September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Nobel Prize Awards Ethical Stem Cell Research | Main | Religion: None »

October 09, 2012

Comments

Evolution has been shown so conclusively, not accepting it is a good indication that one hasn't got the mental facultes to do science.

Or so I have been told.

Sounds an aweful lot like "If you don't believe me, then you're just stupid!"

I was having this discussion with someone the other day about what science is. Science can cover a multitude of different arenas about our observable world. You can even call looking into the past science. What you can't do is call any science that looks into the past fact. There is science that looks at things today that we can repeat and we can falsify. Then there are things that we infer information about based on data that we can observe today. We can only infer because we can not go back in time to verify that the information is correct. Evolution is only around because a few people looked at some rocks and inferred information about their age. They could not prove their age and I would say that there is data to prove that their inference is wrong. Just look at what ICR did in their 7 year study of the data. Answers in Genesis and ICR both classify science that looks at the past as historical science and I am all for continueing to look at that field of science but don't come to me and expect me to believe that data that can't be proven is supposed to be taken as fact. Evolution is the same way there is no way that anyone can go into the past and prove something transformed into something over time. To say that evolution is a fact is going against what science stands for and to me science is the search for answers and for truth. When you say that something is fact but you can't prove it, you are committing intellectual dishonesty.

It is true that Naturalism and Science are not the same entities.


An example:


Science tells us everything exists. It cannot tell us why or how.


Naturalism uses the data which science provides us and assumes we can know why and how, though clearly we cannot.


Science is hard data.


Naturalism consists of assumptions which use that data to extrapolate beyond reproducible, physical data.


Science says Everything exists.


Naturalism takes that data and insists on this:
Out of everything material came everything material, and, out of that everything material came another everything material, and out of that everything material came another everything material, and out of that everything material came another everything material, and out of that everything material came another everything material, and so on forever ad infinitum, ad infinitum.


The reason X exists is because X exists.


Science tells us that this reality we call “everything” or “the universe” cannot self-account.


Naturalism insists Everything can self-account and violates logic to so insist. It chooses between Logic and Everything.


Theism does not violate logic to account for Everything. It embraces both Logic and Everything.


The Immutable, Eternal Uncaused Cause, Who is Love Himself, is found overlaping and wrapped up in, simply, Everything.

Evolution is a theory of science. Just like General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Atomic Theory are theories of Physics. Just like Germ Theory is a theory of biology. Just like continental drift is a theory of geology. Just like the Big Band theory is a theory of cosmology. Historically, theories are more often incorporated into newer theories rather than scrapped entirely (e.g. Newtonian gravity was subsumed under General Relativity, not thrown out). Science cannot prove anything in a logical, deductive sense. But it can provide strong evidence to supports its conclusions.
Oh, and by the way, evolution is not a theory of origins. It only concerns development once self-replicating molecules/proto-cells already exist. No scientific consensus exists as to how these cells got here in the first place. It's a very active area of research right now.

"Evolution has been shown so conclusively..."

The funny thing is, the opposite is actually the truth. The more research and study is done into this theory, the more issues and problems have arisen. If anything, the theory of evolution has now become a backwards scientific process, one in which scientists are struggling to find data and research to hammer a point instead of adjusting their theories to accommodate the data; when most so-called scientists get data that might "disagree" with this theory, they simply throw the data out or modify their research so as to get the data they were originally looking for...that's hardly a credible process.

"And no, we don't believe evolution is an accurate account of origins because we don't think the evidence support its, the Bible allows for it, and philosophy counts against it."

Raise your hand if you'd stop being a Christian if molecules-to-man evolution were true?

Of course molecules to Man is true. It is out of dirt, dust, and whatever comprises such, which Man is made. Genesis told us that, too. After this he, Man, lies there, lifeless. Void of breath, void of, in some nuances of Hebrew, Speech, void of Speaking Spirit: void of Personhood. Of course Personhood Himself breathes into that lifeless body, made out of molecules, something called ‘Speaking’. And Man, there, after that additional procedure, becomes Person. And, through Person, or by Person, comes that living thing: Word.

Eden’s soil is found there in Adam’s body. Only, in that lifeless body there is no Person, no Word. Love Himself must inject such. Short of that there is only psychic phosphorescence. We find in a pure naturalism the complete absence of personhood, of worth, of living word, and even the soil itself, for it remains unaccounted for. It cannot account for the Fe+, the Ca++, nor any other item buried within that soil and within Man’s cells. It simply looks into soil and into cells and then stands and screams, “Soil! Look! Soil! You see! There is no God!” It then wonders off, fully content to leave behind the very soil it claims as its own, for it cannot account for it, fully content to leave behind the very Personhood of the Naturalist himself, for it cannot rise above the ceiling of blind psychic phosphorescence, fully content to leave behind the Thought and Word with which the Naturalist thinks, for it cannot rise above the ceiling of irrationally conditioned reflexes within its neurons.


Soil within my cells has little to do with my Christianity pro or con. It is Love, and in particular Love Himself, that Immutable and Eternal Hard Stop in Whom the end of ad infinitum is tasted and thus seen by both Logic and Love Who has been and remains the perpetual confirmation of the Really Real.


I'm not sure if that was a yes or a no...

pretty good article here

http://creation.com/theological-case-against-evolution

Science is not hard data. Data is data. Science is the process of building a model that accounts for the data you have and for looking for additional data to strengthen or weaken the argument for your model.


Too many people don't seem to understand the difference between science and a philosophical position informed by science. (ie. something is not science simply because it is stated by a scientist.)

Science tells us nothing. Scientists describe models based own their interpretation of the data they have chosen to use in their model building process.

(Some will say that science tells us that hydrogen and oxygen produce water. No, it does not. The model of Chemistry we use tells us that based on the fact that so far no one has documented a case where it didn't produce it under the conditions that it is assumed it would. There is nothing to say that next week we will not find a situation where that does not happen. Science hasn't changed it's mind. Our model was simply incomplete.)

The comments to this entry are closed.