I do appreciate the detail. For brevity’s sake, I had omitted the detail about Calvin’s sermon being a clash between two different kinds of geocentrism: the mainstream view that the heavens spun around a still earth, on the one hand, and the new proposal that the heavens were still while the earth spun like top in the middle, on the other. And Calvin was defending the mainstream view of geocentrism (still earth) against the divergent geocentrism (spinning earth).
I’m pretty sure we are in agreement that Calvin considered geocentrism to be the only faithful interpretation of the Scriptures. Given the intellectual environment of the day, I am not in the least holding this against him!
We’re constrained from offering scientific explanations that can’t be tested with empirical data, because science consists of testing explanations with empirical data. If you think a miracle occurred that has no connection with the normal behavior of things and that left no evidence, there’s nothing to say scientifically about it. You can believe it happened, but it’s outside the purview of science.
More broadly, if you reject the evidence of our senses – which is essentially what ‘appearance of age’ young-earth creationism does – then I don’t see how you can rationally conclude anything about any subject. If reading the Bible convinces you that you should ignore the fact that the Earth looks old, why do you trust your reading? Maybe it only looks like the Bible says the Earth is young; maybe a miracle happens every time someone reads the Bible, and they read words that aren’t actually there.
As for intelligent design, at least as promoted by the Intelligent Design movement, it does claim to be presenting empirical evidence for the actions of an intelligent designer. The problem with ID arguments is not that they’re unscientific but that they’re really bad arguments.
Don’t want to say “never,” but you are correct in that we do not currently have a scientific explanation for abiogenesis. However, people often conflate abiogenesis with evolution to try and refute evolution, but they are simply not the same.
“The lack of scientific consensus on the origin of life does not diminish the strength of evolutionary theory, which only seeks to explain the diversity of life forms after life had already begun.”
The origin of matter in our universe is very similar. After the initial expansion of the universe the massive amounts of energy condensed into matter.
If it were a scientific discussion they would ask for evidence, which, I’m guessing, you don’t have. The reason your claims are not taken seriously within science is that they lack scientific evidence.
Then how do you explain the thousands and thousands of Christian scientists who believe in non-materialistic explanations and are still highly respected by their peers and hold tenured positions in universities across the US and across the world? One perfect example is Dr. Francis Collins, one of the founders of BioLogos. He was head of the Human Genome Project and is now head of the NIH. He believes in non-materialistic explanations and made his beliefs widely known. He is still well respected by scientists across the globe, both theist and atheist scientists.
What they would be rejecting is mountains of scientific evidence. That’s what would get them in hot water. As a scientist, you can’t ignore evidence simply because it is inconvenient. It would be no different than a geologist who thought the world was flat, or a physicist who thought atoms didn’t exist. If you push bad science then you are a bad scientist regardless of what your religious beliefs may be.
Francis Collins and others like him do not attempt to deviate in any fashion from a belief in darwinian evolution; they are thus “blessed” by the scientific community.
Explain the difference in reception between a Stephen Meyer and a Francis Collins?
When I look at a site like creation.com, I see mountains of evidence for a young-ish earth creation. The difference is that the folks at creaton.com begin with the Scriptures, while mainstream science begins with their Bible-excluding presupposition of materialistic naturalism. Both sides are making assumptions that influence the assumptions, and the evidence is interpreted in light of those (often unstated, and in the case of darwinian evolution, quite complex) assumptions.
One is a highly productive scientist and leader. The other is a non-scientist who writes popular books misrepresenting science. Why would you expect them to have the same receptions?
This is objectively false. The fact that the Earth is old was established largely by Christians who started with the presupposition that Genesis was accurate history and the Earth was young. What convinced them otherwise was the evidence they uncovered, not their presuppositions.
May I ask if you would prohibit someone from trying to do #3? If so, why? If not, is it blasphemous to research that?
What do you mean by non-organic material? We make carboniferous organic materials all the time–this was proven possible hundreds of years ago.
As Christians, we should examine our own motives. Are we special pleading certain presuppositions without looking at the evidence, and as a result claiming similar ill motive in others without reason?
Have you considered how much of what is posted on CMI and AiG is not just scientifically ridiculous, but not in the Bible? Camels were a kind of animal that gave birth to camels, where in the Bible are kinds where lions give birth to housecats? Where is Noah instructed to fill the ark with baby animals as opposed to breeding adults? Dinosaurs are pretty attention getting, yet some glancing, obscure, ambivalent and unrelated reference to Behemoth is supposed to justify dinosaurs on the ark? If it were not for the discovery and scientific study of dinosaurs, would anybody have come up with dinosaurs just from reading scripture? Where is it written that the Mercury, Venus, asteroids, and the moons of Earth, Mars, Saturn, all were plastered with impacts during the flood. As far as that goes, where is any discussion of anything other than water happening during the flood? Then there are Biblical references that are explained away because they conflict with the YEC timeline, for instance the pharaoh Shoshenq.
Creationism has become an anti-science enterprise untethered from the very texts at its foundation.
The assumption of science is that we live in an empirical world whereby we can come to understand nature by careful and precise observation and measurement. What assumptions do you assume?
I’m sorry, but it simply doesn’t work like that. As I’ve said before, there are rules that evidence, assumptions, and challenges to assumptions all have to obey in order to be considered legitimate. Rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with “Bible-excluding presuppositions of materialistic naturalism.” Rules that, in fact, come from the Bible itself. Such, as for example, this one:
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
Every single claim of evidence that I have seen on creation.com for a young Earth flagrantly disobeys that rule. In fact, I was even recently told by a creation.com staff member that I was taking those verses out of context by applying them to science and Christian apologetics. I’m sorry, but to claim that those verses do not apply to science or Christian apologetics is to demand the right to tell lies when addressing matters concerning science and Christian apologetics. All I could say to him in response to that was, if you don’t want to be accused of lying, don’t demand the right to tell lies.
Then you don’t know how to properly assess the scientific evidence.
Science starts with the scientific method which requires testable hypotheses and empirical evidence. It isn’t the fault of science that YEC fails to meet these requirements.
Scientists are making measurements, not assumptions. You are completely wrong on this point.
The term evolution is quite broad which I think causes people to talk past one another without realizing it. In a sense, evolution is unquestionable fact – the changes that occur within certain groups (I wouldn’t want to limit myself to species) of living things over time – some creationists would call it “micro” evolution or simply “adaptation”, but they are invariably lambasted by the scientific community for using those terms. In fact, a YEC like myself draws heavily upon evolution to understand how the earth became repopulated with animals following the (unquestionably global) flood. I hope it is obvious that when someone like me is casting doubt upon “evolution”, I am referring to “common descent” and related concepts.
Unfortunately I think some believe they live in a biblical world in which what is true is what is written therein. Any apparent conflict simply requires a greater application of faith to dispel. I much prefer the BioLogos approach involving full out science alongside full out faith.