TE Observations

[gluadys]

How do you know that the scientists have interpreted that evidence accurately

We have better evidence for the accuracy of science than any other human study. It is public—meaning it does not require ‘gnosis’—secret, internal, subjective knowledge. It is based on sensory evidence not inner visions. It is regularly reviewed and tested by people other than the first observer. Its logic is double-checked with every review and challenged by every new observation.

We can always have serious doubt about a claim made by one individual. One individual can be hallucinatory, irrational or simply biased. But doubting the collective conclusions of thousands of scientists who scrutinize every report and every observation with a skeptical eye and have a common stance of “show me” is absurd.

That the interpretation is accurate is shown by the fact that it works and it works consistently. Find another interpretation that works better, and it will attract the allegiance of scientists.

and that no new evidence will come up in the future to prove the current acceptance of a creation over millions/billions of years?

Of course not, nor does science ever make that claim.

Do you feel that you have put your trust in science and scientists to be accurate

Not in the sense of having a religious faith. But on the grounds of looking at how science works and how theories are built to agree with observation. And, when necessary, revised to agree with new observation. And even cast aside, when new observations cannot be integrated into a revised theory.

and not be wrong in the future, however long that may be?

Of course not. No such claim is made in science. A theory, no matter how seemingly well founded, can be falsified in the future.

Note that the same does not work in reverse. There is no example of a theory falsified in the past recovering its status as a live scientific option. This is because the evidence that originally falsified it is always present in nature. So if nature has falsified a theory (e.g. that the universe or the earth was created 6,000 years ago) that falsification is permanent.

So if the current estimate of the age of the earth is wrong, that doesn’t mean the already falsified estimate of YECism will be restored to scientific favour. The new estimate will be more accurate than both the current estimate and the already falsified YEC estimate.

What if creation was no ordinary natural event either? Wouldn't then science also be irrelevant concerning creation?

Depends on whether one makes a claim of evidence for it. You can never rule out last Thursdayism, scientifically.

It also depends on what one believes about the character of God. Would the God Christians worship deliberately create a conflict between his word and his work?

 

[shernren]

Well SBG I accept that you are not arguing with me, and I understand that this is more a discussion than an argument per se. Thanks for playing your part in keeping the civility and I hope I can do my part too.

So, after all this fluff talk by me, my question would be: how do you know that when Jesus said believe in Me, He didn't also mean accept and believe by faith in what I say? Especially when He did say if one cannot believe what He has to say about earthly matters then how can one believe what He says about heavenly matters. The earthly matter here being six day creation. It just seems to me that you easily accept the resurrection because without accept it, you have no hope. But when it comes to creation as one understands it plainly, six days, you don't easily accept it but reject the six day part.

I assume that when you talk about "earthly matters and heavenly matters" you are referring to what Jesus said in John 3:12 to Nicodemus, right? I don't want to judge but I feel that your taking "earthly matters" to talk about 6-day-creation seems a bit contrived to me ... it feels disjointed from the rest of the passage. As I read it I find that these "earthly matters" are actually referring to Jesus telling Nicodemus about being born again ... is that earthly, and in what way? (You can see that I myself don't fully understand that John 3 passage; I'm not surprised that Nicodemus didn't!)

My approach to Christianity has come from a more rational, scientific point of view. In my view the Cross and the Resurrection are the center - literally the "crux" - of Christianity, and everything before Christ looked forward to the Cross and everything after Christ looked back to the Cross and forward to the ultimate consummation of the Resurrection. The significance of the Bible is that it details God's interaction with humanity - adoption, discipline and temporary rejection of His people, the inclusion by grace of the Gentiles, and above all God becoming Incarnate. So it would make nonsense of the Christian faith for stories about God becoming man to be myth - after all, God becoming man is the zenith of God's relationship with man. On the other hand, the Creation account to me serves as a backdrop for man to understand God. The historicity of the Creation account does not affect the Christian message; the historicity of the Crucifixion and Resurrection does.

To gluadys: I would agree with you in the point that science does not require a gnosis the way religion and faith seem to; however, I would add that to the public and to those who do not study science it does indeed seem like some form of gnosis is exercised by those in the scientific community. This is made worse by the fact that modern scientific discoveries are often made at the scale of the microscopic (even nanoscopic, often) and at the scale of the cosmic, and often seem deeply counterintuitive. Scientific language, method, and mathematics further obscure the fact that these scientific facts can be checked by anybody who wishes. The fact that whoever wishes to check these facts often has to make a career out of it makes the whole thing seem like some conspiracy within the ranks of academia.

Even for me, as someone who is scientifically inclined, it does seem at times like scientists say things about the universe out of subjective knowledge, secrecy and simple infallible authority. We do not see the process at work (the experimental design, the data collection and interpretation, the counter-checks, the peer reviews and editorial reviews) and instead see just the end result - point blank statements that "so-and-so says that this-and-that behaves in such-and-such a manner". Thus it is easy to forget that the process is there. For me, the recent fiasco involving the South Korean stem cell researcher has actually done something positive for science - it has shown a credible example where the process of science has shown something false.

 

[gluadys]

To gluadys: I would agree with you in the point that science does not require a gnosis the way religion and faith seem to; however, I would add that to the public and to those who do not study science it does indeed seem like some form of gnosis is exercised by those in the scientific community. This is made worse by the fact that modern scientific discoveries are often made at the scale of the microscopic (even nanoscopic, often) and at the scale of the cosmic, and often seem deeply counterintuitive. Scientific language, method, and mathematics further obscure the fact that these scientific facts can be checked by anybody who wishes. The fact that whoever wishes to check these facts often has to make a career out of it makes the whole thing seem like some conspiracy within the ranks of academia.

I know what you mean. Physics especially and cosmology, which these days are mostly a matter of advanced mathematics. I don't remember basic algebra, so there is no way I can follow what physicists are talking about. On a personal level, all I can do is trust that they know what they are talking about.

Thus it is easy to forget that the process is there.

Exactly. And it doesn't help that science classes up to undergrad levels also focus on the results more than on the process that led to the discovery and validation of these results. Science curricula really need to be re-written at all levels to put more emphasis on how science is done. Without that, it does seem that we are asked to accept the word of science on the basis of authority.

For me, the recent fiasco involving the South Korean stem cell researcher has actually done something positive for science - it has shown a credible example where the process of science has shown something false.

I agree. It shows that authority is not the last word in science. The results have to work.

 

[shernren]

I know what you mean. Physics especially and cosmology, which these days are mostly a matter of advanced mathematics. I don't remember basic algebra, so there is no way I can follow what physicists are talking about. On a personal level, all I can do is trust that they know what they are talking about.

Physics has been dominated by advanced mathematics since Newton's time, when calculus itself was advanced mathematics. It's all his fault! Sheesh.

Exactly. And it doesn't help that science classes up to undergrad levels also focus on the results more than on the process that led to the discovery and validation of these results. Science curricula really need to be re-written at all levels to put more emphasis on how science is done. Without that, it does seem that we are asked to accept the word of science on the basis of authority.

That's true. Science really should be done far more in the lab than in the classroom; it's just practicality that stops us from doing so.

 

[SBG]

Well SBG I accept that you are not arguing with me, and I understand that this is more a discussion than an argument per se. Thanks for playing your part in keeping the civility and I hope I can do my part too.

I am very glad we can just discuss without pointing fingers and say 'no..you're wrong!'

I assume that when you talk about "earthly matters and heavenly matters" you are referring to what Jesus said in John 3:12 to Nicodemus, right? I don't want to judge but I feel that your taking "earthly matters" to talk about 6-day-creation seems a bit contrived to me ... it feels disjointed from the rest of the passage. As I read it I find that these "earthly matters" are actually referring to Jesus telling Nicodemus about being born again ... is that earthly, and in what way? (You can see that I myself don't fully understand that John 3 passage; I'm not surprised that Nicodemus didn't!)

I wasn't trying to express that Jesus was specifically speaking about creation, within the context of this statement. Instead, I was taking the verse and implying that it can go much further than just being born again. Paul did this very often with the Old Testament.

An example would be where Paul talks about drinking in excess. Is the point about drinking or about not doing things in excess? Could we as easily say that Paul also meant that we shouldn't take drugs(legal ones) in excess or is it only about alchohol?

My approach to Christianity has come from a more rational, scientific point of view. In my view the Cross and the Resurrection are the center - literally the "crux" - of Christianity, and everything before Christ looked forward to the Cross and everything after Christ looked back to the Cross and forward to the ultimate consummation of the Resurrection. The significance of the Bible is that it details God's interaction with humanity - adoption, discipline and temporary rejection of His people, the inclusion by grace of the Gentiles, and above all God becoming Incarnate. So it would make nonsense of the Christian faith for stories about God becoming man to be myth - after all, God becoming man is the zenith of God's relationship with man. On the other hand, the Creation account to me serves as a backdrop for man to understand God. The historicity of the Creation account does not affect the Christian message; the historicity of the Crucifixion and Resurrection does.

I would have to disagree with you about the Creation account not affecting the Christian message. From the creation account, we understand that God created and this isn't an accidental universe. We also learn about why death is apart of life. And we learn why Jesus Christ came and died.

I find these three, especially the last one, to be incredible important to the Christian message. When preaching the Gospel, we talk about sin and the reason why God sent His only begotton Son to redeem mankind.

When Genesis was written, it was written to the people at this time. Do you think those people would understand 'six days' as six days, the type of days(a literal day) they knew from experience?

Do you think it is possible that God inspired this message that wasn't fully accurate and that God purposely led people to believe something He didn't do?

Or, do you think that when the Hebrews heard and read Genesis 1-2 that they understood six days as much longer than a literal day?

 

[gluadys]

Do you think it is possible that God inspired this message that wasn't fully accurate and that God purposely led people to believe something He didn't do?

Or, do you think that when the Hebrews heard and read Genesis 1-2 that they understood six days as much longer than a literal day?

Actually, the idea that the 6 days were much longer than 6 days predates the birth of Jesus and has nothing to do with modern science. Rabbinical scholars long ago noted that the seventh day is not closed. From this they deduced that all of human history is the seventh day. And from this they deduced that the preceding days were also on the order of about 7,000 years each. (allowing for a future human history that will include the kingdom of God on earth).

In an interesting variant of this line of thinking an 11th century rabbi made a distinction between human days (which are the current measure of time) and divine days (=1,000 years each). Human days, he concluded, could not exist until humans did, so all preceding days had to be divine days.

I will have to look up the reference and the calculations but when each day of 7,000 years is considered to be a divine day of 1,000 years, and there are 6 periods of such divine days, the end result is a universe around 13 billion years old.

Then there is an alternative interpretation as well, in which the 6 days are understood to be 6 days, but mystical days, not chronological days.

 

[SBG]

Actually, the idea that the 6 days were much longer than 6 days predates the birth of Jesus and has nothing to do with modern science. Rabbinical scholars long ago noted that the seventh day is not closed. From this they deduced that all of human history is the seventh day. And from this they deduced that the preceding days were also on the order of about 7,000 years each. (allowing for a future human history that will include the kingdom of God on earth).

In an interesting variant of this line of thinking an 11th century rabbi made a distinction between human days (which are the current measure of time) and divine days (=1,000 years each). Human days, he concluded, could not exist until humans did, so all preceding days had to be divine days.

I will have to look up the reference and the calculations but when each day of 7,000 years is considered to be a divine day of 1,000 years, and there are 6 periods of such divine days, the end result is a universe around 13 billion years old.

Then there is an alternative interpretation as well, in which the 6 days are understood to be 6 days, but mystical days, not chronological days.

I have also read about this, but it doesn't answer the question of how the Hebrews would have understood Genesis 1-3 when it was first written/told for them to read/hear.

I am not sure if you accept Scripture interpreting Scripture, but if you do, internal evidence points to Genesis 1-3 being understood as historical.

 

[gluadys]

internal evidence points to Genesis 1-3 being understood as historical.

I do not accept that such internal evidence says what you claim it does.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I am not sure if you accept Scripture interpreting Scripture, but if you do, internal evidence points to Genesis 1-3 being understood as historical.

Hmmm... I don't think I've read a book, fictional, religious text, pretty much everything but text books and how-to manuals, that haven't had internal evidences that they were being historical.



Don't you have anything better than that?

 

[SBG]

I do not accept that such internal evidence says what you claim it does.

Then we have two different points of view. I am sure that is acceptable.

 

[SBG]

Hmmm... I don't think I've read a book, fictional, religious text, pretty much everything but text books and how-to manuals, that haven't had internal evidences that they were being historical.



Don't you have anything better than that?

Actually, the Bible is not one book. It is a collection of 66 books (or more if you are Catholic) bound together and sold as one.

I am surprised that you seemed surprised that the Bible would contain how the authors understood earlier parts of the Bible.

 

[Numenor]

Then we have two different points of view. I am sure that is acceptable.

It is??? This is an important breakthrough!!

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Actually, the Bible is not one book. It is a collection of 66 books (or more if you are Catholic) bound together and sold as one.

Okay, you are one who talks about being kinder in the forum and such, so please do not insult me and treat me like an idiot. Yes, I do know that the Bible is a collection of books, in fact the very word "bible" implies multiple books. Do not assume everyone who disagrees with you is an utter idiot.

I am surprised that you seemed surprised that the Bible would contain how the authors understood earlier parts of the Bible.

Where did I act surprised? I stated that almost every other book or collections of books I have read internally give no hint that sections inside may be fictional, and that most religious texts claim that they are true internally. Since this is the case, looking externally for clues is a good way to go in finding out whether a story or such is literal or true. In looking externally I find evidence that some of the stories in the Bible may be literal and others not. I must follow the path that the Spirit leads me, it may not be the same path as the spirit has lead you, but that's how personal salvation seems to work, God leads us down paths we can handle, and for each person there seems to be differences in what one can handle. Jesus commanded us to test everything and hold onto what is good, that is what I try to do. For me at least, the YEC movement failed in the tests, so I must forsake it and hold onto what is good for myself and my relationship with God.

 

[SBG]

Okay, you are one who talks about being kinder in the forum and such, so please do not insult me and treat me like an idiot. Yes, I do know that the Bible is a collection of books, in fact the very word "bible" implies multiple books. Do not assume everyone who disagrees with you is an utter idiot.

My apologies. What I said wasn't meant for insult, but backing for what I was saying. If you look into the Church Father's writings, you will see that they refer back to each other as well and comment on how they understood what was said. That gives us an idea of how they understood what certain statements, chapters, or books were meant to be understood.

Peter quotes parts of the Old Testament and gives us an understanding how Peter, a Jew and an Apostle, understood what the OT is saying. An example is the flood account. Paul talks about how he understood Adam as a real human being.

These are important things to look at and realize how they believed what the OT was saying. I for one cannot say I am a more mature Christian or know more about Christianity than Paul or any of the Apostles. They saw Christ, the Apostles walked with Him.

I am pretty sure you will disagree with what I said and that is fine.

Where did I act surprised? I stated that almost every other book or collections of books I have read internally give no hint that sections inside may be fictional, and that most religious texts claim that they are true internally. Since this is the case, looking externally for clues is a good way to go in finding out whether a story or such is literal or true. In looking externally I find evidence that some of the stories in the Bible may be literal and others not. I must follow the path that the Spirit leads me, it may not be the same path as the spirit has lead you, but that's how personal salvation seems to work, God leads us down paths we can handle, and for each person there seems to be differences in what one can handle. Jesus commanded us to test everything and hold onto what is good, that is what I try to do. For me at least, the YEC movement failed in the tests, so I must forsake it and hold onto what is good for myself and my relationship with God.

And again, if you feel that believing a six day creation was what God did, would make you turn from following Jesus Christ (if that is what you are meaning by your last statements above) then I guess you have to do what you have to do in order to follow Him.

You do realize that if creation by six days would cause you to lose faith that creation is now a salvation issue for you. It isn't that creation by six days is needed to be believed for salvation, but rather if you did have to accept it, you may lose your faith.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

[/color]



My apologies. What I said wasn't meant for insult, but backing for what I was saying. If you look into the Church Father's writings, you will see that they refer back to each other as well and comment on how they understood what was said. That gives us an idea of how they understood what certain statements, chapters, or books were meant to be understood.



Peter quotes parts of the Old Testament and gives us an understanding how Peter, a Jew and an Apostle, understood what the OT is saying. An example is the flood account. Paul talks about how he understood Adam as a real human being.



These are important things to look at and realize how they believed what the OT was saying. I for one cannot say I am a more mature Christian or know more about Christianity than Paul or any of the Apostles. They saw Christ, the Apostles walked with Him.



I am pretty sure you will disagree with what I said and that is fine.

[sarcasm] Really, wow, I never thought of reading the Bible and other early commentaries on it, gee I guess I am stupid...



Not. [/sarcasm]



Here I asked you not to assume you were talking to an uneducated idiot and you go ahead and assume that I never thought of reading anything? Thinking that my opinion is based on ignorance because I hold a differing opinion than you is thinking that I am an idiot. Instead of asking my position on the writings of so-and-so you just assume that I never bothered reading it.



Again, if you wish to stop bad reactions to what is written by yourself, then think about how you would feel if I accused you of not reading the Bible or commentaries simply because your thought on them are different then mine. Try and place yourself in the shoes of your audience.

And again, if you feel that believing a six day creation was what God did, would make you turn from following Jesus Christ (if that is what you are meaning by your last statements above) then I guess you have to do what you have to do in order to follow Him.

You do realize that if creation by six days would cause you to lose faith that creation is now a salvation issue for you. It isn't that creation by six days is needed to be believed for salvation, but rather if you did have to accept it, you may lose your faith.

Six day literal creation is not a salvation issue for me. I have tested, prayed and read everything I could lay my hands on about the issue, and the YEC propaganda has shown itself to be bad fruit in my personal testing. If I am to do as Jesus said and cast away what is bad and hold onto what is good then YEC had to be dropped in my life. It is an issue of following Christ as close as I can, and if YECism was getting in my way it had to go.



Do not just throw a few verses or some lame AiG/ICR argument at me and assume that I never thought about them. If you do not think I have looked at something then bring it up to in a well reasoned argument, then listen to what I have to say about it and let's discuss this like peers, not like I am inferior to you and your intellect.