be in the media or technology, but that isn’t science. It certainly affects what scientists say in speeches and non-scientific literature, but that isn’t science.
This is why science is an activity that crosses all religious and cultural boundaries as something they can all contribute to and the only exception are the religions which reject the work of science because they insist on dictating their dogma to people contrary to what the evidence has shown.
Did I say that I rejected all of biology just because I didn’t believe one theory? No, of course not. As I said; gross over-reach on your part. That is just trying to set up a straw man that rejecting one theory rejects all of science. So you too are saying that questioning evolution is the same as questioning science.
You are putting words in @Chris_Falter’s mouth that he did not say, at the same time as you accuse him of doing exactly that to you.
Actually, Lynn, that is exactly what he was implying by saying that if I didn’t also reject all physics then I was being inconsistent.
I think the problem is that the parts of biology that you accept were figured out in the same manner that evolution was, with there being perhaps even more evidence to support the latter.
Who are the eyewitnesses?
Part of the problem (I’d say most, actually) with reconciling the Bible with science is understanding not just what the books say and then what they mean, but what they actually are. This has to do when they were written, for what purpose were they written, and who actually wrote them. Until you do a detailed study of those items, you will believe the teachers you have been exposed to as opposed to actual experts and scholars in the various fields of study.
Having done some of that myself, I find your premise needs looking into.
2 Likes
How do you know what teachers I have been exposed to? You assume I havent consulted experts and scholars. What makes you think I havent?
When you add one and one you get two.
Wait a minute? Am I assuming you can add, OR am I laying down a general principle. The word “you” is used in more than one way, and so using this word doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with you unless you have a big chip on your shoulder.
calling up the definition in google, it’s the second definition I am talking about.
you
pronoun
1.
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
“are you listening?”
2.
used to refer to any person in general.
“after a while, you get used to it”
1 Like
So you think the stories in the gospels are eyewitness accounts? I know you haven’t been exposed to actual scholars who are using publicly available sources. Don’t get defensive, just do some basic research.
According to modern courtroom standards? No. But it is unreasonable to expect such a thing from a time when nobody employed such standards. So according to the standards of the times? Yes. What is the difference? The gospels were not simply a recalling straight from memory just what they remembered seeing and hearing. They were compositions based on what these persons saw using whatever notes they had available to fill in the details they could not remember. In short they were biographical accounts from people who were eyewitnesses (most likely with considerable help from associates), often with subtle theological agendas. And to be sure we don’t accept such things in a courtroom because people edit their accounts and even their memories will change according to what they choose believe later on.
I certainly have in a publicly accredited seminary. But some of the arguments of these scholars are far from irrefutable. This is not a hard science. Far from it. And frankly some of THEIR premises should be re-examined.
… just saying …
2 Likes
The major theories in physics are quantum mechanics and relativity. According to physicists, they seem to useful and probably approximately correct as far as they go, but they have plenty of questions that physicists are working on.
The major theory in biology is evolution. According to biologists, it is useful and probably approximately correct as far as it goes, but it has plenty of questions that biologists are working on.
That’s why I contend that (quantum mechanics + relativity)::physics == evolution::biology
Best,
Chris
Hmmm… not quite comfortable with that equation. Looking up “theories of biology” gives you (from here).
Four unifying principles form the foundation of modern biology : cell theory , evolutionary theory , the gene theory and the principle of homeostasis. These four principles are important to each and every field of biology .
And I think we would at least want to add gene theory and perhaps homeostasis to your equation. Perhaps cell theory can be equated with the theories of classical physical like Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s equations since that is a bit older discovery in biology. Gene theory gives more precision and substance to biology like quantum does for physics… but I would be happier if somehow all biochemistry of genes and biological process were somehow included in the equation as well.
1 Like
James, empirical approaches demand skepticism. Good science is always re-evaluating, self-critical, and reserves judgement where there is insufficient data.
1 Like
Note that Young Earth Creationists themselves often utilize evolution as a term when talking about non biological sciences such as “evolutionary astronomy” and “evolutionary geology”. So, yes, they reject much more than Darwin.
YEC is hostile to almost all of geology, astronomy, and a great deal of physics. They interpret basic notions such as the speed of light, tidal disruptions of galaxies, geomagnetism, nuclear forces, the CMB, in a way far removed from scientific understanding. The essential driver of science, curiosity, is often short circuited by the mentality that it was just made that way. It may be pretty fair comment that YEC is broadly anti-science.
You can probably believe in a flat earth and do chemistry.
3 Likes
Flat earth may leave chemistry more-or-less intact, to be sure, but among nearly everything else about reality that doesn’t work with flat-earth, your comment made me think of another simple one from physics: According to straightforward gravitational physics the center of mass of a disk would be … at it’s center of course! but not very deep in the ground - the earth being flat and all. So that would mean that our angle of “down” would rapidly become very oblique to the surface if we were even just moderately out toward the edge. If the earth were flat, we should all be standing at extreme angles to the ground, and laboring to climb (uphill as it were) to walk away from the hub. Only “hub-standers” would have the privilege of perpendicularity with the ground. Bodies of water would all flow into some spherical glob around the hub. So I guess standard gravitational physics is among the legion of things flat-earthers are forced to deny.
[All this would give fun new meanings to the phrase: “slippery slope”. I can see headlines now: “ANOTHER CROWD TUMBLED ALL THE WAY INTO HUB. OVER 200 LOST”. Sub caption: “Our flat planet continues to slip toward sphericity. Shape-change deniers continue to block legislation to anchor and reinforce remaining terrain to preserve our natural flatness.” "One tearful survivor managed to escape from the edge of the accelerating mass of people. She reported, ‘It all started when somebody at the edgeward side of our gathering tripped and fell, and the ones next to them got bowled over too.’ "]
2 Likes
I spent most of my working life dealing with eyewitnesses so I think it is reasonable for me to talk about eyewitness accounts. You say you know I havent been exposed to actual scholars etc. So I will ask you again, how do you KNOW this? As for being defensive, that gave me a chuckle. 
It is sort of a tension in Christianity regardless of your views on origins when we discuss eye witness accounts. We can observe in legal matters that eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Witnesses often give widely variable accounts of crime scenes and accidents. Our brain fills in the blanks in our memories without us knowing it. We can have false memories placed. DNA trumps witnesses and has led to the release of many falsely convicted on the basis of eye witness testimony.
Yet, eye witness accounts and personal testimony are deeply ingrained in Christian belief. Ultimately, I have to rely on the leading of the Spirit to chart my course, but the path is often foggy. Any thoughts?
2 Likes
I know from experience that witnesses dont always see the same things. For various reasons, some events get the attention of one witness but not another. Examining evidence from several witnesses helps to get a clearer picture. I dont accept that eyewitness are generally as unreliable as you make out. In my experience, conducting a proper interview often eliminates mistakes and misunderstandings. However, I do accept there are occasions when people have been falsely convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony and that is why it helps to have corroborative evidence. It obviously helps to have DNA and fingerprint evidence but we need to remember that the presence of DNA or fingerprints are not in themselves proof of guilt.It is not that simple.In the bible there are eyewitnesses to all kinds of events, from the mundane to the miraculous. Some people believe these testimonies are true and others dont. The reason for rejecting these testimonies probably has less to do with the quality of the evidence and more to do with the fact that the bible has a message that sinful man doesnt want to hear. I have interviewed many witnesses and I have examined many witness statements and in my opinion the testimonies in the bible are reliable.
Why do people believe this garbage?
Some people are raised on an authoritarian morality where the only difference between right and wrong is a voice from above dictating what they can or cannot do. Compare this image to that of a toddler guided by the commanding voice of the person minding them. The idea that things might actually be wrong for a good reason is apparently beyond their comprehension. When they have their inevitable teenage rebellion they become total degenerates and it isn’t hard to see how their life descends rather quickly into the crapper. I have seen this happen to friends. Thus when they repent in a snap-back phenomenon all this authoritarian morality and religion dogma they were fed as children is confirmed and entrenched rather rigidly in their minds. It is from their own personal experience of rebelling that they know they refused to believe the Bible because they wanted to sin, and they do not comprehend the reality that the rest of the world doesn’t work that way.
The truth is that in other households children are taught a morality based in reasons why some things are not good to do and when they read the Bible it would never occur to them to reject what it says just so they can act like a brainless imbecile doing every stupid thing that comes into their head. Instead they apply the same logic and reasoning process to evaluate whether what the Bible says is believable, and while most conclude that its claims are far fetched if not downright irrational, there are others like myself that see some sense and value in what it says, and the choice of whether one wants to be a moral degenerate has nothing to do with it whatsoever! IN FACT, if anything, the opposite is the case. The Christian message is far more likely to appeal to those who see within themselves a tendency to be not so nice and they see hope in the Bible that they can change. The non-believer is more likely to be the person who doesn’t see the Bible as being very helpful, and even that much of it sets a rather poor example.