Biblically Ignorant Tour Guides For Jesus
Sorry the linked video below is no longer available and I can't find it anywhere.
Wow! This is completely ignorant! It's but one more example of indoctrination masquerading as an education. Can you imagine claiming that ancient superstitious people knew more than modern scientists do in any other area?
Wow! This is completely ignorant! It's but one more example of indoctrination masquerading as an education. Can you imagine claiming that ancient superstitious people knew more than modern scientists do in any other area?
33 comments:
Yes, I can think of one other area. Astrology!
I hope you have your fridge well stocked for Dec. 21, 2012.
I have yet to see someone be able to explain, from the bible, the actual method of creation. Sure there are the accounts of the story, but where is the "how" in those stories? To me there is plenty of room to allow evolution and creation to live together, and I'm not alone in that.
I did have a thought the other day though. What if we were able to take some of the rocks floating around in the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt and construct a planet similar to our own. And lets just say that it took us 7 24 hour days to accomplish this task. Would our new planet date, by current dating methods as 7 days old, or how ever old the material we used to make it are? Keep in mind here that I am not a YEC, just in case someone doesn't know. I don't know the answer to this so I hope someone else does.
Rich,
What exact role do you see a divine being playing in evolution?
He may change DNA, or alter predation patterns, or change the ecology or change the geological substrate. He may do any of these things. How is any of them any less a miracle than the resurrection?
damien, our solar system is on one of the wings of the Milky Way galaxy. It will not be at the center of it on Dec 21st 2012. What's your point?
Dating methods using radioactive decay would show that such a hypothetical planet was in fact about 5 billion years old.
If there was a lot of volcanism and "red-hot magma" involved in the construction of this planet, it could reset much of the dating and make the planet look a lot younger. Presumably, however, much of the crust of this constructed world would avoid being liquified, and would thus be composed of 5 billion-year-old rocks that would test as such.
I meant it in a tongue-in-cheek way, John. I was just pointing out that religion isn't the only thing that people say trumps empirical data. There are a lot of people out there who really think the world might end in 2012 because Mayans were good at making calendars.
There are all sorts of mystics out there. Heck, many of them have their own television programs. At least most of those don't teach THIS to little children, though.
And if I might correct one thing, I think the people concerned with 2012 aren't arguing that the earth will pass through the direct center of the galaxy, but through the middle of the "disk", if you looked at it from a side view. Going from top to bottom, not outer edge to center. At least that's how I hear them argue it.
Thanks Damien. Do they also know that the sun can always be thought of as being in at the center of our galaxy depending on the vantage point?
Cheers.
Evan,
I can see those roles being played by a divine creator, sure. I think I am missing the connection thought to your second question. I don't believe in creation ex nihilo, but rather a creation that used already existing materials. It might be easier to find a couple of related links to send you to if you're interested, rather then try a lengthy explanation here.
Miracles are defined to me differently. To my understanding, miracles are things that follow natural laws that we don't yet understand.
Thanks Hamilcar,
So to continue that line, If we were to Teraform this fictional planet and add plant life that would begin to make it possible for life as we know it to survive there, and there was volcanism involved, would we be able then to correctly date the fossilized plants that got caught in the different layers of new rock being laid by the magma solidifying? I doubt I am being scientifically accurate in my questioning but I hope you understand what I am asking.
John,
Do they also know that the sun can always be thought of as being in at the center of our galaxy depending on the vantage point?
I'm curious as to what you mean by this. I could see, for example, regarding the Milky Way as the center of the universe -- if the universe is some sort of closed, 4-dimensional hypersphere or somethng, then any vantage point could be considered the center...
But Sol at the center of the Milky Way? How'd ya figure?
richdurrant,
Thanks Hamilcar,
So to continue that line, If we were to Teraform this fictional planet and add plant life that would begin to make it possible for life as we know it to survive there, and there was volcanism involved, would we be able then to correctly date the fossilized plants that got caught in the different layers of new rock being laid by the magma solidifying?
Continuing the terraforming example, and assuming a crust that was composed of ancient rock which had not been fully liquefied, we then seed the planet with plant life which -- after some thousands of years -- makes the planet habitable for animal life.
Assuming, then, that some plant life were to become buried, we should be able to date it using Carbon 14 if it's less than about 60,000 years old. The sun's radiation on the atmosphere of the planet would continuously create some quantity of C14, which would be taken up by the plant through the photosynthetic energy cycle right along with the normal Carbon 12. This energy cycle obviously stops when the plant dies, and at that point the "clock" starts. The C14 decays in the ground at a very predictable rate, and at any point thereafter if the plant were to be dug up, the ratio of C12 (which is stable) to C14 (decaying radioactively) can be measured, giving the "time of death" of the plant.
Once the plant is older than about 60,000 years, the ratio is so small that the measurement becomes unacceptably inaccurate, and other processes must be used.
Dating the rocks around the plants -- the sand or pumice or limestone or whatever the plant happens to be found in -- would have to be done through measuring other elementary ratios. There are many. One of the oldest is Uranium-Lead dating, which can go billions of years back in time.
The ratios of radioactive elements can be "reset" in a way by extreme temperatures and the melting of the stones themselves, so if you want a crust that displays some old rock, you need to make sure the entire planet doesn't go molten as you bring it together. Otherwise the whole world would look brand new.
This would also be very hard to do -- the friction generated by the gravitational collapse of dust and dirt into a planet-sized body would release an immense quantity of heat.
Rich you say:
Miracles are defined to me differently. To my understanding, miracles are things that follow natural laws that we don't yet understand.
That would be great, but we already pretty much understand the broad outlines of descent with modification in general and the specific paths of human evolution.
There is no role for God to play there.
So what do you think he did?
Well lets look at it from an evolutiaonary viewpoint; according to evolutionary teaching the sun was made when a cloud of gas and dust collasped then gravity pulled the cloud together and as it shrank, it spun faster and faster. Forming a rotating disk; gravity then pulled most of the gas into the center where the gas became hot and dense enough for nuclear fusion to begin. In that statement there are three problems according to scientific law.
1- Dust Particles have no gravitational pull or attraction to one another.
2- Energy cannot be created or destroyed(nor can matter.)
3- Where did the orgional material come from?
Another evolutioanary theory is that a star forms when contracting gas and dust from a nebula become so dense and hot that nuclear fusion starts. There are 3 things questionable about this:
1- No one ever witnessed a star actually form.
2- Energy(or matter) does not suddenly appear.
3- Order does not appear out of randomness.
These are just 2 of the things evolutionists say are true but as you can see those theories are based on absolutely no proof and the violate scientific law. Where creationism gives an accurate description how the world hase formed; scripture is and accurate record of the history of mankind; and if evolution was correct where is their proof? The supposible "missing link" for evolution has not been found and will never be found. If you think back you will also find that science has been wrong several times and you will also see that the Bible has not been proved inaccurate in any way. So what I am trying to say is that there is a God and He sent His son to die on a cross for my sins and for you sins. And although science tries to prove that he doesn't exist I am affraid they will never suceed. If you would like to continue this discussion with me please email me at remnantsales@hotmail.com
Thanks again Hamilcar,
The ratios of radioactive elements can be "reset" in a way by extreme temperatures and the melting of the stones themselves, so if you want a crust that displays some old rock, you need to make sure the entire planet doesn't go molten as you bring it together. Otherwise the whole world would look brand new.
Is this then why it is that different layers of rock can be dated to to different ages, I should one reason? Molten Rock could be the same age as solid rock but because of the molten stage it get reset so that it takes on the age of when ever it cools down and becomes part of the crust, for example?
Evan,
I am sure that the process of evolution itself doesn't necessitate a God to anything. Part of my questioning going on with hamilcar is related in that I believe that God was the creator of this planet. The word used in Hebrew that was translated to create can also be translated to organize. I believe this is more accurate to what God did, organize a planet. Because evolution is a fact that we can observe, and I believe that God created the earth, then to me it follows that it is a very strong possibility that evolution is a process for creation. So the short answer to your question is, I believe that God set up the evolutionary process. It would seem out of character to have a natural observable process that is meant to deceive us if in fact God wants all to believe in him.
Remnant Sales,
1- Dust Particles have no gravitational pull or attraction to one another.
Dust particles are matter. All matter has certain properties, one of which is mass. All mass warps space-time, creating a force we call gravity. (Yes, even little dust particles.) All matter exerts gravitational attraction.
2- Energy cannot be created or destroyed(nor can matter.)
A more complete knowledge of Thermodynamics would help you understand that star formation in no way violates these fundamental physical laws. In fact, Thermodynamic theory (the first law of which involves Conservation of Energy, which you are quoting) is used to understand the workings of stars, the friction in condensing gas and dust, the transmission of energy from one state to another, etc. Our theories of star-formation and planet-formation rely directly upon these physical laws -- they don't violate them, they're explained by them.
3- Where did the orgional [sic] material come from?
The material for the sun and our solar system? Most of the gas and dust that formed Sol and Earth and all the other objects in the solar system was originally part of a much more massive star, or group of stars, which went supernova sometime before 5 billion years ago. The remains left behind a large cloud of mostly hydrogen, shot through with many heavier elements produced through fusion or during the supernova reaction itself. Though no-one was there to see it, we can confidently infer this from the metallic content of the sun and the elements present in the solar system.
1- No one ever witnessed a star actually form.
This is like saying "nobody ever witnessed a mountain form". Doesn't mean they don't form. Some things in this universe take a bit longer than a human lifetime to happen. For example: around 10 million years ago India slammed into Asia. Boom! Himalayas.
But even though we went from NO mountains there to mountains over 8000 meters high, had people been living there the entire time nobody would ever have noticed. It might be only a few millimeters a year. You could live your entire lifetime in the shadow of such a mountain and never notice a difference. When a geologist looks at the rocks, though -- well, he can read them in a scientific way and tell you the story of what happened to get to that point.
Similarly, we can look out into the galaxy, and neighboring galaxies, and see stars in every stage of "stellar evolution". We can see stars that are just shining forth their first light. Heck, we can even see the heat from brand-new stars that have just ignited fusion, but not yet blown their dust cloud away with solar wind. We see lots of stars blazing away on the main sequence, and can calculate that many of these stars will long outlive our own.
We also see stars that are withering away, blowing off their outer layers, or bursting with dangerous energy. We see the deaths of many stars all the time: supernovas happen constantly in the universe, and we observe many of them.
Probably most of the confidence we have about how stars form comes from the strength of our current theories. Astrophysics applies relativity, quantum theory, thermodynamics and more, making amazingly accurate predictions about what we'll observe when we turn on our telescopes. There's always a lot to learn, and there are always interesting surprises, but we actually do know a great deal about the process now.
2- Energy(or matter) does not suddenly appear.
Again you seem to be asserting Conservation of Mass and/or Conservation of Energy. I assure you, astrophysicists are well aware of these principles, and use them quite readily on a daily basis. No mainstream theory of stellar evolution violates these principles in any way.
3- Order does not appear out of randomness.
This is overly broad, or just false. Once again you seem to be wandering into the land of Thermodynamics, this time mis-applying the second law. There are many ways to state the second law, and many ways to understand it -- but I've found that the anti-evolution people who try to use it have almost no idea what it is they're actually saying (and are counting on nobody else actually understanding it either).
Nothing in stellar evolution theory violates the principles of order and entropy; in fact, astrophysicists use these principles all the time in their theories.
A basic way to state the second law is this: the total entropy in a closed system can only increase. The universe is a closed system. The singularity at the moment before the big band was a highly ordered state. As the universe expands, the total entropy (disorder) of the universe as a whole can only increase. In no way does this imply that the local entropy in any given galaxy or solar system or planet must follow in the same way, only the total entropy of the whole system. On a local level we have -- among other things -- nuclear fusion supplying a great deal of energy.
The supposible [sic] "missing link" for evolution has not been found and will never be found.
There are no "missing links". There are simply fossils, and the gaps between those fossils. Every fossil, if it's from a population that produced descendants that are alive today, is a transitional form. It's transitional from what it was to what it became. Every new fossil we find fills in a gap in the evolutionary time-line (and creates two new gaps on either side). The picture only gets clearer.
richdurrant,
Is this then why it is that different layers of rock can be dated to to different ages, I should one reason? Molten Rock could be the same age as solid rock but because of the molten stage it get reset so that it takes on the age of when ever it cools down and becomes part of the crust, for example?
Indeed, from my somewhat limited understanding of geology, I believe that this is the case. Or at least, a workable approximation.
Rich you say:
So the short answer to your question is, I believe that God set up the evolutionary process. It would seem out of character to have a natural observable process that is meant to deceive us if in fact God wants all to believe in him.
But the facts just won't make sense with that assumption.
The facts show a universe that is contingent on accidents of history. Tiny changes in an initial inchoate pattern make rigid structures that can't be altered as patterns solidify. All limbed vertebrates have 4 limbs. All limbed insects have 6 limbs.
Obviously 6 limbs can work, yet no vertebrates have this pattern. Obviously 4 limbs can work, yet no insects have this pattern. So the patterns we see now are contingent on historical processes.
Your nerve cord runs down your back. A bee has it run down its belly. Your brain's hemispheres control opposite sides of your body. A bee's control the same sides. Why is this? Because shortly after our lineage split off from the bee lineage, our common ancestor evolved a face pointing the opposite direction.
There is good evidence to support this. Thus, if God wanted us to have this trait, he had to manage the behavior of a worm on the bottom of the sea about 590 million years ago.
But the contingency doesn't stop, it never can. 65 million years ago, it was quite obvious that feathered, warm-blooded creatures that laid eggs would dominate the large ecological niches for the foreseeable future. Then it all changed.
We humans may owe our existence to the second greatest catastrophe to ever befall the planet, but we also owe it to every other catastrophe, vertebrate speciation event, and unusual shift in terrain or climate that happened up to this moment.
So if you think God uses evolution, you also have to think he uses meteors, continental drift, altered global temperature patterns, microbiota, and cosmic ray showers.
Yet all of these are quite random and needn't have resulted in humans at all.
More importantly, our survival as a species is threatened precisely by a belief by the majority of us that we are destined to be here by God.
That's just not an acceptable belief in the light of the facts. We can all die. We can all die together quite suddenly and leave other organisms to fill the niches we leave behind. The planet will be fine. Life will continue. But we might not.
Believing in God is the single biggest obstacle to getting people to believe this fact. That's why it's dangerous.
The video says it's no longer available so I'll comment only on what I gather from the question and comments.
These may be contenders:
*Pure, unheated honey is the BEST antibiotic burn salve known and is being mainstreamed in hospitals.
*Modern day scientists have tried to recreate many ancient structures, as you know from watching PBS, with modern technology and failed...even after months of trying.
*We still don't know what exactly constituted "Greek Fire".
*Mentioning the Maya...they came up with two separate calendars for planting. The solar and the lunar. Both are used in the Farmer's Almanac today and give the greatest success in farming.
Those are just a few. The emphasis might be better focused not on if they knew more than we do today, but that they discovered more with less. The ancients provided the foundation from which we have been able to go forward.
And then I wonder how great it is to go forward...we really aren't discovering anything new, we are building on what has come before in different ways. Like the atmosphere of Rome before it fell; nothing new, only rehashing and tweaking what had already been written, spoken, built, thought etc...
One day we will be the ancients who were lost in ignorance.
This caught my eye:
1- Dust Particles have no gravitational pull or attraction to one another.
Dust particles are matter. All matter has certain properties, one of which is mass. All mass warps space-time, creating a force we call gravity. (Yes, even little dust particles.) All matter exerts gravitational attraction.
You both might like to look at this blog. His most recent post is about "breaking" Newton's third law.
Evan,
Would you mind explaining this further?:
More importantly, our survival as a species is threatened precisely by a belief by the majority of us that we are destined to be here by God.
Jennifer I don't think it's hard to figure out. If God specifically put humans on earth, and he controls the universe, then he wants us to exist as a species. We don't have to worry about destroying our own ecological niche because there's a God who will take care of that for us.
Knowing that history is contingent, that our existence as a species was not even close to a certainty, that we can all die out because of our own folly is a wonderful corrective to some of the worst human abuses.
Jennifer,
You both might like to look at this blog. His most recent post is about "breaking" Newton's third law.
Interesting, but a bit of a non sequitur. I'll explain:
In his post, he's talking about Newton's "third law" of motion (which is really just a way of stating the principle of Conservation of Momentum): For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He's pointing out something pretty interesting, which is that the electro-magnetic field surrounding a pair of particles can absorb some of the momentum from their interaction, making the particles appear, from a naive Newtonian standpoint, to have "broken" the third law. Pretty cool.
The thrust of his article is that a seeming anomaly can be resolved by carefully applying all of the relevant principles. Newton would have been unable to explain such interactions in his day, not knowing about electro-magnetic field theory.
It's a bit of a tangent with regards to the claims I was making about dust being matter, and matter having mass, and mass warping space-time to cause gravity. Which are all true.
Jenifer said "One day we will be the ancients who were lost in ignorance. "
I really like this one. Because in the event that modern man disappears or something comes to set back our technology. IN about 100 years what ever we currently know will be lost to the ancients because our disks and recordings will have deteriorated.
That means if modern man has any kid of set back and our survivers ahv eto pick up the pieces, the Egyptians will still be the best record keepers ever.
I wonder if anyone is working on preserving our modern information in a way that future archologists will be able to see what we where.
Sometimes i wonder if our current evolution/history might support Other such kinds of events. perhaps in som eunknown time we had been as advanced as we are now then poof somethign happened, and the next in line, say the egyptians where smart enough to carve their knowledge into stone.
lets just hope that "next time" we dont develop some stupid religion and burn the libary of Alexandria agian. And maybe we can get thigns right as a human race.
Anyway i hope 2012 holds something of a change be it death for all, or new age awreness and freedom.
justine
Evan,
I'm glad to say I don't know any Christians who think that way. Just the opposite. The view you are presenting is an issue of educated vs. uneducated, not faith or non-faith.
How about this line of thinking instead.
God created the universe and He wants us to exist as a species. He gave us the privilege of ruling over (taking care of) creation. When we live in harmony with creation and each other, it all works well. When we seek independence from God the Creator, creation, and each other, or to dominate any of these, we break the "laws" of creation (science).
God created the universe and He wants us to exist as a species.
Except he didn't and he doesn't. That's provable by historical facts and the history of our universe, as well as the history of life on our planet.
John did a remarkable job explaining this.
Evan,
No one knows the history of our planet, the history of the universe or can claim to be the ultimate authority on historical accuracy. It's all a big guessing game. I'm willing to say that my beliefs are based on a large degree of faith. Kip S. Thorne has, candidly, said the same thing in his book, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy. Humble science and humble religion both are careful to acknowledge the unknown in their ologies.
Hamilcar,
My train of thought on the dust particles was that other forces are at play, which I thought was what you were trying to get at with your example of dust particles having gravitational pull. I thought the article addressed how forces are at play which we don't normally think of. I wasn't attempting to derail you, just thought you'd find it interesting.
Jennifer:
No one knows the history of our planet, the history of the universe or can claim to be the ultimate authority on historical accuracy.
Of course nobody knows history exactly. But we know very well the story of species on our planet. They evolve from original populations, they exist for a while, sometimes a long while, sometimes a short while, and then they die out.
Do you have any evidence this is not the case?
We know very well the history of solar systems in the universe. They evolve from dust clouds, they burn for a period of time, then the stars burn out, destroy the inner planets and become neutron stars.
Do you have any evidence this is not the case?
If not, then the humans delude themselves with any idea of a cosmic parent. We are the ones we have been waiting for. There is no God who will keep us around.
Evan,
But we know very well the story of species on our planet.
All of it?
They evolve from original populations, they exist for a while, sometimes a long while, sometimes a short while, and then they die out.
And we know this from dating methods that are not reliable and nobody can prove that they are because no one has lived all through the ages to be able to factor in every possible variable. That's fine for the ongoing exploration in science, but not for being able to prove or disprove any theories.
We don't have a complete fossil record. We don't have layers or even beds of number of transitional fossils it would take to create any laws about the links between species, it's all a guess. Theories are nice but I'm not willing to jump into any hard and fast judgements on what the origins of the universe and life on earth are based upon data which changes by the decade or more frequently. Even a law can be disproved with ONE contrary test.
We know very well the history of solar systems in the universe. They evolve from dust clouds, they burn for a period of time, then the stars burn out, destroy the inner planets and become neutron stars.
Yes, this is what we observe from our vantage point. It's interesting, whether it matters or not, that the book of Revelation records that the earth will be destroyed by fire. This doesn't in any way disprove the existence of a Creator.
If energy cannot be created or destroyed by us, and the Bible says that God keeps all in balance, it makes perfect sense to me that the happenings of the cosmos are working for that purpose. It may be that the black holes and worm holes exist to offset the "pressure", or exchange of energy, within the universe/s. We're just the pre-schoolers in the sandbox, IMO, and we don't really know what it's all about.
I do think your perception of much religion is on target, but that perception is not necessarily the majority or the Orthodox Christian view.
Jennifer,
And we know this from dating methods that are not reliable and nobody can prove that they are because no one has lived all through the ages to be able to factor in every possible variable.
Our dating methods are very reliable, and becoming more so all the time. We calibrate things like Radiometric Carbon Dating by taking samples of objects whose ages we know (sometimes from historical records) and making sure that the measurements returned by labs are accurate. When multiple labs are given blind samples and they all return date values that are tightly correlated with the actual age of the sample, it's good evidence that this method is effective at estimating dates. For example, three separate labs determined that the Shroud of Turin was made of material manufactured around the year 1300... give or take 50 years.
Since the kinds of samples we get and what's happened to them over the centuries is out of our hands, some samples can be contaminated, producing anomalous results. But it's the self-corrective nature of science that detects these anomalies and accounts for them. For example, what we're trying to measure with carbon dating is the ratio of C14 to C12, as taken up from earth's atmosphere by living things. But there are some other sources of C14 in the ground that can occasionally contaminate samples, leading to strange-looking dates. It's the scientists themselves who detect this strangeness and identify the source of it.
In short, no method of science is perfect or without error, but our radiometric dating techniques are getting more and more accurate with every passing year. It's amazing how good they can be.
We don't have a complete fossil record.
What would a "complete fossil record" be?
Every creature that has ever lived is turned in to a fossil? Then you've just covered the earth with fossil animal bones, every inch of the earth, to a depth of many hundreds of feet.
One example of every species is turned into a fossil? But there's really no hard line that divides one species from another, it's more of a continuum. Let's say this did happen, though. Let's say at least one member of every "species" was fossilized. Would that then be complete? But wait, we haven't dug up the whole earth yet. There could actually BE a complete fossil record, yet we'd never know, because there are buildings built on top of where some of the fossils are, or mountains on top of them, or forests, or they're at the bottom of the seas, etc.
Actually, the vast, overwhelming majority of all creatures who have ever lived on this planet did not leave fossils. The died, then they got eaten. In fact, there may be many creatures whose whole species never left a fossil (because they didn't live in an environment that was conducive to fossilization). And of course, though there are many hard-working paleontologists digging all over the globe, we must resign ourselves to the fact that we will likely never be able to find most of the fossils on earth. We really can't dig up the whole planet.
No, the requirement for a "complete fossil record" is a naive one, and an arbitrary one. We don't need every horsey fossil to be able to tell that the horse ancestors were smaller and smaller as you look further back in the rock strata. We don't need every whale-ish fossil to be able to tell that the ancestors of whales once walked on land. We don't need every avian fossil to be able to tell that the ancestors of birds were a type of dinosaur. We CAN know some things, without having to know everything.
We don't have layers or even beds of number of transitional fossils it would take to create any laws about the links between species, it's all a guess. Theories are nice but I'm not willing to jump into any hard and fast judgements on what the origins of the universe and life on earth are based upon data which changes by the decade or more frequently. Even a law can be disproved with ONE contrary test.
Lots going on in this paragraph...
We have tons of transitional fossils. As I've pointed out on this blog before, in a way, every fossil is a transitional one. It's transitional from what it descended from to what its ancestors became. We really ONLY have transitional fossils. If you want to argue Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium, well, I think Dawkins and Gould already covered most of that ground, and found that it was more a matter of perspective than anything.
When I was in grade school, I learned that scientific hypotheses, once enough evidence was gathered, could be "promoted" to theories. Then, the the theory, given enough evidence, could be "promoted" to become a law. This is all bogus. Doesn't work that way. I'm not sure where that stuff got started, but it's not what the terminology means.
The hypothesis is a guess, of sorts. It's based on observation, based on some phenomenon, and it's an attempt to explain it in scientific terms. In order to be a good hypothesis, it needs to be testable -- you need to be able to gather clear data that will confirm or falsify it. Most hypotheses are doomed to be wrong.
A theory, in science, is much more than the colloquial meaning of the term. A scientific theory is a complete system of understanding concerning a specific topic, complete in the sense that it must encompass all of the available data, explain what is currently observed, and make predictions about what will be found in the future. A theory is considered strong if there are relatively few anomalies that remain unexplained, and strong if it has a history of making accurate predictions. In other words, it's a good theory if it does a really good job of explaining what we observe in nature around us. The most rock-solid theories we have, the foundational scientific systems that have been validated time and time again, include: Relativity, Quantum Theory, Evolution (the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis), Thermodynamics, the Germ Theory of Disease, Heliocentric Theory, etc.
None of these could be considered just "guesses", by any stretch of the imagination. But by all means, don't take my word for it. Look into it yourself. Also, know that the majority of people working in all of these fields, advancing these scientific theories, are theists, not atheists. They don't think their research threatens the bible, or their faith.
Also, "data which changes by the decade for more frequently" -- thank goodness! This is one of the great strengths of science. It's always gathering new information, testing the old theories, integrating the new stuff with the old, overturning stale ideas when necessary. I'm very thankful that we humans have developed a system of figuring things out, the Scientific Method, that is so good at correcting itself with new information. Think about it: we're human. We make mistakes, we have biases, we're short-sighted. But by developing a method that specifically deals with these problems, we're able to build up to some real, useful, verifiable knowledge. That's what it's all about.
Evan,
But the facts just won't make sense with that assumption.
To you they won't but to others they can.
The facts show a universe that is contingent on accidents of history.
But our understanding of those facts could indeed change and they may no longer be considered accidents but rather necessary. Observation is indeed a great tool and has been useful, and will continue to be useful, to us. As our perspective changes, so does our level of observation. This is clearly documented in our short human history. We see our earth much differently then they did even 100 years ago because of our better ability to observe things from a much different position. Most notably space. In fact I just read in scientific american about our voyagers 1 and 2 how because of information sent back from them that our solar system is actually dented. That is know because each craft entered the heliosheath at different distances from the sun.
So if you think God uses evolution, you also have to think he uses meteors, continental drift, altered global temperature patterns, microbiota, and cosmic ray showers.
I think God understands this perfectly well, including the method for setting up such things so that life can exist. We can observe these laws in motion and speculate as to how it all began, but to say we know for sure about the beggining I think is a little premature. I really do think we have a good understanding of things that we can observe. But I think that Jennifer may have hit it right in suggesting that one day we may very well be the ones that were mistaken based on observations to come. That's a lot of speculation:)
Believing in God is the single biggest obstacle to getting people to believe this fact. That's why it's dangerous.
This may be true of some people but not all, and I completely disagree that belief in God is dangerous. What people choose to do whether they believe in God or not can be dangerous, but belief in and of itself is not dangerous.
Hamilcar,
Thanks for the reply.
I could take your comment point by point, but the point I am making is simply that we do not have all the answers. That's OK. I don't think we need to have all the answers, and it doesn't affect my faith to discover something differently than what I may previously have thought.
What you just wrote out above is exactly what I was addressing. Science is a guessing game. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant or useless, of course not! It means we are in a constant state of discovery.
The problem I see is that text books and programming is presented in such a way that you'd think we DO have all the answers. We don't. Relativity was a shock wasn't it?!
I have respect for the theory of evolution and it may turn out to be right, I don't know. What matters to me is that my children and all children, are allowed to think for themselves and not be indoctrinated. Presenting information in such a way as to provide options and stimulate curiosity is great, saying that we know for sure that abiogenesis happened in a certain fashion is not great, it's not true.
Saying that the contribution of the ancients means little compared to today is also not true. In Hellenistic society, a form of the scientific method was being used but then due to the fall of their civilization, much of the information they attained up to that point was lost and then "rediscovered" in the Middle Ages.
OK, I'm stepping down off my soapbox. :) Honesty and transparency is all I'm asking for.
You can find the original video, along with an earlier video on the same subject, here.
Click on the thumbnails in the "Related" callout in the middle of the article.
Jennifer you say:
I have respect for the theory of evolution and it may turn out to be right, I don't know.
You are so right that you don't know.
The theory of evolution is as certain as quantum theory. It explains all observable phenomena that are within its ability to explain. It makes testable predictions which are confirmed. It has never been falsified. It doesn't even have a significant amount of anomalous data or things unexplained by it. It's a complete theory. If there is a new theory, that theory will never remove what we know, but will only modify it in the same way that the quantum revolution didn't try to show Newton was fully wrong but that he was incomplete.
What is it about evolution that makes you not accept it? I doubt it is scientific data.
What matters to me is that my children and all children, are allowed to think for themselves and not be indoctrinated.
Yes, don't let those English teachers indoctrinate them into so-called linguistic theory. The Tower of Babel explains everything you need to know about language.
Don't let those Geology teachers indoctrinate them into learning continental drift, that's not Biblical.
Don't let those Physics teachers indoctrinate them into learning about radioactive decay and astronomy, the Bible is all they need to know.
All the above disciplines disprove the Bible. Biology does the same. It should be treated no differently. If you don't want your kids indoctrinated, keep them ignorant. But don't try to teach them lies in a museum that is trying to teach them what we know to be true.
The fact that museums and scientists are human and make mistakes in NO way suggests that the Bible is more accurate.
Presenting information in such a way as to provide options and stimulate curiosity is great, saying that we know for sure that abiogenesis happened in a certain fashion is not great, it's not true.
WHO is presenting a specific mechanism for abiogenesis as a proven fact? Of course any specific mechanism is unproven. I saw no evidence that it was presented as fact in the video.
More importantly -- abiogenesis is an accepted by every single human being from YEC to me.
Unless you think God is alive, finite, and mortal -- he is definitely NOT biological. And therefore any life that came from God is coming from A-BIO-Genesis.
Some mechanisms make more sense than others do, but everyone believes in it.
I could take your comment point by point, but the point I am making is simply that we do not have all the answers. That's OK. I don't think we need to have all the answers, and it doesn't affect my faith to discover something differently than what I may previously have thought.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "different" and what you "thought"?
I'm guessing there is a limit to the "difference" you're willing to accept. Nor am I sure how you separate what you "think" vs. Biblical claims, such as God specifically designed man in his own image, etc.
What you just wrote out above is exactly what I was addressing. Science is a guessing game. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant or useless, of course not! It means we are in a constant state of discovery.
Implying that evolution is merely a "guess", after having withstood over 100 years of new discoveries, reveals a basic lack of understanding of how science works.
The discovery of DNA had the potential to complexly falsify evolution. Instead, it's become the strongest evidence in it's favor. In fact, most of biology only makes sense in light of evolutionary theory.
Scientific theories are in a constant state of refinement. This often occurs when a predictions made by the theory reveals some new insight or detail we perviously did not know.
An example of this is the fusion of chromosome #2 in human beings and the theory of common ancestry. Since we have one less pair of chromosomes than the great apes, and the loss of a pair of chromosomes would be fatal, evolution predicted we would find evidence of two fused chromosomes in human beings. However there is more than one way that chromosomes can fuse and the exact position and method was unknown at the time.
Not only was the general prediction correct, but it also led us to discover the exact type of fusion and how the genetic information in these chromosomes overlap with other great apes. Before we identified how and which chromosomes were fused, we could only speculate as to where and when the fusion event occurred.
The same can be said with the exact branch points between species. As we find additional fossils and insertion points of ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses), we redefine the evolutionary tree based on new information.
These discoveries clarify, instead of falsifying the theory.
The problem I see is that text books and programming is presented in such a way that you'd think we DO have all the answers. We don't. Relativity was a shock wasn't it?!
The problem I see is that you're trying to equate the existence of an supernatural, intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being that created the universe and man, with a scientific theory that connects existing natural forces, such as space and time, with gravity to make accurate predictions that we can observe and falsify.
Intelligent Design simply is not science.
The kind of ID being pushed for inclusion in our schools is obviously non-natural. As such, either the definition of science would need to be changed, as Michael Behe suggested in the 2005 Dover PA trial, or ID is simply not science.
ID proponents want to redefine science to give the impression that ID is on the same footing as evolution. However, this redefinition would also put astrology on the same footing as ID. Do you think astrology should be presented to your children as well?
Presenting information in such a way as to provide options and stimulate curiosity is great, saying that we know for sure that abiogenesis happened in a certain fashion is not great, it's not true.
It comes down to whether life was created by a natural or supernatural process.
On the side of nature, the exact process is being discussed and research is being performed. But on the side of a supernatural force, there is no room for discussion or options, because it was decided over 2,000 years ago. It's a non-answer that really tells us nothing other than "God did it".
Post a Comment