My Problem with Creation Science

[Right Divider]

What's your point.

Really?

 

[Clete]

I agree. Philosophy precedes science chronologically and logically. Science requires philosophy, and not the other way around. Science became its own distinct discipline from philosophy, gradually I think at first, kind of beginning as philosophy of nature or natural philosophy.

So do you agree or not? Are science and philosophy two truly different things or aren't they? You seem to want it both ways.

Of course there is a sense in which they are different things but my point was that in the fundamental sense, they are the same thing. That "thing" being the application of reason toward the answering of questions. The differences all have to do with the questions being asked.

And ethics and morality too. Politics. Law. On the latter, philosophy isn't concerned with law practice, but with what law is, what law should be, such things.

This too in self-contradictory. There can be no practice of law without a philosophy of law. One is just a different aspect of the same thing.

Metephysics, epistemology, logic, aesthetics and politics are the six main branches of philosphy. Science is applied metaphysical philosophy. Law is applied political philosophy.

 

[Stripe]

Science and philosophy are not truly two different things. Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental nature of existence and of knowledge itself. They are both (supposed to be) the application of reason toward a particular topic.

I'll concede that they are very similar — perhaps indistinguishable — when all we can do is talk about them.

The goal in both pursuits is the truth. Any other goal turns them into something other than science and philosophy.

Aye, that's the goal. But reaching the goal has prerequisites that neither science nor philosophy can provide.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

"I am the way, the truth and the life."

Ka mea a Ihu: "Ko ahau te huarahi, te pono, te ora."

 

[Stripe]

Show me where I'm wrong, or committing any fallacy.

I'll have to spend some time on it. It might be solved by me just reading more of your posts so I get what you're saying a bit better.

We have evidence that is inconsistent with determinacy.

Physical evidence? Or philosophical?

We both agree that science here is blind.

I'm not sure I would say that science is blind. It's a tool wielded by people, so in that sense it might be blind, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

There's no such thing as science that isn't also philosophy.

I always thought that this cartoon was incomplete:

I hope you agree that we have no evidence that Eden ever existed.

The Bible.

We don't have any evidence that God created Adam and Eve fully grown and mature either.

That is what scripture teaches.

Please explain, and I'm being genuine.

The problem is that you don't have a scientific approach to this subject. If you believe that God made the fossils in situ, is a physical model for their formation going to change your mind?

My position is that it's not worth arguing about the story that they're telling us from their measurements, but that it is worth arguing whether that story is true. And they have no leg to stand on when the discussion goes this way. It's entirely a matter of interpretation, as to whether the story they're saying is written in the rocks and in the stars, is actually true. And there's no PhDs in this interpretive domain. All our views are of equal authority. My view is that the story is fantastically improbable, and patently so. And again my opponents have no leg to stand on in retort. There's nothing they can do to argue that it's more likely than it appears, because the improbability is elemental to the story they're telling us is written in the rocks and in the stars. It's almost as if it's by design, ironically, that it's so improbable that we can't honestly believe it's a nonfiction account. What would punch through this otherwise basically impenetrable fortress of improbability, would be something like God, a nonlocal hidden variable pulling strings.

I suddenly feel great sympathy for the Darwinist who has to argue with you.

I'm not an expert, so at some point I have to yield to experts where experts already exist.

No, you don't.

To operate under the scientific model, you are only required to excise a belief when it has been proven physically impossible.

But if I am mistaken in thinking that their views weigh on theology but they really don't, then it's my duty to sort out that problem myself, and if I try to argue that they are overstepping geology, and I am wrong about that, then there must be a coherent explanation that resolves the apparent conflict, that is all on my side. My personal answer to this, is to seek a common ground between a plain reading of Genesis, with a plain reading of nature. I trust the PhDs in the right domain to tell me the plain reading of nature, and compare that with the plain reading of Genesis. The solution that's still working for me, is that the story written in nature is of the fantasy genre. Which is perfectly balanced with what most who believe that story, tell me is also the nature of the plain reading of Genesis. We both believe in apparently fantasy, so the question is, which one is more believable. And that's a question of faith, which is unsurprising and comfortable for us Christians, though it could be uncomfortable for atheists to realize.

The problem I sense in this is that you're compartmentalizing. And I'd say that your idea on the origin of fossils is a symptom of it.

If a geologist tells you that a rock is millions of years old, that is in conflict with the Bible. My approach would be to test both the geologist and the Bible. You seem to want to keep them separate.

I did that. That's where I start.

That's the spirit.

Being dismissed does mean that you're not going to advance your ideas.

Science isn't about advancing ideas. It's about throwing them out when they've been proved to be impossible.

Please inform me of the evidence that you think is inconsistent with fossils being "millions of years" old.

Original biological material.

When I went through university, I was taught that all fossils were entirely permineralized — that is, all of the creature had been replaced with rocks. That was 20 years ago and has been utterly overturned. It was probably obvious even at the time, but the old-age mindset could not conceive of organics lasting so long.

The best way, the only way, according to the story science is telling us, is that you don't generate heat at all, that all the heat that's ever going to be, already exists somewhere, in another form perhaps (fuel for example).

So the best way to generate heat is for God to create it ex nihilo. But if you need a ton of heat, and a very large heat density, I would say some form of either nuclear fusion, or if possible annihilating antimatter and matter?

What do you think?

I should have phrased the question as: What is the most efficient way to heat things?

Imagine a cold day and you want to warm your hands. You could light a fire. You could blow air into them. You could put gloves on. You could rub them together.

Which one of those would be the most efficient method — ie, the method that converts the greatest proportion of the energy expended into heat in the hands?

Lighting a fire might seem like the most helpful option, but the energy budget (collecting fuel, arranging the burn, heat energy lost to the environment) makes it an inefficient hand warmer. Something in the order of 1 percent of the heat generated would go to that specific task.

You could blow on your hands, but that's putting little actual heat into your hands. In fact it's doing a poor job of what gloves do in that it reduces the rate of heat transfer from your hands to the environment.

As you might have guessed, rubbing your hands together is the most efficient way to generate heat in them. A little energy lost to sound, but something like 80 percent of that kinetic energy is going into hand heating.

Same thing with melting a planet. The most efficient means of melting it is to rub it against itself.

Take two bricks and rub them together. You get hot bricks pretty quick. Put more pressure on them and you can create lots of sparks.

Now imagine those two bricks 100km below the Earth's surface. The pressure is so intense even at that relatively shallow depth that were the bricks to move at all against each other, they would melt.

So to melt a planet, move all of its internals relative to each other. Pressure and friction will do the rest.

Now you're asking how all that movement could be achieved, right? Easy. Right now the gravitational center of the Earth is, well, at the center of the Earth.

But, were there to be a big enough hole dug — something akin to an ocean basin would be enough, depending on its profile — the gravitational center would move. Move the center enough and all the rocks start moving relative to each other toward the new gravitational center. Basically, planets want to be round. If you put a big enough hole in one, it will morph back into a sphere.

And this isn't only rocks at a piddly 100km deep. Rocks at the Earth's center would move. At that depth, they don't melt. Because of the insane pressure, they turn into plasma with even the tiniest shake.

Now for the bad news:

This process has actually started with the flood acting upon a planet that was probably entirely rocky (no molten core, no significant radioactivity). The Bible describes the fountains of the deep. They tore up great holes in the Earth (along with hydroplate action).

We are sitting on a planet that is doomed to an end in which the elements will be melted. You can feel the process in action. Every earthquake is a reminder that material inside the planet is moving to a new center. And as it does, it is melting.

The physics of this are undeniable. The conservation of angular momentum as the rotation of the Earth increases is irrefutable evidence that the planet is shrinking. The only way it's shrinking is if the center is increasing in density. At the pressures of the Earth's center, melted rock is more dense than its parent material.

Now, try telling that story to a geologist and watch as his dedication to a godless reality trumps his professed adherence to a scientific philosophy.

Now the good news:

The truth is that only by starting with a commitment to our Creator can we ever hope to arrive at a clear understanding of what the rocks are telling us.

The Bible allows us insights that others will deny regardless of the evidence, but above all, Jesus has promised us that despite the rapidly approaching end, He has it all under control.

 

[Clete]

I'll concede that they are very similar — perhaps indistinguishable — when all we can do is talk about them.

Aye, that's the goal. But reaching the goal has prerequisites that neither science nor philosophy can provide.

That's a very philosophical statement you just made!

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

"I am the way, the truth and the life."

Ka mea a Ihu: "Ko ahau te huarahi, te pono, te ora."

I'm not sure what you mean. I understand that any use of sound reason tacitly concedes the existence of God but that's a far cry from "the fear of the Lord", right? There are a great many scientific advancements that have been made by people who don't even believe God exists, never mind have any fear of Him. Plato and Aristotle certainly had no understanding of the God who created them but the whole field of philosophy as we know it owes its very existence to them both.

Additionally, one cannot fear a thing without a knowledge of that thing and the threat it represents to one's safety. In other words, the fear (i.e. respect) of God is a rational reaction to the truth concerning Him and your position under the influence of His authority and power. Or put in fewer words, the fear of God is philosophy.

 

[Stripe]

That's a very philosophical statement you just made!

Guilty!

I'm not sure what you mean.

To arrive at truthful conclusions requires a willingness to accept the truth.

I understand that any use of sound reason tacitly concedes the existence of God but that's a far cry from "the fear of the Lord", right?

They are similar concepts in some respects. I see them this way:

Presupposionalism is a purely philosophical notion. Fear of the Lord requires a sense of the relationship between us and the Almighty.

There are a great many scientific advancements that have been made by people who don't even believe God exists, never mind have any fear of Him. Plato and Aristotle certainly had no understanding of the God who created them but the whole field of philosophy as we know it owes its very existence to them both.

If they were long-lived, what would they believe today? Darwinism? Big bang theory? Or God's word?

 

[Clete]

Guilty!


To arrive at truthful conclusions requires a willingness to accept the truth.

You keep saying things that could mean more than one thing and that I agree with if you mean it one way and that I disagree with if you mean it another way.

I want to avoid talking past one another and so can you unpack that sentence some for me? How would what you're saying there manifest itself in real life?

They are similar concepts in some respects. I see them this way:

Presupposionalism is a purely philosophical notion. Fear of the Lord requires a sense of the relationship between us and the Almighty.

I would say that the concept of wisdom qualifies as a purely philosophical notion. In fact, any pursuit of truth is a philosophical pursuit, especially if that pursuit has as its goal the understanding of not only what the truth is but why (i.e. wisdom).

If they were long-lived, what would they believe today? Darwinism? Big bang theory? Or God's word?

I see no evidence that people trend toward righteousness the longer they live so I'd say God's word is the least likely of the three.

I suspect, however, that you weren't asking me that for a direct answer. It seem like you were making a rhetorical point which I must admit escapes me.

 

[Stripe]

You keep saying things that could mean more than one thing and that I agree with if you mean it one way and that I disagree with if you mean it another way.
I want to avoid talking past one another and so can you unpack that sentence some for me? How would what you're saying there manifest itself in real life?

Hmmm. Good question.

It's difficult to express what I'm thinking with an example, which might mean I'm thinking about this too much.

Let me think on it.

I suspect, however, that you weren't asking me that for a direct answer. It seem like you were making a rhetorical point which I must admit escapes me.

Yeah.

The rhetoric I was trying to get across is that they can be right on things that do not show them that they are wrong about God.

 

[Clete]

Hmmm. Good question.

It's difficult to express what I'm thinking with an example, which might mean I'm thinking about this too much.

Let me think on it.

Yeah.

The rhetoric I was trying to get across is that they can be right on things that do not show them that they are wrong about God.

Oh well, I agree with that for sure. Half an hour on this website alone would provide all the proof of that anyone would ever need.

That doesn't make it something other than philosophical though. Like with any line of thinking, we are susceptible to error at any point along the line. In addition to just plain old fashioned errors and honest mistakes, there are also hidden presuppositions that we can be completely unaware that we are accepting, not to mention the constant threats of confirmation bias and paradigm blindness that it seems are waiting behind every philosophical bush. But regardless of the many pitfalls one can fall into along the way, the fact remains that sound reason is the only tool we have with which to learn anything, including the fact that we've made an error in our reasoning.

This is the reason science, real science, doesn't present any threat to the Christian worldview. The honest Christian isn't interested in believing fairy tales or any other kind of falsehood. We do not believe for belief's sake nor do we advocate blind faith. In fact, real science is based squarely on, and is a natural outgrowth of, the Christian worldview. Whether a particular person acknowledges that or is even ever made aware of it, doesn't make the truth of it go away, nor does his unwillingness to accept, or even see, the theological implications of his empirical, mathematical or theoretical work.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

That doesn't make it something other than philosophical though.

Oh. I'm not trying to make any strong distinction between philosophy and science.

Like with any line of thinking, we are susceptible to error at any point along the line. In addition to just plain old fashioned errors and honest mistakes, there are also hidden presuppositions that we can be completely unaware that we are accepting, not to mention the constant threats of confirmation bias and paradigm blindness that is seems are waiting behind every philosophical bush. But regardless of the many pitfalls one can fall into along the way, the fact remains that sound reason is the only tool we have with which to learn anything, including the fact that we've made an error in our reasoning.

Yep. I think that the presuppositional approach is the best one, especially when it comes to helping people assess their own beliefs.

Trying to flesh out what I was trying to express a bit better with those bible quotes, I would say that I think those verses are a "spiritual" expression of the presup approach. Not that they are exactly equivalent, but they are the best I can find, along with the style of the Bible, which says: "God exists, you're a fool if you don't believe it. Deal with it."

I'm paraphrasing.

Perhaps I'm just looking too hard for the approach I've adopted to be in the Bible somewhere.

This is the reason science, real science, doesn't present any threat to the Christian worldview. The honest Christian isn't interested in believing fairy tales or any other kind of falsehood. We do not believe for belief's sake nor do we advocate blind faith. In fact, real science is based squarely on, and is a natural outgrowth of, the Christian worldview. Whether a particular person acknowledges that or is even ever made aware of it, doesn't make the truth of it go away, nor does his unwillingness to accept, or even see, the theological implications of his empirical, mathematical or theoretical work.

Yeah. I hate it when people use the word "science" as if it automatically excluded God's word.

 

[Right Divider]

Yeah. I hate it when people use the word "science" as if it automatically excluded God's word.

Evolutionists (particularly of the atheist variety) always try to redefine terms to slant the playing field in their favor. For example, they try to redefine "evolution" to simply mean "change". Or "science" to mean "materialistic science". It's incredibly dishonest, but that's the way that they roll.