A Creationist Speaks on the Nature of Science

[Punchy]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

Even if young earth creationism is false, it seems to at least be logically consistent.

Peace.

 

[Xaero]

No chance, it's theologically inconsistent because of a deceiving god who created evidence for common descent and an old earth.

 

[grimbly]

Even if young earth creationism is false, it seems to at least be logically consistent

Well it's nice to see that Johnny-boy is expanding his horizons from just scamming folks in his web articles and books to now flim-flamming them on video. So maybe Jonathon could pry himself away from his very important work of spreading ignorance to the masses and fly to California and visit this REAL scientist at CalTech and tell him that he's not doing real science. This would be interesting. Hey maybe he can visit with Kerr Metric and tell him the same thing too.

Caltech scientist sees rare `star quake'
By Elise Kleeman, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/07/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT



PASADENA - Magnetars are among the rarest objects in the universe. And the oddest.
The collapsed remnants of enormous stars, they have a magnetic field about a million-billion times as strong as Earth's. Though they weigh more than 300,000 times as much as our planet, they are only about 12 miles across.
Astronomers have only discovered 13 magnetars.
It was a stroke of luck, then, that Caltech astrophysicist Michael Muno happened to be watching when the Westerlund 1 magnetar experienced a sudden "star quake."
Only five days earlier, everything had appeared normal when Muno and his colleagues were watching the magnetar, a type of neutron star.
Astronomers detect magnetars by the beam of X-rays they emit. The beam rotates with the star, scanning across the Earth like a lighthouse beacon.
On Sept. 16, the dead star - one of the dimmer magnetars scientists have detected - was quietly rotating once every 10.5 seconds.
But Sept. 21, while Muno and his colleagues had satellite observatories trained once again on Westerlund 1, that all changed. "There was a sudden burst lasting not even a second that was 100,000 times brighter, and then it settled into a state that was 100 times brighter than before," Muno said. "It's been like that since."

As well as increasing in brightness, the magnetar suddenly sprouted two new beams of X-rays and sped up 0.001 percent.
"A change by one part in 10,000 might sound small, but it is actually a huge jump in the rate of spin for such a heavy, compact object," wrote University of Texas at Austin astrophysicist Robert Duncan in an e-mail.
"All these observations, and others by Muno et al, provide fascinating clues about the physics of magnetars," said Duncan, one of the first to theorize about magnetars' existence.
Astrophysicists still aren't sure what causes these stellar outbursts, but think it might be tied to the tug of war between the magnetar's magnetic field and its crusty exterior, Muno said.
For a while, the crust can resist as the magnetic field tries to pull in different directions, he said, but eventually it succumbs and jerks into a new alignment.
Only by analyzing the details of such outbursts will astrophysicists be able to put their theories to the test, however.
"(Muno and his colleagues) have certainly give the theorists a lot to think about," Duncan wrote.
Understanding magnetar dynamics could also provide physicists important clues about matter in extreme conditions.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_5615068

 

[Punchy]

In this article, AiG discusses what we are talking about:

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articl...ence/24526/p1/

 

[Deamiter]

In this article, AiG discusses what we are talking about:

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articl...ence/24526/p1/

At Crossrhythms.co.uk?!?

I don't find this logically consistant at all. Based on the evidence we have found in the past, we can predict what evidence OF the past we will find in the future. It doesn't at all follow that just because we can't repeat an event, we cant make predictions about what evidence that event will have left and then test those predictions to potentially falsify our theory.

 

[Mallon]

Sarfati is wrong for the simple reason that ALL observations are made in the past.
It takes time for light or sound waves to travel some distance, even if only a few millionths of a second. It also takes time for our neurons to fire and for their released action potentials to reach our brains. So we can never observe anything in real-time, even in theory.

Put it this way: It takes 1.3 seconds for reflected light from the moon to reach the earth. It takes about 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the earth. And it takes about 80 minutes for reflected light from Saturn to reach the earth. So where should we draw the line with regards to which observations are scientific and which are not? There's a question I don't think Sarfati has an answer for. He should stick to chess.

 

[shernren]

Cross-posting from a TE thread that has veered in this direction:

The way our brain perceives time is monumentally screwed-up. An interesting experiment (though I can't find the primary source, or even remember the secondary source I got it from) is to take a green LED and a red LED, mount them on a card a small but reasonable distance apart, and rig the green LED to light a split second after the red LED. If you rig it right, an observer will see a bright spot migrate across the card - and the spot won't change color when it reaches the other end, it changes color in the middle. This suggests that the visual cortex receives the red spot at one end, the green spot at the other, makes the interpretation that it must have changed halfway, and then only sends the result back to the cerebral cortex where the observer consciously observes the spot changing halfway. A similar experiment involving the sense of touch is known as the cutaneous rabbit.

While this isn't generally an issue for creationism at large, I feel that it places enormous strain on AiG's "operational vs. origins science" distinction, which is part of creationism's schism in science I noted earlier. If "origins" science is "unreliable" because it happened in the past, so is "operational" science. It doesn't take 500 million years of intervening time to screw up the evidence; 500 milliseconds will do it, and if you want to admit defeat because of that, you might as well say nothing is real!

 

[Punchy]

What about the argument that, since God was the only witness to the events, we should believe His written word?

 

[Assyrian]

God knows how the world will end too, but it doesn't make the book of Revelation literal.

 

[Punchy]

I'm not a young earther, but I understand that people usually don't believe seemingly crazy things without having real reasons.

 

[Deamiter]

I'm not a young earther, but I understand that people usually don't believe seemingly crazy things without have real reasons.

Most things that seem crazy to one makes perfect sense from a different point of view or a different worldview. Even the 'craziest' conspiracy theory nut makes perfect sense out of their own ideas. Though I suppose that was what you were saying too.

The most extreme (as I don't think YEC is particularly crazy either) literalist position is based solely on the assertion that God would have written Genesis 1 and 2 factually therefore they must be factual. If I thought that were true, I would be YEC myself! I do try very hard to avoid assumptions or at the least to test them continuously which is why YEC didn't stick long in my beliefs -- after I was exposed to AIG by high-school peers, I found a whole lot of sense in the YEC position. It was only later when I started testing the assumptions and seeking out sources for the evidence behind AiG's claims that I found the position untenable.

If somebody assumes that Genesis 1 must be factual to be truthful, and also assumes that any other source of truth is secondary to the Bible, then there is almost by definition, no evidence that could change their mind. That is certainly logically consistant -- but the argument that there is some fundemental separation between experiments we can repeat to verify predictions and theories that only predict what evidence we should find of a hypothetical past event is fundimentally flawed and logically inconsistant. I find many YEC arguments like this to be logically flawed, but since a YEC generally assumes that truth in the Bible trumps any other source of truth (as I think I do as well*) AND assumes that Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be true if not factual, any further discussion of why they hold their position is unnecessary as any secondary point that we might disprove is really irrelevant to those two main assumptions and don't touch the basis of the YEC belief.

*Note that the qualification "I think" is solely because I don't have the brainpower at the moment to think through all the ramifications of this claim. I find immense truth in the teaching of Christ and in the compilation of the Bible, but to claim it trumps all other sources of truth really depends on a solid definition of source and of truth. For example, if the Holy Spirit is a source of truth, does it trump the Bible? Is the Bible actually a source of truth to begin with as it must be interpreted (perhaps with the help of the Holy Spirit) etc... It's way too late for me, and I don't have the energy, I just didn't want to leave it looking like my faith in the teaching of Christ was tenuous or simply remove the comment and not mention that half of what I see as basic YEC assumptions is justified.

And while I'm at it, that last sentence sucks because when you talk about "half" it's usually not singular so saying "half is justified" really bugs me. Oh well -- I'm off to bed... again... now if only God will grant me sleep toonight...

 

[Punchy]

Like I said before, I am still waiting to receive Faith, Form and Time by Kurt Wise. Hopefully, this will provide a balanced view of the young earth creationist position.

 

[ArcticFox]

When the Bible is interpreted allegorically, and this line of interpretation is open to any aspect of the Bible, then it ceases to be useful for any purposes other than nice stories that we might learn a lesson from.

If one is unwilling to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible in Genesis 1-3, perhaps one would accept Romans 5? If both are labeled allegorical (contrary to the nature of the writings and the way the authors wrote), there is no hope for useful discussion; further discussion will only press more Scripture into the "allegorical" category and damage the ability of others to learn from it.

I thank God for his sovereign promise that his Word would not return to him empty; were it not for his sovereign power, the Word would indeed be rendered useless and void at every turn by this world and its crooked ways.

 

[Punchy]

Must a literal interpretation of the Bible require a 6000-year-old universe?

 

[shernren]

When the Bible is interpreted allegorically, and this line of interpretation is open to any aspect of the Bible, then it ceases to be useful for any purposes other than nice stories that we might learn a lesson from.
...
I thank God for his sovereign promise that his Word would not return to him empty; were it not for his sovereign power, the Word would indeed be rendered useless and void at every turn by this world and its crooked ways.

I've always found it strange how YECs think stories are worthless. How do you know that our Bible passages aren't precisely that: nice stories that we might learn a lesson from?

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:14-17 NIV)

Are nice stories useful for teaching? Definitely.
Are nice stories useful for rebuking and correcting? Definitely.
Are nice stories useful for training in righteousness? Definitely.

If nice stories couldn't do these things all the time, why would Jesus pepper the Gospels chock-full of nice (and not so nice) stories? Suppose you had a Christian who thinks that the Parable of the Prodigal Son was just a nice story to learn a lesson from, and you had another Christian who thinks that the Parable of the Prodigal Son literally and historically happened. Would you say that the second Christian has gained more from it than the first Christian? Certainly not! A metaphorical interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son loses no clout to a historical-literal interpretation of it (and the parable itself is never explicitly labeled a parable, being reported in straight narrative).

For what have we lost from interpreting Genesis 1 as a story? Absolutely nothing. No TE here doubts that God created the universe, that He did it in sovereignty and power and love, that humanity is made in the divine image and thus worthy of respect, and that Genesis 1 is any less part of the Bible for being a powerful story. And our disagreements about the age of the earth and the possibility of evolution with YECs are just factoids of no theological significance. Would God be any different to you if He creates in ten days instead of six, or fifty million or thirteen billion years ago instead of two thousand? Do you add a new attribute of God onto the long list the theologians have constructed when you discover that He has never used evolution to create any new kinds (whatever those are)? Does runaway subduction tell you anything about God's mercy, or the white hole theory anything about His love? No wonder Cardinal Newman said of Paley's "physical theology":

I say Physical Theology cannot, from the nature of the case, tell us one word about Christianity proper; it cannot be Christian, in any true sense, at all:—and from this plain reason, because it is derived from informations which existed just as they are now, before man was created, and Adam fell. How can that be a real substantive Theology, though it takes the name, which is but an abstraction, a particular aspect of the whole truth, and is dumb almost as regards the moral attributes of the Creator, and utterly so as regards the evangelical?​

Your literal-historical interpretation of Genesis 1 does not tell us one word about Christianity proper - it makes interesting claims about the earth, the universe, life, and man, but not a peep about God that has not already been assumed. So we don't have anything to lose in rejecting it. The Bible has never been crippled by reading it as a good story, for a good story will edify a man more than a thousand scientific beliefs.

If one is unwilling to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible in Genesis 1-3, perhaps one would accept Romans 5? If both are labeled allegorical (contrary to the nature of the writings and the way the authors wrote), there is no hope for useful discussion; further discussion will only press more Scripture into the "allegorical" category and damage the ability of others to learn from it.

And yet evolution has no quarrel with Romans 5 - no TE here denies that all sin in Adam and live in Christ.

 

[Assyrian]

If one is unwilling to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible in Genesis 1-3, perhaps one would accept Romans 5? If both are labeled allegorical (contrary to the nature of the writings and the way the authors wrote), there is no hope for useful discussion; further discussion will only press more Scripture into the "allegorical" category and damage the ability of others to learn from it.

Paul's description of Adam as a 'figure' in verse 14 seems to say otherwise.

 

[gluadys]

No wonder Cardinal Newman said of Paley's "physical theology":

I say Physical Theology cannot, from the nature of the case, tell us one word about Christianity proper; it cannot be Christian, in any true sense, at all:—and from this plain reason, because it is derived from informations which existed just as they are now, before man was created, and Adam fell. How can that be a real substantive Theology, though it takes the name, which is but an abstraction, a particular aspect of the whole truth, and is dumb almost as regards the moral attributes of the Creator, and utterly so as regards the evangelical?​

Your literal-historical interpretation of Genesis 1 does not tell us one word about Christianity proper - it makes interesting claims about the earth, the universe, life, and man, but not a peep about God that has not already been assumed. So we don't have anything to lose in rejecting it. The Bible has never been crippled by reading it as a good story, for a good story will edify a man more than a thousand scientific beliefs.

And this is exactly why nature has traditionally been called "general revelation"--because it is a revelation to all people irrespective of their particular faith. It is not specifically Christian. Anything specifically proper to Christianity requires the special revelation of Christ.

But special revelation does not cancel out or trump general revelation. Both are from God, both are true, both serve their own purpose. The problem arises when we try to make special revelation do the job of general revelation as well (or vice versa).

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

What about the argument that, since God was the only witness to the events, we should believe His written word?

I agree with that. Our biggest problem with us humans is that not all of us trust the Lord Almighty. We put to much concern on our own understanding. Anything above our understanding is God's wisdom and knowledge. Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder talks more about this in his book, The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth. He is also the author of The Science of God.

 

[gluadys]

When the Bible is interpreted allegorically, and this line of interpretation is open to any aspect of the Bible, then it ceases to be useful for any purposes other than nice stories that we might learn a lesson from.

So for the 1500 years of Christian history when allegory was the preferred method of interpreting scripture and literal meanings were considered at best unimportant, millions of Christians found the Bible useless?

Sorry, but all you are stating is a baseless prejudice against allegorical interpretation.

If one is unwilling to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible in Genesis 1-3, perhaps one would accept Romans 5? If both are labeled allegorical (contrary to the nature of the writings and the way the authors wrote), there is no hope for useful discussion; further discussion will only press more Scripture into the "allegorical" category and damage the ability of others to learn from it.

Actually, I find Romans 5 to be one of the most allegorical (or more accurately "typological") passages in Paul's writings. And one of the most profound teachings of scripture.

There is nothing in the nature of the writings themselves which labels the passage literal or allegorical. Grammar does not give us that insight.

And, again, it is mere prejudice which says that one's ability to learn from scripture is damaged by allegorical interpretation. You may personally denigrate allegory and refuse to learn from it, but you need not project this weakness onto others.

I thank God for his sovereign promise that his Word would not return to him empty; were it not for his sovereign power, the Word would indeed be rendered useless and void at every turn by this world and its crooked ways.

In this I will join you. I only dispute that the scriptures must be interpreted literally for God's Word to have power. Symbol, metaphor, myth, story and allegory are also words of power through which God's sovereignty may be expressed, and often is expressed.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If I may play Devil's Advocate (no pun intedned) for a moment...

When the Bible is interpreted allegorically, and this line of interpretation is open to any aspect of the Bible, then it ceases to be useful for any purposes other than nice stories that we might learn a lesson from.

... What's wrong with stories we can learn a lesson from? Christ Himself taught in parables... it worked.

If one is unwilling to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible in Genesis 1-3, perhaps one would accept Romans 5? If both are labeled allegorical (contrary to the nature of the writings and the way the authors wrote), there is no hope for useful discussion; further discussion will only press more Scripture into the "allegorical" category and damage the ability of others to learn from it.

Except people can learn plenty from allegory... far more so than they can from history... remember those parables?

I thank God for his sovereign promise that his Word would not return to him empty; were it not for his sovereign power, the Word would indeed be rendered useless and void at every turn by this world and its crooked ways.

How is allegory crooked?