Do we need the Holy Spirit for understanding of what is inspired Scripture or the Bible?
Iâm not claiming that it is. I did make the point that there are limits.
The difference is that the limits arenât as tightly constrained as in the physical sciences. In particular they donât have the element of âif you get this wrong, things wonât work.â
You have a point there, Richard. The problem with consensus is that it is a very academic one, and academics can be somewhat detached at times from the Real World. (Can you say âivory towerâ?) For this reason, if âconsensusâ is the strongest argument youâre faced with, then a certain amount of honest and informed scepticism may be warranted in certain circumstances, especially if the consensus is relatively immature and politically contentious.
But consensus is often not the strongest argument. Some scientific theories are application-level science: they get put to work in real-world situations where getting things wrong has consequences. Some scientific theories are foundation-level science: they have other scientific theories that depend on them, so that if they turned out to be wrong, then all the theories on which they depend would also be wrong. Trying to challenge application-level or foundation-level science is crackpot territory.
Hereâs the thing: evolutionary science is application-level science. It gets used in the petrochemical industry to find oil, in virology, epidemiology and cancer research, and in conservation. The main interest that I myself have in the theory of evolution is in its applications to computer science and software engineering. Evolutionary algorithms have proven themselves time and time again in all sorts of computational settings, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Hereâs a video that explains how evolutionary algorithms work, by a guy who codes them up as an example. Itâs a bit long and detailed (just over 56 minutes) so donât feel obliged to watch it, but Iâm just including it here for anyone whoâs interested in following up on the subject in more depth:
Exactly the same thing could be said about arithmetic. Times tables. Long division. And so on.
Some things are taught as fact because they are facts.
6 Likes
That is the proverbial straw man. There is no disputing arithmetic unless you change certain environments that can make 2=1. Evolution cannot be proved so unambiguously. And, that applies mostly to the microbe to human fallacy. That conclusion assumes an extrapolation beyond both proofs and factual certainty. However, there just isnât a scientific alternative. Without Evolution science has a void it cannot fill. And science, like nature, hates a void.
Richard
Given the overwhelming amount of evidence it can be considered a fact (it has been around for what, 150+ years). And why should this be a bad thing? How are you handicapped in life if you accept evolution as a fact?
If she goes into evolutionary biology she will be given plenty of chances to question it!
What do you mean a straw man? Am I trying to address an inaccurate misrepresentation of something you said, or something that someone else has said? If so, what am I misrepresenting and how?
If you canât identify anything or anyone specific that I am misrepresenting, then itâs not a straw man. If you must start throwing around accusations of making logical fallacies, please make sure youâre getting your facts straight about what those logical fallacies actually are.
Well the underlying mechanisms can be, and have been, demonstrated unambiguously: thatâs what evolutionary algorithms are about, for starters. And the relationships between different prehistoric species and the timescales involved are used to find oil. So we can get at least a considerable distance down the road from âmicrobe to humans.â If going the whole way is a fallacy, or an invalid extrapolation, then you must be able to identify a point at which it becomes invalid. What point might that be?
And that is my whole point!
I am not disputing the mechanisms. I am disputing their ability to get the job done!
Richard
Well in that case you need to identify the point at which they stop being able to get the job done.
7 Likes
Yes. And we need the Holy Spirit guiding not just individual minds but the corporate body of Christ, the church to understand how to apply the truth of Scripture appropriately to cultures and contexts that are very different from the world the texts of the Bible were written in. That is why theology and Bible interpretation is an ongoing endeavor that involves âpeer reviewâ and accountability within the global Christian community. No one person gets to insist unilaterally that their idiosyncratic view of what the Holy Spirit told them is the truth. It needs to be tested and approved.
8 Likes
I also always say that just like the Bible says the word is a living word and that faith and deeds must align, part of seeing the truth is living it out and seeing it bearing fruit. It requires the Holy Spirit to continue to shape our minds to affect our lives. Which definitely ties into general Christian consensus.
3 Likes
Finding a connection at the microcellular level does not mean that you can bridge it in the macro, or population level. TOE appears to be playing lottery with nucleotides and claiming to make new creatures. Whatever the exact means of change is. It has to be able to create a viable creature, but the complexity and interdependency of the higher level creatures defies both random construction and bit-by-bit construction. Time is not the ultimate constructor. TIme can only construct something that can actually exist and molecular study is not looking at Ecology or Physiology to confirm its findings. Instead it says: âThe connection exists here so it must be possible there.â That is blind faith, not science.
IOW you cannot describe (or better demonstrate) precisely the sequence of creatures in any creation but claim it is not needed because the connection at the molecular level proves it happened. That is not proof enough IMHO.
Richard
You can never have enough proof. Scientists can.
For those who believe no proof is needed. For those who donât believe no proof is enough?
That applies to God. Perhaps it also applies to TOE.
Richard
So, whatever is the common consensus of the group determines what is truth?
Why do we have a multitude of churches throughout the various cultures of the world with each having all different opinions of what they believe is the truth of Scripture? Who decides what group is teaching the truth? If it coincides with our beliefs? Do we pick sides according to our beliefs?
Can you explain how oneâs (as youâve stated) âidiosyncratic view of what the Holy Spirit told them is the truthâ is âtested and approvedâ?
This is why many people oppose YEC. It is little more than uninformed opinion that is foisted onto a congregation, all the while threatening their Christian walk if they donât accept these opinions as facts.
What happens when people are immersed into creationism, and then are exposed to actual facts? What happens when they are told that if evolution and an old Earth are true then the Bible is false? How can they avoid the conclusion that the Bible must be false when shown the actual facts?
2 Likes
No, but there can be a consensus about what truth is. You know, like the existence of gravity.
It doesnât mean that you canât either. Not unless you can provide some specific evidence-based reasoning to demonstrate that you canât. Can you point to any measurements, mathematical equations or computer simulations, for example, or are you just going by unscientific and unreliable notions of âcommon senseâ?
Iâm sorry Richard, but a lot of that is too vague to be meaningful. It sounds like youâre saying âmicroevolution is a thing, macroevolution is notâ or something like that, but youâre not presenting any actual evidence or logic-based reasoning to justify such a claim.
You do not challenge a scientific theory by demanding âproof enough IMHO.â You challenge a scientific theory by either (a) pointing out some verifiable facts that contradict its core fundamentals, or (b) providing an alternative that explains the evidence in at least as much detail as the theory you are challenging.
I explain this in detail here:
3 Likes
It would seem that you cannot see that I am doing precisely that. I identify errors in viewpoint (evidence) relating to physiology and ecology.
But because you do not deem them relevant you can ignore them and claim that âI know nothingâ (said in an Italian accent, of course, ALA Faulty Towers)
There is no alternative, only a variation or modification! Both of which I have claimed!
Richard
Evidence is not a viewpoint. Evidence is a set of verifiable and objective facts.
It seems that you think something is in error if it disagrees with your opinions. In science, it doesnât work that way. You need to refer to facts, not your opinion. If you say something is impossible you need to point to facts, not your opinion.
6 Likes
No youâre not, Richard.
I said that you need to point out:
- verifiable facts: opinions are not verifiable facts, and neither are vague generalities. You need to drill down into the specifics. I asked for specific examples, specific equations, specific computer simulations and so on. The scientific term for giving nothing more than opinions and vague generalities is âhand-waving.â
- that actively contradict the core fundamentals: all you are saying is that microevolution does not prove macroevolution. I hope you understand that there is a massive difference between not proving something, and actively contradicting it.
1 Like
Why? You donât. Everything is speculation and association. There is no verification of your theory, only identification of a perceived connection. (That I do not agree exists)
So why should I have to prove the existence of something that I identify (and you do not)
Richard
Richard