|
| Science...or faith? (What to do with the evidence...) |
|
| |
It has been said that the evidence grows for Big Bang/Common Descent (evolution). Regarding this "growing evidence", Ken Ham has said that much of the same evidence is claimed by both "young earth creationists" and "old earth evolutionists" and therefore supports whatever viewpoint you start with. The evidence is simply interpreted differently in each case. The scientifically minded would argue the validity of this assertion I'm sure, and that's fine. However, there are other ways to look at this issue of "the evidence".
Imagine if you were to turn a corner and see a man holding a smoking gun, standing over a bleeding body. You may quite rationally conclude that the man holding the gun shot the person on the ground. Can this be a false conclusion? (answer = yes)
If a doctor had examined a certain man's eyes 2000 years ago, he would have pronounced with certainty that this man had healthy eyes from birth, given all the scientific/physiological evidence. But this rational, scientific, and materialistic conclusion would have been wrong, because this healthcare professional would have been unaware of the fact that Jesus had touched this man's eyes and supernaturally restored his vision just prior to the doctor's exam. (That is, if we're to believe this irrational account in scripture.)
If a chemist had analyzed a certain vat of wine 2000 years ago, he would have confidently pronounced it to be nothing less than the authentic byproduct of fermented fruit (and tasty at that!), looking at the scientific/chemical evidence. But this rational, materialistic conclusion would have been wrong as well, because the chemist would have been unaware of the fact that Jesus had just minutes earlier supernaturally changed a vat of water into this very wine! (Again, if we're to believe this irrational account.) Furthermore, the chemist would scoff at us for suggesting it was ever anything but wine, just as evolutionists scoff at creationist today.
If a meteorologist had examined atmospheric measurements taken one evening on a certain day 2000 years ago, he would have likely extrapolated backwards and confidently asserted that the weather had been fair since morning, given all the scientific/meteorological evidence. But this materialistic conclusion would have been wrong yet again, because this meteorologist would have been unaware (and unaccepting) of the fact that Jesus had just minutes earlier supernaturally calmed a storm by his word!! (He too probably would have ridiculed us for suggesting there had actually been a storm!)
According to Hebrews, faith is being "certain of what we do not see." This makes all of us Christians very kooky in the eyes of the scientific world, because science is all about proving rational hypotheses with observable data, yet our hypotheses are so doggone irrational! I'm afraid the conflict between "God created" and science will never go away, never. A better question might be, do I need scientific data to align with my belief? Well, I suppose it would be nice. But Jesus did say, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
So perhaps every Christian needs to ask themselves, "am I going to let scientific evidence determine what I believe about life and its origins, or am I going to take God at his word?" And maybe Christians in the sphere of science need to ask themselves if they are going to proclaim the rational conclusions of science or the irrational claims of faith? |
|
| To add a comment to "Science...or faith? (What to do with the evidence...)" |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
 |
|
|
| so true. I claim by faith. Doctors, science, chemist, or any other professional can say whatever they want but I choose to live by Faith and take God for His word because cannot lie and God is more than able to perform His word. God will do what He said He would do. Even though you can't see your miracle or need in the physical, believe God, keep on hopping for it, and see it with your spiritual eyes. |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
I try to use logic, but when we don't know what God knows and don't have the mind that God has, how can we reach the same conclusion?
I think our choices are simple.
Believe the Bible is true and live for Christ -or- believe the Bible is not true and live for ourselves.
In the end, everyone will find out who was right or wrong. If we live for Christ and we're wrong what have we lost? I believe we have gained because we get a lifetime to relate to other believers on a level that non-believers cannot experience. If we live for ourselves and we're wrong then we have lost eternity in Heaven and only gained a lifetime of selfishness and an eternity in Hell. |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
"If we live for Christ and we're wrong what have we lost?" GREAT question, Randy!!
Theresa, that's what living by faith is all about, sister! |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
| I do not need scientific proof. By the way, we have seen so called scientific proof on issues and then years later scientific proof that the first scientific proof was wrong. I believe every Word of the Bible and I believe Jesus is coming to take his children home. My God is real! I know with all my being and nothing can ever change that scientific or otherwise. |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Mike, the main difference between the examples you give and the discussions of origins is that these examples were one-time anomalies whereas origins looks at the original creation. From that point on, all water wasn't tasty wine, all blind eyes were not healed, and all storms ceased.
Don't get me wrong, you make an excellent point that science can not measure the "interference" of a Creator God in His creation - especially if they deny the Creator even existed.
I do find the study of origins interesting and valuable. Perhaps it is simply a curiosity put in us by the Creator, but many of us want to know from whence we came, be it genealogy or anthropology. Where the study of origins is flawed in the scientific community is that they do not allow for an intelligence in the design even when most of the evidence points that way (not all). Surely, the one who created the weather could change it with His word. Surely, the one who created chemistry of H2O could change it with His word.
The study of origins should tell us more about our Creator. Not so we can be like Him - He does that from the inside out, but that we can be more in awe of him. I reflect on this very thought with the recent announcement of a planetary system around a star near us. Five planets that we know of and one of them very similar to our own. All created by the same Creator who wants a personal relationship with me. It simply makes me ask, Who am I? |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
| I use to try and figure it all out, and that was like a dog chasing it's tail round and round and that is called insanity for me. So for me today I just keep it real simple, I claim by faith. He has always brought me out right where I was suppose to be, maybe not where I wanted to be,but where I needed to be. Praise the Lord and I am thankful for all of His doings. Thank you for the great blog. |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
| A hot issue, tersely and well presented, Mike. I concur with Ken Ham as you have refered to his work: Namely, that the evidence is the same and it's a matter of how it is interpreted, only. Personally, I am not bothered in the slightest by either evolution or creation's explanation as to timelines for our universe. I understand both claim the framework of their perspectives as being from a supernatural or natural orientation. Others claim, ostensibly, to be from a supernatural or natural orientation, but, like the matter of interpretation of evidence, so too how they refer to the what of their orientation. For instance, Christians, assert faith as their perspective of all things seen and unseen. Scientists claim to be purely focused and swayed by the empirical, the visible, palpable evidence, only. In the absence of visible, palpable evidence they must rely on "proving rational hypotheses with observable data". Neither my rational nor irrational thought processes have any problem with that. The problem, with scientists as I see it, is they recoil at the mere thought of the what on which their proven or unproven hypotheses are founded. It is indeed, by any other name, "faith", "being "certain of what we do not see", no less than Christians. As an example, worm holes in the vast space that is our universe are hypothesized as being in existence by scientists. I do not claim to have any knowledge of these, so allow to step back a bit and say that regardless of the status of worm hole existence, the subject is in the science classroom. Personally, I am inclined to accept the existence of these space anomalies in the universe. What the scientists cannot see (hmm?) is the measure of "faith" required by him/her to make such an assertion regarding worm holes. I love the movie Contact, but I cannot see it without thinking of Carl Sagan the entire time. I believe Jodie Foster portrays the character, lets say, "in the image" of Carl Sagan. The crux of the matter for the main character (Foster) is when it dawns on her when testifying before a congressional committee: Scientists' claims of worms holes are no less founded on "faith" than Christians faith in God. She found herself between the proverbial, "rock and a hard place" and totall at a lost to explain. If you are not familiar with Contact I highly recommend it. Again, thanks for the post, Mike. |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Dr Thomas, your account of Dr Mammerelli's experience inspires me! (Thank you for posting it!!)
Cheryl, may I say "amen"? ...amen, amen, amen, amen, amen!!! They seem to be "ballparking" it sometimes, don't they? As in, "we know your answer is outside of the ballpark, we just can't prove it."
Voice, awesome comment! How 'bout that curiosity he gives us? Then he gives us his Word to satisfy it! Regarding one-time anomalies, some might claim And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures..." and other statements like it to represent one-time anomalies. lol
Tina, we don't have all the answers, and even if we had an entire geologic age to study the issues, we would still not have all the answers. God does. Can we please rest in that? :-) Thanks for your purple comment! |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Scientists can only extrapolate if they have something to extrapolate from. What they extrapolate can only come from what they have already discovered, meaning every scientific fact (not theory) is limited by their discoveries/knowledge at the time. (Theories take man's knowledge and apply it to "what if" scenarios, concluding with a "could be true, but we can't totally prove it yet" conclusion.) Knowing the magnitude of our God's ability to create things beyond our understanding or current discovery, can any believer truly accept scientific findings as irrefutable fact? Tomorrow's discovery may refute today's scientific conclusions. (The discovery of a planetary system similar to ours is a good example of that. Who knows what mysteries it holds? That's why on my Aliens and UFO's blog I said that I thought it was arrogant of us to think we are the only God-created beings out there. We might be the only ones created in His image, but God is certainly big enough to create entire planetary systems with life forms that we know nothing about yet.) Yes, we have to "go with what we know" at the time, but I think God probably gets a good chuckle at us when we humans say we've figured out something scientifically! :-) As dc says, everything we learn about creation just magnifies the awesomeness of our Creator, and that's what it's all about. I have a friend who has a very scientific turn-of-mind and he has tried to get me to debate this subject with him. He says he would like to believe in God, but for him the "scientific facts just don't line up with Scripture." My response to him has consistently been, "Even if they did, there will always be a point or a place where you can't make them line up with man's current level of understanding of creation. God has made it so that every man, regardless of that man's application of knowledge, logic, wisdom and understanding, will have to make an actual leap of faith to believe in Him!" |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
"everything we learn about creation just magnifies the awesomeness of our Creator" ...I wish this were the real goal of all Christians in the natural sciences!! Wonderful, Voice in the desert lol. Thanks for highlighting it Jen!
God has made it so that every man....will have to make an actual leap of faith to believe in Him!" Wow, Jen. Excellent point!
"He has turned my darkness to light !!" Can this be proven scientifically, Paul? :-0
Gil, great points! Very deep too, I'm gonna have to reread it a few times! |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
A dirty little secret: People make decisions based on emotions. They then collect enough information to support their decision.
Go ask any marketing person. They don't give you data, they appeal to your emotions. They then give you data to help you feel comfortable with the decision you just made.
And that's why first impressions are so strong.
And that's why a Christian should be able to live comfortably with whatever scientific theories happen to exist on a given day. We've already made our decision to follow Christ, to stake our hopes and our future on Him. And because we know that God created heaven and the earth, science will - over time - point us more and more to Him.
The people wearing lab coats that proclaim there is no God and then spout the theory of the day are not presenting fact or even theory. They are simply living out the dirty little secret. No amount of data will ever convince anybody of anything.
Showing them Christ in how we live can have an emotional affect on others. So all we really need to do is to focus on growing in our relationship with Jesus Christ....so that the love of God will overflow to them.
So when science shows us more of the heavens or more of the atom, we simply see more of the Glory of God.
Let's be real. The genetic discoveries of the past few years highlight the simplisticity with which God created life. It's just plain cool. And I marvel all the more over our Creator.
God has created a universe that speaks for itself. "The heavens proclaim the Glory of God."
RO 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
A scientist who really seeks the Truth will find it.
Gene |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Mike, great blog! This subject is near and dear to my heart, since my brother is a believer of evolution. He does believe in God, but not that all those things you mentioned above...and he doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God. I have tried to convince otherwise, but he needs to "see" evidence. Faith is a big part of the Christians life...we have to believe in things that we cannot see. |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
"So all we really need to do is to focus on growing in our relationship with Jesus Christ....so that the love of God will overflow to them." You're right, Gene. |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Gene, how dare you let the dirty secret out on my blog! ;-) "God has created a universe that speaks for itself." --this is true, acc to God's Word. I'm glad that I'm simplistic enough to look at trees, sky, birds, etc. and see God, not data! lol
Thanks Deb. I'm sorry to hear about your bro (I've seen you mention that before.) God is only God if he's worth surrendering to! Your bro apparently isn't ready to surrender yet, either in mind or body. :-(
Lara, I agree, to the Christ-centered mind God created, owns, and expects us to live accordingly. We shouldn't be afraid of the scientific evidence. In fact, it may fascinate us! But we should be careful about who we listen to when it comes time to draw conclusions! |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Mike as you know my sister is a Scientist and I have an extensive medical background that includes 8 yrs of Nursing and 17 yrs of Pharmacy. In Pharmacy I managed and built a compound pharmacy. In compounding medication, you take the raw powdered chemical formula and put the elements together, thus mixing the elements God gave us to create a chemical cure/help. I believe God, not only based on faith but based on reality of the complex data I have seen. The chemical/concrete conclusion of God and Christ is non-waivable; thus I am reminded through the book of Job (Ch. 38):
Can I or Do I:
*Question God=yes, only because He is a loving and merciful God(v2)
*Lay the foundation of the earth(v4)?
*know the dimensions of the earth and who surveyed it(5)?
*what supports the earths foundation, who laid its cornerstone(v6)?
*know the creating of the earth was done in the morning while stars sang together and angels shouted for joy(v7)?
etc..etc... WOW I am daily amazed at God simply by seeing the trees and remembering when I studied Chlorophyll and plant compounds. I remember thinking about all the delicate parts God created and that He thought of everything! All things He "compounded/created" work together just like Laura's comment=Christ-centered mind. All aspects were created for Him and by Him for His glory! |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
I have been to college. Well, actually to one class session in college with a brother-in-law. In this class the teacher made a statement I will never forget. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes forms. I thought of the first five words in the bible....In the beginning GOD created.....
Settled it for me. I don't fret none over the details but I know however it all started it only began after GOD created matter.
.....peace.....
|
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
| It's all how we want to look at it, God created all so He created science to and science can't prove that God dose not existed. God Bless,Doyle. |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Mike,
I gave up reason and logical explanations a long long time ago. For you see, I believe that some things will be revealed to us when the time is right. or...Maybe we are not getting the right answers because we are not asking the right questions. I choose to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was the Son of the God who created me and the salvation of all. I don't need logic or reason to tell me this, because my heart knows that it is right.
Jeremy |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
| I have to re-comment too...I like Jeremy's....I simply also know my redeemer lives, just like the song...and because I spoke with Him this morning! |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Nice Jeremy |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Cheryl, you are welcome to recomment as many times as you like! :-) On some of the headier, more interactive blogs, I comment repeatedly. (like Norm's) Thanks for your synopsis from Job 38, great stuff!
Thank you Doyle, Gordon, Jeremy (since when is faith logical - I love it!), Joshmo...
Kim, if something isn't scientifically measurable, I'm sure we can bet the majority of folks in the scientific community will doubt its existence and ridicule us if we insist that it does! |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Gotta love Norm!!!~ thanks |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
OK... I am a little embarrassed to admit that Science was one of my worst subject in school and college (oh and Math), so if somebody is trying to convince me that God is not real using Science, they are waisting their precious time. lol lol You know what really makes me laugh and it is soooo funny (to me), is to see the faces of people when I tell them I believe in the Genesis account and the crossing of the Red Sea. It is one of those moments that I wish I could capture in picture. They look at me like I am from another planet, and you know what... They are absolutly right. I am just passing by. I am on my way to heaven. WOW!!! That deserve a big "SHOUT" ;-)
p.s. Love Jeremy's comment ;-) |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
Have you ever seen anyone give birth??? I have had the pleasure of seeing three of my four grandchildren born. It is the most awesome experience ever for me in my life. There lies in the birth process(for me) the wonder of our LORD. If we just take a look at ourselves at the beauty and wonder in the human body, how can we ever doubt there was a CREATOR. All of this just happened by chance???? Man with all of his intelligence and scientific jargon will NEVER be able to explain or come to a definite conclusion about how we came to be. The scope of our existence and the how and why is just TOO BIG to wrap our little minds around. I BELIEVE IN MY CREATOR, MY FATHER WHO MADE THE HEAVENS AND EARTH. As a young person I questioned, as a much more seasoned human being, I accept by FAITH that I was created and not dragged up out of the mud or whatever.
We will always question our origins, but when will we get to the point of accepting the fact that OUR FATHER loved us enough to bring us into existence simply because he loved and died for us??? |
|
|
| January 13, 2008 |
|
|
|
Mike, great blog as usual. Happy New Year if I haven't offered it already. Life has been a blur the past 4 weeks or so. True science point to God if they keep following the facts. I am not threatened at all by science people questioning things that don't make sense. We have a weak faith if we are threatened by those that question God and science and other things. Just think of those unbelievers when we don't react to their findings and attack them with things that we believe different. If we listen to what they are saying and work through their ideas, we might be able to share our faith in a non-threatening way. Thanks for another great blog!! |
|
|
| January 13, 2008 |
|
|
|
| MIKE YOUR BLOG GREAT AS ALWAYS...IT BROUGHT BACK TO MEMORY A MOVIE I WAS WATCHING WHILE PUTTING UP THE CHRISTMAS TREE THIS YEAR DIDN'T CATCH THE NAME BUT IT WAS AWESOME IT WAS ABOUT THESE SCIENTIST THAT FOUND WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS A MOON ROCK THAT HAD FALLEN TO EARTH AND AS THEY STUDIED THE ROCK IT STARTED CRYING OUT AND EVEN IF THEY WERE ELSEWHERE THEY COULD HEAR THE CRIES COMING FROM THE ROCK ...LONG STORY SHORT THEY COULD HEAR THE CRIES AT THE CRUCIFICAION OF CHRIST AND THEY COULD EVEN HEAR THEIR OWN VOICES THERE SOME CRYING OUT TO CRUCIFY HIM AND SOME CRYING OUT FOR MERCY FOR THEIR SOULS...IN THE END THEY ALL ACCEPTED CHRIST. CARL BAUGH A SCIENTIST WHO SET OUT TO PROVE THERE WAS NO GOD ENDED UP SAVED.....ONE DAY MORE WILL COME......WE NEED TO PRAY THAT THEY WILL GET UNDERSTANDING........ |
|
|
| January 13, 2008 |
|
|
|
| I saw a show on pbs about this...You guys are really cool to bring up a so controversial subject in the Christian world.... |
|
|
| January 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
Hey Mike,
What Ken Ham says is true, but like most things from AiG, his use of the argument is disingenuous. Rather than work to educate Christians on how science works and give them the proper tools to see God at work in all things, he would rather take advantage of people's ignorance to score easy points. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this is unintentional, but if he has a science background there is no excuse. As usual, I will illustrate with an example from history.
When Copernicus hypothesized that the Earth moves around the sun, there was no physical evidence. It was easy not to believe him because the claim was absurd. Can you feel or see the earth moving? Of course not! But we can all observe the sun and stars moving across the sky.
However, good ideas are able to make testable predictions. It was said that if the planets orbit the sun, then the inside planets (Mercury and Venus) should show phases like moon. It was also predicted that if the earth orbits the sun, then the nearest stars should slightly change their observed positions relative to the more distant stars (a phenomenon known as stellar parallax).
As it turned out, Galileo used his telescope to observe the phases of Venus, proving that the planets orbit the sun, but he failed to observe any stellar parallax, proving that the earth did not orbit the sun. Those astronomers who wanted to believe in Copernicus were convinced by the phases of Venus and were not deterred by the lack of stellar parallax. Those astronomers who wanted to take the Bible literally (Psalm 93:1) used the lack of stellar parallax to maintain their belief in a stationary earth. The Astronomer Tycho Brahe even invented a system that had the earth at the center, the sun orbiting the earth, an the planets orbiting the sun. This model was able to explain the phases of Venus, the lack of stellar parallax, and was consistent with a literal reading of Scripture which always says the earth doesn't move.
If the evidence for evolution/Big Bang were as conflicted as the evidence for a moving earth was in the 1700s, then Ken Ham would be right when he says that the evidence could be interpreted either way. And this was exactly the state of evolutionary science and Big Bang theory prior to the 1960's. But these scientific states of confusion only last until the "smoking gun" is found. The smoking gun is usually an observation or a prediction that only has ONE coherent interpretation. It has the ability to separate the good theory from the bad theory. In the case of the moving earth, stellar parallax was finally observed in the 1800s, and Foucault's Pendulum proved that the earth rotates on its axis. There is no other interpretation of the evidence! Only a rotating earth can explain Foucault's Pendulum, and only the orbiting earth can explain stellar parallax. After these discoveries were made, only a fool could deny a moving earth.
The smoking gun for Big Bang theory is the Cosmic Background Radiation discovered in 1964, but it took several more decades to confirm that the CBR had all of the exact properties predicted by BBT back in the 30's. The smoking gun for common descent is Molecular Genetics, also discovered in the 60's. And it also took several decades to run several independent tests on identical proteins shared by all living things to confirm the evolutionary relationships that had previously been inferred by comparative anatomy. Due to the ease by which recombinant DNA technology can allow moleculary biologists to sequence entire genomes, the univeral phylogenetic tree has been confirmed with greater precision than any other physical constant of nature, to 38 decimal places.
Given our current state, it is unfathomable that anyone familiar with the evidence can still say that it can be interpreted "either way". I noticed nobody responded to my example of the GLO point mutation shared by all primates including humans in your other blog post. This is just one example of a smoking gun. That is why AiG doesn't seem to have any "Answers" for this kind of data. So they will only stick to those lines evidence that are subject to different interpretations, like the fossil record and comparative anatomy - these are incomplete lines of evidence subject to multiple interpretations. But they will not touch the smoking gun of molecular genetics becasue it is unequivocal. For instance how would Ken Ham interpret this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
If you say that God just made it that way by fiat, then you still have to answer the difficult questions of why God would something that purposely proves that man was descended from primates, when he actually created them separately. But if you say that God used a natural process to get from "dust of the earth" to "fully formed man" - then the data can be explained scientifically - and God can't be accused of deception.
That is why I prefer the obvious scientific interpretation of the data, rather than make God into a deceptive creator who intentionally makes things look natural, it allows God to use natural forces to shape creation according to His pre-determined plan. God is sovereign over all of creation, even the natural processes that we don't yet fully understand.
Jason |
|
|
| January 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
Paul...THANK YOU!!!
Jason - Your examples from cosmology/astronomy are good at illustrating how scientific observation was able to correct misconceptions about the way things are (heliocentricity, etc.) but is scientific observation as effective at contriving the story of how things got to be that way (where the sun came from), especially in light of a creating God who has demonstrated his ability and willingness to do things supernaturally in the past ("let there be light" just sounds supernatural to me, though I'm not totally discounting the possibility of his working through natural means). Seems to me that many of today's scientists have just rounded a corner and seen someone holding a smoking gun (from the illustration in the blog above), and yet w/o proof they presume to know for certain exactly how it all happened, or at least, how it all didn't happen! (i.e. Genesis 1) A Christian should know how dangerous a presumption this is!
Everyone who studies science starts with basic assumptions. What is wrong with starting with an assumption that the biblical account is accurate? This doesn't equal disingenuousness, IMHO. Unfortunately Jason, you don't come across as giving much benefit of the doubt, though you say you do. Should AiG be openly criticized for serving God first, then science?
ps... My readership isn't as scientifically knowledgeable as yours, so may I request that comments to this blog be kept reasonably short and un-technical? Thanks!! (Post the heavy science to the "day" blog - we've already gone down that road there!) |
|
|
| January 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
Mike, I agree with you that science is generally best at explaining the way thing are. It often requires extrapolations of data to explain how things came to be. And I agree that all Christians should start with the assumption that the biblical account is accurate - I do this as well. But some data can't be forced to fit biblical model without backfiring theologically. So the issue is much more complicated than some make it out to be - that is what I mean when I say "disingenuous". Did you even see the video? I included a link to it. How would you apply Ken Ham's argument to this discovery? I'd like somebody take a crack at this from a YEC background. Perhaps Eric or somebody else who keeps us with AiG/ICR?
Sorry about the technical comments, but you posted a blog entry about understanding scientific data. Shouldn't this include a discussion of what the data is? Some data might be interpreted both ways, like the fossil record. But what about data that can't fit the biblical scenario? Are we to ignore this like the medieval Church ignored supernova 1054 and the continents below the equator?
At any rate, I will make more of an effort to be brief. Thanks for hanging in there! |
|
|
| January 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
Mike it just takes me too long to read your blogs and comments, leaves me no time to comment.
But I must comment at least a little.
My 15 yr old son told me the other day that is seems to take more faith to believe we all came from a big bang and rapidly expanding matter and evolution than it does to believe that God created the universe.
I choose to believe in God and so does he.
peace |
|
|
| January 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
Jason, it is a pleasure, I assure you. Thank YOU as well, our exchange has been mutually beneficial (well ok, so I have benefitted - forgive me for assuming you have too! lol) Yes, sometimes details are good to include, I'm simply trying to keep the entire readership engaged.
Glenn, your 15-yr old son has more wisdom than many nuclear physicists! Thanks for reading, I always appreciate your comments!! |
|
|
| January 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Mike, I second "Gil T's" recommdation of "Contact" It one of Katy and my favorites as well. |
|
|
| January 15, 2008 |
|
|
|
Great blog, Mike. Voice in DC wrote, "Mike, the main difference between the examples you give and the discussions of origins is that these examples were one-time anomalies whereas origins looks at the original creation." How many times did our origin occur? Gene wrote, "No amount of data will ever convince anybody of anything." Luke 16:31. 'Nuff said. Deb wrote, "Faith is a big part of the Christians life...we have to believe in things that we cannot see." This is also reflected in many other comments. Deb, despite the scripture I just used above, your brother's insistance on evidence shouldn't be ignored. He is right to seek a worldview that makes sense of the world he observes. For example, it is right for me to reject a religion that states God is both personal and impersonal at the same time because this worldview violates the Law of Noncontradiction and is irrational. It doesn't make sense of the world I live in. The Bible makes certain, limited claims about the physical nature and configuration of reality. If the Bible is wrong on these things (such as describing things that plainly are not so), it is disconnected from reality and therefore of little use. May "holy books" around the world suffer from this problem. Yes, ultimately, we are saved by faith. But faith in what? Even the most basic faith needs to hear the Gospel, which describes factual information (1 Cor 15, esp. v. 3-8). One must identify a chair to be sturdy to some reasonable confidence before one will trust it to bear one's weight. I was once where your brother is, Deb. A Pure Heart: Yes! Ex nihilo, nihil fit! Only God can break this rule, and that needed to be done In the Beginning. Doyle wrote, "God created all so He created science to and science can't prove that God dose not existed." Secular scientists will say "evolution created all, so evolution created science too." But who's to say the blind process of evolution got science right? Their philosophy is laughable compared to God's Wisdom. Mstoval2003 wrote, "We will always question our origins..." Huh. I don't question MY origins. I'm secure in who I am (adopted son of God) and where I came from (son of sinful and cursed Adam). Diusi wrote, "I saw a show on pbs about this..." Was it recently? It may have been "Judgment Day," a documentary on the Dover, PA Intelligent Design trial. It covered the roles of science and faith. The documentary was far, far from unbiased. Search www.IntelligentDesign.org for "the rest of the story." Hi Jason. Here are just a few goldfish nibbles, no argument with force. I'll have to visit your blog to discuss more details. Some parts that I didn't comment on I thought were good, so don't take silence as disagreement. Jason wrote, "However, good ideas are able to make testable predictions." I agree, but not all good ideas are testable. Archaeology, a good idea, does not make testable predictions. Astrology, a bad idea, does make testable predictions. Jason wrote, "That is why AiG doesn't seem to have any "Answers" for this kind of data." In my limited experience of just a few years (and I don't want to be labeled as an AiG fanboy), I've noticed that AiG has answered "tough" questions in the past, but then a few years later, evolutionists find another "tough" question. If I could make a prediction, these will probably be addressed in the next few years, but by then, new "tough" questions that aren't being asked now will arise. I could be wrong. Jason wrote, "But they will not touch the smoking gun of molecular genetics becasue it is unequivocal." AiG has over 40 articles on genetics spanning over a decade. IIRC, whenever a phylogenic tree is made with one key gene, it contradicts a tree made with another key gene, and again so when compared to trees based on physical attributes. I don't think the evidence is as unified and unidirectional as you make it out to be. Creationists assert there are two viable interpretations of the data, but you assert there is only one. A detailed discussion of molecular genetics should settle the matter, but this is not the place for that. Jason wrote, "But they will not touch the smoking gun of molecular genetics becasue it is unequivocal. For instance how would Ken Ham interpret this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M" You can read what they have to say for yourself in this November 2007 article: "A Tale of Two Chromosomes." Jason wrote, "God is sovereign over all of creation, even the natural processes that we don't yet fully understand." Amen! The difference is that creationists allege a supernatural creation that cannot be completely explained with natural description, which we will certainly never understand. Mike wrote, "Everyone who studies science starts with basic assumptions. What is wrong with starting with an assumption that the biblical account is accurate?" I would have rephrased that to this: What is wrong with starting with an assumption that the Biblical account of Genesis describes our actual history? Jason agrees it is accurate in what it is intended to say, but the point of contention is whether it describes literal, actual history or not. Nevertheless, I wouldn't call it an assumption, since it is a derivitive conclusion of the text of the Bible itself (there is no hint that the Genesis account is allegory). Jason wrote, "But some data can't be forced to fit biblical model without backfiring theologically." Did you type that correctly? Data doesn't say anything. It requires interpretation, which requires assumptions. Data interpreted such that it conflicts with Biblical theology is a wrong interpretation. That is a Biblical assumption. It is also an assumption that no data can contradict God's Word, since God MADE all data. It's my position that evolution is an interpretation of the data that causes tremendous theological problems and therefore must be discarded as false. The scientific theory of Biblical creation strives to create no theological problems. Mike, another interesting blog, and very interesting comments from all who posted! |
|
|
| January 15, 2008 |
|
|
|
"A detailed discussion of molecular genetics should settle the matter, but this is not the place for that." ....oh thank goodness! lol
Good comments Eric, thanks for staying out of the technical weeds my friend! :-) |
|
|
| January 15, 2008 |
|
|
|
Eric wrote, "Data interpreted such that it conflicts with Biblical theology is a wrong interpretation." Example: Any scientific data interpreted to support the idea that Jesus' Ressurection was in spirit, not in body (such as the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" documentary) -- the claim of New Agers and Gnostics -- is to be rejected as interpreted incorrectly and false, for it does severe damage to orthodox theology. The same goes for Neo-Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang theory. Have I strayed too far from "Science...or faith?" Eh, I don't have time for another debate. I can't dwell here. These are my thoughts. Cheers! |
|
|
| January 15, 2008 |
|
|
|
Hi Eric,
"If I could make a prediction, these will probably be addressed in the next few years, but by then, new "tough" questions that aren't being asked now will arise. I could be wrong." - You are correct. ICR is organizing an effort to seriously study the recent data from molecular genetics to determine how it can be explained in terms of special creation. ICR is calling it the GENE Project (http://www.icr.org/article/2460/). Since molecular genetics is testable science, I'm very curious to see what they come up with.
"whenever a phylogenic tree is made with one key gene, it contradicts a tree made with another key gene, and again so when compared to trees based on physical attributes. I don't think the evidence is as unified and unidirectional as you make it out to be." - The statistical correlation between different trees is measured to within 38 decimal place. You are correct that there are very slight differences between phylogenetic trees drawn for different genes. But no other physical constants of nature can be measured with nearly as much accuracy. The universal gravitational constant, for instance, can only be measure to 3 or 4 decimal places. The point is that if each creature were created separately by fiat, there should be no correlation whatsoever between independent phylogenies. In fact, without common ancestry, you shouldn't even be able to construct a single non-trival phylogeny from one gene! So when AiG or ICR tries to exploit statistically insignificant differences between different phylogenies, it reminds me Johnny Cochran going after any and every perceived flaw in the case against O.J. (that's supposed to be funny).
I also read AiG's explanation of primate chromosome fusion (Thanks for pointing that out). Out of respect for Mike, I'll spare the other blog readers from unpacking the flaws in the article in technical detail. But it the reason this article doesn't appear in any peer-reviewed scientific journals has nothing to do with secular bias. The summary of the argument is "The similarities are much more easily explained by the fact that these animals all had a common designer who reused certain excellent design elements much like engineers do in their creations today." Which fails to fully account for the data. That is a testable claim that has been repeatedly falisified. Specific sequences clearly need not exist if good genes were simply reused in other other species. For example, see my last comment on the "day" post about the broken GLO pseudogene shared by all primates.
The most glaring fallacy in this paper is argument from ignorance. The statement is made that "It is not the number of chromosomes that is really a significant difference between humans and apes, but the information contained on those chromosomes." - to which any secular biologist would heartily agree. But rather than look at the known pattern of similarities and differences in pseudogenes, like GLO, which are able to confirm common ancestry with a high degree of precision, the authors focus on the unique human and chimp genes that were reported to have evolved since the chimp-human split. The creation of new genetic material from divergent lines is required by common descent, but the fact that several of these new genes lack a sufficient explanation for their existence is no basis to reject all of the data is known. Especially since a small number of the new genes can be explained naturally. That would be like rejecting all of meteorology just because we don't know how many hurricanes will develope next season. That's not how science works.
Also, if you actually look at the references - they are all from other creationists sources. There are few if any references to peer-reviewed scientific research. My advice is to get your information on molecular genetic from Christians who are actually real molecular geneticists - not veterinarians. For instance, Dr. Steve Matheson, Professor of Biology at Calvin College, has a blog where he discusses these things-and he is actually involved in the research! http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/
"Data interpreted such that it conflicts with Biblical theology is a wrong interpretation."- Try to explain that to a medieval Christian who thinks a moving earth conflicts with both Scripture and theology, or that habitable antipodes destroys does violence to the Gospel. Sometimes the data can cause us to realize that our interpretations were incorrect. History shows this time and again.
"It is also an assumption that no data can contradict God's Word, since God MADE all data." - I agree totally with this. But the data CAN contradict our fallible interpretations of God's Word!
"It's my position that evolution is an interpretation of the data that causes tremendous theological problems and therefore must be discarded as false." - I actually agree with this statement - except that evolution must therefore be discarded as false. As long as it continues to make testable predictions that allow data to make sense, I see no reason not to continue to use it as a working hypothesis. Perhaps, like the appearance of age, God created all living things with a fascinating natural history that allows them to make sense to us. This creates other theological problems like why God would give us two different accounts of creation. But I'm ok with not being able to make sense of it all until Christ returns.
"The scientific theory of Biblical creation strives to create no theological problems." - If God commands that we believe one thing, but then creates the universe to look differently, that is also a theological problem. Perhaps there is a good reason, or it is part of the secret things of God, but you can't just pretend that this isn't an important question. I think it is. It will probably be one of the first question we ask in Heaven!
Jason |
|
|
| January 15, 2008 |
|
|
|
"The claim of New Agers and Gnostics -- is to be rejected as interpreted incorrectly and false, for it does severe damage to orthodox theology. Amen to that! -Paul specifically says in 1 Corinthians that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, that we are to be pitied above all men!
Here is my problem,"The same goes for Neo-Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang theory." - That's quite leap from denying the resurrection to accepting Big Bang Theory or Evolution. Where does Paul make the same claim that if there was physical death before sin, we are of all men most to be pitied? Paul's strongest language only insists that "in Adam all have sinned" (Rom 5)- which is not contradicted by Evolution. And where does it say that if the universe is older than 6000 years, we are of all men most to be pitied? I agree that evolution is problematic, but you can't compare it to denying the resurrection! |
|
|
| January 16, 2008 |
|
|
|
Thank you, for this message and thank you for the star. GOD bless! |
|
|
| January 16, 2008 |
|
|
|
I"ll take GOD at HIS Word over some scientific delusions of nonbelievers, because I trust in the UNSEEN (GOD) and not the seen.
Della |
|
|
| January 16, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Great blog Mike! May I add THIS? You taught me to do that you know! |
|
|
| January 16, 2008 |
|
|
|
I'm of a radically different opinion that science and the Gospel are not in any way in conficy with one another. I think its personally reasonable to believe both evolution and creation (until a better theory than evolution is developed which I'm almost certain will be). Because Darwin himself was certainly not an atheist. The only problem between science and Christianity is that when one becomes overstated it supersedes and contradicts the other.
When a scientist assumes that because evidence can explain how something happens then God is not at work then are making a claim that science never intended to make. In fact science by definition does not consider the possibility of a divine force. Its purpose is to explain how the things of our world happen. Not who makes them or why. Those questions will never be explained by science because it refuses to even consider them.
And to put your trust in science to explain everything is just as much a leap of faith as trusting in Christ.
Grace and peace to you from our Lord Jesus Christ
|
|
|
| January 16, 2008 |
|
|
|
Hmmm? www.beyondthefirmament.com... I totally dig the 3 free videos "...designed to get folks thinking about the relationship between science and the Bible." Thanks glovergj!!!
& thank you Mike for making me think. :-) |
|
|
| January 16, 2008 |
|
|
|
Coming from a family of scientists, I can tell you the first thing they taught me about understanding how the world works: 1. Know what you know and 2. Know what you don't know. It's all about making assumptions (having faith) and then basing our understanding on that foundation. Any good scientist knows that his/her assumptions can be wrong, and if so can completely change the explanation of things MartyD, great thought about where you place your trust.. it takes faith either way. This is such a great post Mike! |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Thanks for your thoughts, Carebear!! That's a great point. Unfortunately I think both sides of the origins debate confuse what they know with what they don't know but nevertheless assume is true based on their interpretation of the evidence!! Ah, what to do with the evidence! lol
Mary Ann, wow a rare purple post - thank you for popping in. And thanks for supporting my buddy Jason's book. I still need to read it to see if he's confusing what he knows with what he don't know! lol
MartyD, yes good point about where you place your trust. The scientific method can be trusted when used properly. But to depend wholly on science to establish where mankind came from is as flawed as using the Bible as a science textbook.
Rich, thanks for the link! Great blog my friend!
Arlene, Jackie, and Della, thanks for weighing in. Definitely some truth to what you say! :-) |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Dear Mike and Laura, Thank you for allowing God to bless me with your clarity. I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. Wesley Jacob |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Rev Wesley,
Thank you, and AMEN!! (to "the scientific picture of the real world...is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us")
What can science say about good and evil, or the "inclination of the thoughts of man's heart"? Nothing. |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Hey Mike, me again :-)
What about the social sciences? They have much to say about behavior and inclinations (e.g., nature versus nurture and all that...). Many schools of thought appear to have biblical basis...
anyhoo... have an awesome day!!! And, be careful out there, they're calling for some nasty weather later today. |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Ah, the social sciences.... My Psychology 101 class turned out to be one of the most useful classes I ever took in college! It has helped tremendously in my parenting.... and in the training of my cat! :-)
Even the social sciences can suffer from materialism/naturalism, the denial of God's role in our daily lives. I just hate when they reduce the leading of the Holy Spirit to a "conditioned human response mechanism" -- ugh!! |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Now we have evolved to the social sciences, where things are far more subjective in my opinion. They try to make things scientific but in reality the human condition is not so easily quantified. So I guess Mike you are right we need to let the Holy Spirit guide our understanding in both the natural and social sciences.
just another two cents.
peace |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
"The Christian does not have to resort to an existential leap of faith because the scientific evidence is so overwhelming."
A hearty AMEN Pastor Tim!! I read and loved Darwin on Trial by Johnson. ~mike |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
| I've posted my own blog on the topic. Feel free to read(it is a bit long) and leave comments. |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Time for Pop-Quiz! Which one of each pair is science, and which is not?
1.) Shamanism or Meteorology?
2.) Astrology or Astrophysics?
3.) Telephony or Telepathy?
4.) Classical mechanics or Telekenetics?
5.) Germ theory or Voodoo?
I'm sure that everybody got the answers right. That was too easy. The hard question is this: For each pair, what is it that makes only one scientific and not the other? And if we allow the definition of science to include supernatural phenomena, what else will the schools be teaching our children in the name of science?
And Mike, Darwin on Trial doesn't seem like your type of book. Johnson believes that God created billions of different species over billions of years to explain the fossil record. I though you were a 6-day/global-flood guy? Progressive old-earth creation doesn't seem like your thing.
Everybody drive home safely! ~Jason
|
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Jason, you are talking about religion influencing science. I agree, bad thing. But what about science influencing religion. Is that ok? I would suggest that happens all the time. When I was young, I repeatedly heard that the scientific explanation for origins was provable, established, fact, etc... Textbooks and teachers make this claim all the time! I was also told that the biblical creation story was a myth that didn't belong outside of Sunday school class. Shame on those people. I would suggest that those who destroy others' faith by asserting God's word is nothing more than myth will have much to answer for when they find themselves in God's presence (Matt 18:6/Mark 9:42/Luke 17:2).
I know your passion for science and God my friend, and if you've found an approach to teaching your children that does justice to both, I applaud you! We don't have your scientific education, nor the time to read up on all the latest scientific journals. So given the choice between a dishonest science textbook and the bias of the Bible, we'll default to the Bible for now. :-) |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
ps... I didn't say I was a Johnson disciple, just that Darwin on Trial was an excellent book, IMO. The reason I liked the book, which I read over 10 years ago, was because it did something I had never heard before (at the time). It put Darwinism on the stand and called it's many proponents to the witness stand to defend it (mainly against logic)....for me it was revolutionary to see all the contradictions!
....we got home safely, after a tense and exciting 2 hr drive through snow and, worst of all, bad drivers!! :-) |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Mike, you missed the point of the test entirely. You jumpped right to "religion influencing science" - but the point of the test is how do you tell the difference? I was specifically responding to the charge made by Pastor Tim, that "limiting scientific inquiry to naturalistic answers only" is a bad thing. |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Jason, you may be right about my missing the point. My bad. :-o When you said "if we allow the definition of science to include supernatural phenomena", I interpreted that to mean religion's influence.
MartyD, I look forward to reading your blog, hopefully tonight! |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Pastor Tim, very thoughtful comments. I agree with you heartily. The word of God is timeless truth that transcends the tentative scientific consensus of each generation.
I would add to your statement about natural revelation not trumping special revelation the caveat that natural revelation can often help us see errors in our interpretations or expectations of special revelation. This makes science and faith important dialogue partners. Our understanding of the the World provides a context from which we understand the Word, and the Word allows to see God at work in the World.
I think I speak for many scientists when I say that while the scientific method is intentionally limited to natural cause and effect (methodological naturalism), this is not intended to be a universal declaration on the nature of reality. Many scientists who do "secular" peer-reviewed science also believe in God, understand His providence, and see His hand in every aspect of creation.
A Parable:
If some test tubes went missing in the laboratory, all the scientists (whether Christian or materialist) would conduct an organized search for them. At no point would the Christians suggest that perhaps they were "spirited away" by angels or demons. Even though we might believe that angels and demons are real, the intentional exclusion of that possibility in favor of the organized search is not intended to be a universal statement on the existence or non-existence of spiritual beings, but rather a simple concession that looking for stuff is usually how you find stuff. I think the naturalistic limitations imposed on the scientific method are actually a good thing. Without them, almost any form of paranormal activity could lay claim the mantle of legitimate science.
I believe God gave us His Word specifically because science is limited to only natural cause and effect. If empiricism could lead us to ultimate teleological truth by itself, then the Bible would quite unnecessary! |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Psychology used for the training of your cat??? Please teach us. I want videos! :) |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
| cat videos yeah!!! are they in a sink??? My major now is Psychology....i want videos too!! :-) |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
First, great blog, Mike. I gotta say you must have either a thick skull (to take all this beating) or a flat forehead (from pounding your head against a wall). I've been accused of both so I can sympathize.
I have to back up to your original supposition and say that it really cannot be used effectively as an analogy. Suppose all those things. You can also suppose Alexander the Great and his oracle's telling of his demise. Neither the wedding miracle nor the oracle's testimony are testable events. They have no evidence other than the written word. That is why we take the events at the wedding as faith. And, as our faith admits, we reject the oracle's prophesy as invalid. The question is not about what is to be taken by faith but what is to be addressed and discerned when there is evidence (data) that can be used from which to draw conclusions. Eric and Jason has spent a number of lines in this blog (and I'm sure more than one other) to address a few of the issues where evidence exists that must be reconciled with some explanation.
In the wedding story all we have is a story. It can neither be refuted nor proven by anything testable. I cannot disprove something unless I can prove the opposite to be true. As I cannot prove that miracles are impossible, I must leave open room to believe that they can happen - and I do. I also know that these things occurred, as you said, 2000 years ago. That is well in advance of modern science and thinking. I cannot imagine what science would have said at that time. Nor can I imagine what science may say 2000 years into the future. I know that we walk by faith - in belief of things not seen. It is those things that are seen that science can address.
My experience has shown me that the supernatural exists. I cannot prove that to another person because it is a personal experience. I cannot prove pain either. It too is a personal experience. Yet because so many people have a similar reaction and similar understanding, I know it exists beyond my own experience. In similar fashion, a large number of shared experiences shows us that there is something to them. That is the burden of science - it must be proven to more than one person and must bear up under scrutiny of many such persons before it can be accepted. Otherwise we can blame it on the cat in Aunt Sarah's cupboard.
We are no longer willing to pose the same excuses as was done during the Salem witch trials. Somehow though a lot of what is said on behalf of a faith argument has much the same basis. It's more benign now than then. But it can be just as destructive when we begin accusing others of defiling the faith because we claim spiritual authority. I am not saying that is the case in this blog - but it certainly occurs.
It's also worth noting what a scientific "theory" actually is. What can be tested demands that science offer an explanation. A law can be derived from reoccurring results. What cannot be tested becomes a theory based on what can be tested. The Big Bang will continue to be a "theory" regardless of how much evidence exists because it cannot be tested. Well, at least not by me. And I don't know anyone else qualified to try it - except One. |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
I have a question for everyone here. Should we distinguish between natural and supernatural? Or do we simply make the distinction because we cannot explain the latter? (rhetorical questions)
I personally don't think the two are seperate. And I believe I can back that up.
Because if Science can (and possibly will) explain those things which we call supernatural then by our own human understanding such things would then become natural to our minds. This is close to the God of the gaps theory that used to be heavily argued by Christian apologetics. However I think this has done the case for faith a great discredit because as Science continually explains more and more about how things work, this gap gets smaller and smaller. We therefore must hold Science and Christianity together as complimentary, because there really is no room for conflict between the two unless one or both are overstated. They both offer truth about the world but about different aspects. In this sense there should be no overlap but each works together towards explaining God and his creation.
PS: Mike i look forward to hearing your comments on my blog |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Carebear, cats are trainable! I've trained our Maine Coon (the big one) to be a lap cat, to not beg, to sleep on the bed with us (most of the time), to come when I snap, and a few other things. The ideas of pos & neg reinforcement as well as punishment came straight from psych 101. It works! Sorry Cheryl, I have no videos, but stop by sometime and we'll give you a demonstration!
Gene, I can be pretty stubborn, but if I don't believe deeply in that something I take heat for, I grow weary and walk away. I believe in the word of God, so I am not growing weary of this subject. (I hope that I've not come across as though I'm on the warpath either, I've actually thoroughly enjoyed this blog from beginning to end!)
Regarding the effectiveness of the analogy... that evidence left after a supernatural phenomena used to extrapolate backwards can easily lead to false conclusions about actual events, seems logical to me. :-) No scientific journal will take me seriously, but it works for me!
"It is those things that are seen that science can address." ...Great point Gene! That's a winner.
"accusing others of defiling the faith because we claim spiritual authority" .... Hopefully never!
MartyD, maybe we do have to distinguish between natural and supernatural. Wanna take a stab? Science is very good at measuring and drawing conclusions from phenomenon that are repeatable. One time occurrences can defy effective study!
Now to really discredit myself! If God told me that the world was FLAT, I would believe him. Despite what the greatest scientific minds in the world would tell me. After all...
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? |
|
|
| January 17, 2008 |
|
|
|
Thing is i find hard to come to grips with is that when the wind blows like it does most days, that is considered natural. However the bible tells us God is fully behind the wind.
Yet when Jesus raised people from the dead for example, we consider that supernatural. Why?
I suggest that its because we can't explain how it happened like we can explain how a leaf managed to move 200 meters down the street. Both phenomena are from God. Why make a distinction between them as one being supernatural and one being natural?
If Science were to be able to explain how a person can be raised from the dead in the same way as how we explain rain falls from the sky, which side does that put raising the dead on? Natural or super-natural?
If we consider the notion that everything is from God then we have no need to distinguish his works into 2 categories. I think like i said before is to create a God of the gaps, and the gap will only ever get smaller. |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
God of the gaps, interesting concept Marty. I had never heard that before. It is far easier for the Christian to not distinguish between natural/supernatural than it is for the "naturalist" (materialist, secular scientist, nonbeliever). The nonbeliever wants to believe that everything can be explained naturally (cause and effect, no leaps of faith), thus they can live a life of their choosing, don't have to answer to anybody - they are their own gods. Thus the "science" of origins is something of a philosophical/religious question as well.
I'm perfectly happy acknowledging that it is God that causes the wind. In fact, on a hot day I give thanks to God for the cool breeze as if it came straight from his hands to me. The pure naturalist only sees the mechanics of nature, not the Person who's behind it all, and so their enjoyment of nature is limited to enjoying nature itself. Being thankful is a somewhat empty feeling when you have no one to be thankful to.
Marty, I really like the points you just made in that comment regarding our differentiation between natural/supernatural - "because we can't explain how it happened". Excellent! Thanks for posting your thoughts! |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
| ps.... I really liked the exchange between GloverGJ and Pastor Tim above!!!! (Great points both of you!)You just don't get quality like that from MySpace!!! :-) |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
Thanks Mike, but I have to make you think more about two things you said...
"Science is very good at measuring and drawing conclusions from phenomenon that are repeatable. One time occurrences can defy effective study!" - There are thousands of hardened criminals on death row or rotting away in prison who probably tried to use that same defense. After all, they probably just committed a one-time offense in the distant past with no direct witnesses. So why have they been convicted? Because when things happen, they leave clues behind. And even if they were one-time occurrences, science can piece the clues together and reconstruct the past in amazing detail. When defense attorneys don't like where the evidence leads, they dis science. Hey, isn't Phillip Johnson a lawyer?
"Now to really discredit myself! If God told me that the world was FLAT, I would believe him. Despite what the greatest scientific minds in the world would tell me." - That does explain a lot, but it doesn't explain why you haven't yet joined the Flat-Earth soceity. The fact is, God does tell us that the world is flat 35 times in the Bible. I can give you the list of verses if you'd like. Be careful though, NOAA might not want you making maps! Moreover, there is a group called the Association of Biblical Astronomers who believe that God teaches us (67 time in the Bible) that the earth doesn't move and the sun and stars orbit the earth. You can go to www.geocentricity.com and join if you are interested. Here is their statement of faith:
We believe that the creation was completed in six twenty-four hour days and that the world is not older than about six thousand years. We maintain that the Bible teaches us of an earth that neither rotates daily nor revolves yearly about the sun; that it is at rest with respect to the throne of him who called it into existence; and that hence it is absolutely at rest in the universe.
Lastly, the reason why we deem a return to a geocentric astronomy a first apologetic necessity is that its rejection at the beginning of our Modern Age constitutes one very important, if not the most important, cause of the historical development of Bible criticism, now resulting in an increasingly anti-Christian world in which atheistic existentialism is preaching a life that is really meaningless.
If you are not convinced that the earth is flat or that it doesn't move, then I would like to know by what authority you reject them? This is an important question, not just for science, but for our Christian epistemology. It goes to the heart of how we are to understand and apply God's Word to the world we live in. That's what my video series "Does Science Contradict the Bible?" is about on my website if you have the time. - Jason |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
Hey Jason, I would suggest there's a world of difference between your example of criminals who left clues in the recent past, well within a history that is meticulously documented and records available, most often with persistent living witnesses, and the study of origins (which has the benefit of none of those).
There's also a huge difference between "the data suggests" and "the data proves". When the Bible says "A" happened and scientific evidence appears to say "B" happened, as a Christian I would hope that you'd lean towards "the data suggests".
Regarding a flat earth, you demonstrate that none of us are immune to missing the point! :-) |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
The difference are not as sharp as you seem to think. Recent is a relative term. For instance when I look at the Andromeda galaxy through my telescope, the photons that strike my retina are "recent" in terms of me seeing them NOW. However, when they left the stars of that galaxy, they were time-stamped over 2 million years ago and time stopped for them (until they struck my retina and sent an image to my brain). So the great distances of the cosmos and the finite speed of light can connect two areas separated by vast distance in the same "now" even though one set of events is long past. This is basic relativity theory. The study of origins is nothing more than a "cold case" - sometimes there is enough data to draw a coherent conclusion, and sometime there is not. I've listened to both the prosecution and the defense, and if I was on the jury, I would rule in favor of a universe that has been expanding for 13.7 billion years.
As anyone in science can tell you, everything is based on "the data suggests" because "the data proves" only works in the negative. For instance, the data suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old - this can't be "proved" because nothing in science can. But the data can prove that the earth isn't 6,000 years old (several simple tests can do this).
So when the Bible says "A" and science seems to suggest "B" - my first thought is "do I understand the point that the biblical author was trying to make?" Is Isaiah trying to tell me that trees back in his day had physical hands and clapped, or that all of nature praises God? If I didn't have any real-world experience (data) with actual trees, how would I know that Isaiah is using a literary device and not teaching us about the trees in his day?
This goes back to my main point: Science and faith must work together. To boil down every issue to an either/or is woefully simplistic. That forces Christians into a corner where they either have to turn their brains off (reject science), or turn their spirits off (reject God's word). Thankfully none of your readers here have done the latter, but I run into all the time on my blog. Christians who were given an either/or ultimatum but could not reject the obvious, so they reject the things unseen instead. Why put somebody in that position? The only consistent way out of that approach is to either join the flat-earth geocentric society, or become an atheist. IMHO, that's betting people's salvation on the fact that they will remain ignorant about the world God made! I would rather provide them the tools to see God at work in all things than have them live in constant fear of anything that appears to be different from a biblical description. And this can be done without sacrificing the authority of God's Word.
All I'm saying is that we can navigate these turbulent waters between science and faith much more effectively if we stay away from these bumper-sticker approaches. That was my point about your "flat-earth" comment. Of course I know that you don't believe that! Have a great day! |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
Regarding the cold case of origins, the examples I blogged about conveyed the idea that for some who look at evidence, the conclusions are obvious - but an all powerful God can surprise us when he gets involved, and the scientific evidence can mislead when God isn't at least respected as a possible participant.
I'm with you, "Science and faith must work together." Perhaps that is why God has placed you in the scientific community, Jason... to encourage a greater fear and awe of the Designer among those who study His creation day after day. I'm most encouraged by those in the science fields who can't help but see God in the infinite vastness and intricacy of everything that exists in the natural world.
God bless you too, brother! |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
Amen Mike!
BTW, this may have been a slip of the keyboard but when you said, "when he gets involved" it implies that there is a time when God is not involved. That is an awfully small view of the ruler of the universe! The bible says that God is involved in everything! Not just miracles. If a sparrow falls from the sky, God is a participant. A view that only allows God to get involved when there is a miracle might be why some Christians are so fearful of scientific explanations - because they feel there is nothing left for God to do if science can explain everything. IMHO, this doesn't do justice to God's omnipotence.
I know you well enough to know that you agree with this, so that's why it took me by surprise when you said that. We shouldn't make distinctions between what God does and things that happen naturally. And we are still free to use our knowledge of creation to investigate what killed the sparrow even though God is a participant in the ordinary course of nature.
PS - Katy will have something for you this afternoon when she picks up Emily. ;-) |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
No slip - and no intention of conveying there are times when God isn't involved. The day Jesus quieted the storm, God's involvement in the weather processes took a drastic turn when Jesus said "be still!"
"Katy will have something for you this afternoon..." Let me guess, a rum cake?  |
|
|
| January 18, 2008 |
|
|
|
I like demonstrations!!!
I think you need to stay close to Jesus~this is another great blog guy!
Have a great weekend you two <and your TV pic>!!! Love~ |
|
|
| January 19, 2008 |
|
|
|
Hi Cheryl!! God's love to you too! .....from Ricky & Lucy ;-)
The weekend has started out WONDERFULLY, for us at least. I pray we continue to glorify the Lord through the rest of today and tomorrow as well! |
|
|
| January 21, 2008 |
|
|
|
Mike wrote, "What can science say about good and evil, or the "inclination of the thoughts of man's heart"? Nothing." Well, they think they can say something: that evil doesn't exist and we live in a deterministic universe absolutely controlled by the laws of nature. See that man who just killed everybody in the bank? It's not his fault. It was the chemicals in his brain and the product of his environment that did it. Seriously! If evolution explains everything, then it explains how we got morality, religion, and even philosophy! God? He's just a product of society, useful for when we were living in caves, but now superseded by Science. You're free to believe in God as long as you admit that you believe in fairy tales and don't try pushing your fairy tales in school. You say they are overextending science? This is what they really say and they believe this in the name of Science. Bias? They are objective! We are biased and we even admit it! Assumptions? They believe what clear evidence has led them to believe! Not only is this fallacious, but Romans 1 and 3 tell us what's really going on. I agree with what Pastor Tim said near this comment by Mike. Hey Jason. You made some great posts here, and made some very strong and coherent points. I'm not commenting on the main drive of your posts because I'm still digesting them. However, you've said some things on the side that I thought were interesting and wanted to comment on. If you think I'm picking on you only, it's just because you write such interesting comments! :) Jason wrote, "I think I speak for many scientists when I say that while the scientific method is intentionally limited to natural cause and effect (methodological naturalism), this is not intended to be a universal declaration on the nature of reality." Consider: Jesus rising from the dead. The scientist of his day would say, "Well, as a scientist I have to exclude the idea of God's actions, even if that's really what God did. This leaves me to offer two dozen naturalistic theories as to how Jesus rose from the dead. I'm not saying they represent reality at all, but here they are just for fun and giggles. Oh, and I spent ten million dollars in research grants to come up with these fairy tales." Whatever was intended, Jason, this is not the end result. Scientists strive to explain everything naturalistically and believe they are accurately modeling reality. What gets put in textbooks (thanks to a flawed understanding of the 1st Amendment)? Jesus rose from the dead by scientific leading theory X. God is excluded. Now the parent is forced to explain to his kid how God raised Jesus from the dead and that the leading scientific theory X is wrong. This is an oblique approach but I hope you see what I mean. Jason wrote, "If some test tubes went missing in the laboratory, all the scientists (whether Christian or materialist) would conduct an organized search for them." The difference, Jason, is this: when scientists try to explain how the cylindrical glass test tube originated from a peculiar strain of bacteria and wasn't intelligently designed at all. Another key difference: when God says He did something, we have a clear precedent to entertain supernatural causes. God is silent about that missing test tube, but had He spoken up, the rules of the game would have changed. Likewise with the Resurrection. Likewise with our origins. Jason wrote, "when things happen, they leave clues behind. And even if they were one-time occurrences, science can piece the clues together and reconstruct the past in amazing detail." I'm sure you agree that there are innocent people in prison. That means forensic science can make mistakes and the same evidence can be interpreted in two contradictory ways. I'm glad you recognize the difference between historical science and operational science.
Jason wrote, ""the data proves" only works in the negative." No, it doesn't. Neither have I heard that before. Science cannot "prove" one way or another. Science cannot prove God exists and science cannot prove God doesn't exist. Feel free to cite a source if you disagree. Jason wrote, "So when the Bible says "A" and science seems to suggest "B" - my first thought is "do I understand the point that the biblical author was trying to make?"" My first thought is, "did science do it's homework right?" Of course, after that, I'd make sure my hermeneutic is correct, but my criticism is first directed at man's ideas.
Jason wrote, "when you said, "when he gets involved" it implies that there is a time when God is not involved. That is an awfully small view of the ruler of the universe!" Agreed! It's also a small view of God when people force God to only interact with the universe via the natural laws He set in place. God can and does suspend His laws. Two notable cases among thousands: creatio ex nihilo in Genesis 1 and Jesus' Resurrection in the Gospels. God suspending His laws is an important distinction we should be mindful of, not discard. Anyway, these are just some side comments of mine. Genuinely good comments by everyone here (including the cats in sinks comment by Cheryl)! |
|
|
| January 21, 2008 |
|
|
|
Hey Eric,
I'm short on time so I'll limit my comments specifically to those points that would like me to clarify.
You made a reference to how science would investigate the resurrection. Here is my answer. If the scientists are being honest, it would probably go something like this: FACT#1: this man was alive on Thrusday. FACT#2: this man was killed by an angry mob on Friday. FACT#3: this man was buried in a tomb on Friday night. FACT#4: by late Sunday morning the tomb was empty. FACT#5: the same man appeared to be walking around and talking Sunday afternoon. FACT#6: this man had the same pattern of wounds suffered by the man who died on Friday. FACT#7: this man is clearly now alive.
Each of the facts would be the true result of an honest forensic investigation. The science is reliable, but the data are incoherent. The problem is that facts don't mean a thing by themselves. In order to make sense of a collection of facts, you need an overarching theory, or an explanation that connects the dots together so they tell a coherent story. The problem with the facts of Christ's resurrection is this: there is no working theory in science that can provide a coherent explanation for them. The very nature of a miracle disrupts the normal pattern of material cause and effect. Science can bracket the abrupt discontinuity, but it can't propose an explanation for a physical singularity. The same problem exists with Big Bang Theory. When science ends, the speculation begins.
Fortunately for Christians, we have the Bible. God's Word tells us the Christ was raised from the dead by the power of God. So special revelation is able to answer a question that transcended the naturalistic limits of empiricism. The Big Bang singularity is no different. God spoke, and something came from nothing. For the resurrection, the only legitimate answers from science are (1) the data are wrong or incomplete, or (2) there is some yet-to-be-discovered phenomenon to explain the transition from death to life naturally. That's it. That's the extent of what science can offer. Fortunately, we Christians don't have to hold our breadth for a coherent answer.
What this illustrates is that science has limits. It would wrong to try and force science to come up with an explanation for the resurrection. Science has no way to deal with that. Science can only comment on natural cause and effect. If anything, this illustration proves the point I was trying to make better than my example -- that the limits of science must be understood and respect. And Christians are free to reach past the naturalistic limits of science with special revelation where appropriate. The ony caveat is that such answers can't be considered scientific by definition (which is my problem with creation science and intelligent design - but that's another post).
"Science cannot prove God exists and science cannot prove God doesn't exist" - I agree. That's why I chose my words carefully. I didn't say that science can alwaysprove the negative. What I said that science can't prove a positive, but can prove a negative (sometimes). For instance, I can't prove where the president is right now (positive), but I can prove that he's not in my office (negative), etc... But such an investigation is still material in nature, so the negative can be proven. Obviously, if the question is supernatural (ie: the existence of God), science can neither prove nor disprove -- simply because such questions are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
"My first thought is, "did science do it's homework right?" Of course, after that, I'd make sure my hermeneutic is correct, but my criticism is first directed at man's ideas." - as it should be. And interpretation is also "man's ideas".
"God suspending His laws is an important distinction we should be mindful of, not discard." - no problem there.
Right now you are probably thinking, "If Jason can use that approach to the historic reality of Christ's resurrection, why can't He take the same approach to the historic reality of recent special creation? Why even entertain a naturalistic creation scenario that involves a cause-and-effect process over enormous spans of time?" There is a very good answer to that question, but here is probably not the right place to post it.
Jason |
|
|
| January 21, 2008 |
|
|
|
Great comments Eric, very thought provoking. You said, "It's also a small view of God when people force God to only interact with the universe via the natural laws He set in place." Agreed. It seems there are TWO ways we can diminish God's role in our world, (1) when we think he is uninvolved if he isn't performing dramatic miracles among us, and (2) when we think he works/has worked historically ONLY through natural processes. To me, #2 hearkens back to the problem of the evidence which I wrote about in the blog.
I haven't read Jason's book (yet), but I hope it tackles this problem from both perspectives, not just the perspective that Christians need to consider God's role in natural processes. To me only then would the perceived problem of faith vs. science be fully addressed. |
|
|
| January 21, 2008 |
|
|
|
"There is a very good answer to that question, but here is probably not the right place to post it."
No it's not (hehe). But by no means should it be a secret either. If it's all in your book, well, you could just make your profile page one giant advertisement for your book!! lol ~mike |
|
|
| January 21, 2008 |
|
|
|
'nothing to add right now. Unless anyone wants a run down the rabbit path chasing cats in sinks - lol
I'm enjoying the discussion. |
|
|
| January 21, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Hey Gene, glad to see you hangin out. Thanks for letting us put a face to the read count lol. |
|
|
| January 21, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Glad to do so, Mike. Trust me, I understand about the read count issue. . . |
|
|
| January 24, 2008 |
|
|
|
| I like rabbits too! LOL!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| January 25, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Rabbits? Oh, rabbit paths! |
|
|
| January 25, 2008 |
|
|
|
Had to come back~ |
|
|
| January 26, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Mike you sure know how to start a dialogue. |
|
|
| January 27, 2008 |
|
|
|
I probably shouldn't be writing this because i haven't found the verses and correct me if i am wrong. Jesus came to Thomas after he arose and said something like do you believe me now? not the exact words of course. Thomas said something earlier about he would believe when he saw the wound in Jesus' side where he had been pierced by a sword. i wonder how he felt when Jesus appeared to him that day? the last part of your blog brought this to mind. |
|
|
| January 27, 2008 |
|
|
|
Visionary, looks like a pretty informative link to explore, thanks for posting it!!
Vance, great point! A week after Thomas made that remark Jesus appeared again, when Thomas made his great confession. In response Jesus said "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." |
|
|
| January 28, 2008 |
|
|
|
But Thomas was still an Apostle of Christ - even with his challenging questions. It keeps us honest. If we accept everything that is said by one person or another then we risk being lead astray. Asking questions is a valid way to test the spirits.
Thomas wasn't a bad person because he asked and we need to leave room for those who ask sincerely. Blind faith is, well, blind! You don't know where you're going. that's why reading and studying the Bible is so important. We need to also allow for that questioning to be in all aspects of our faith. If the Church didn't do that, we'd still be collecting absolution's and holding the bones of Galileo in his attic.
OOOPS! Sorry, Mike. Here's your soap box back . . . . |
|
|
| January 28, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Gene, that is a profound point my friend. Thomas was not rejected for questioning! But believing w/o seeing (simple trust?) seems to be held out as the better way by Jesus. We have to know who we're putting our faith in too. I believe the examples you give were cases where the visible church demanded it's members put their faith in church doctrines, rather than God. In essence I don't disagree at all, "we need to also allow for that questioning to be in all aspects of our faith." Muy bien! |
|
|
| January 28, 2008 |
|
|
|
Thomas is an interesting guy. Sometimes I wonder if we are making him the bad guy because of the comment Jesus made, where Jesus said blessed are those that don't see and believe. Now Jesus didn't say blessed are those that beleive with blind faith. Think of Thomas and all the credible evidence that he had from others, but would not listen because his mind was made up or something. Perhaps what this means is that we need to have faith in God based on who He is and what He has done without having to know everything that He will do. If we know everything that will happen, it wouldn't be faith would it? Great thoughts! Have a good week! |
|
|
| January 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
I had another thought - How about a title of Science...or and faith? (What to do with the evidence...)
Both exist. We use both - everyday. It isn't so much a choice as it is about how to address areas of concern and differences in understanding. |
|
|
| January 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
| haha - I'd like to see your blog on science and faith Gene! ...how to make the two coalesce in the believer's life - an intriguing thought! (seriously, most people believe faith begins where science ends, i.e. the two don't mix) |
|
|
| January 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Oh now I've got to get Gordon's book! |
|
|
| January 29, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Jason Gordon - that is. . . . |
|
|
Follow this blog
