Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

[o_mlly]

It is disingenuous to say Christians rely upon "God did it" when they can't explain how something happened. Scientists simply ignore things that contradict their beliefs by saying, "We don't have enough information."

Sometimes. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. If only the scientist would plead ignorance in the absence of observable evidence instead of outrageous speculation, ie., Origin of Species. Darwin never observed that which he claims, nor have any of his later toadies.

They conveniently never observed and make an unfalsifiable claim for speciation (never defined adequately): after a zillion or so microevolutions (which no one disputes), magically we have a speciation event (whatever that ambiguous word means).

 

[Mountainmike]

Which of Darwin's points do you think have been falsified? You should probably know that most YE creationist organizations now admit that all of them are facts. Let us know what you think.

What do you think "falsification" means in science? I suspect you're not very clear on that.


True. Science is a method that cannot assess the supernatural.

Nothing to do with what I think.
all to do with what Darwin states as falsification Criterion. Argue with him not me.

As for “facts” - understand what Darwin did.
He extrapolated a conjecture from limited scope and observation in his time.

None of it is “ fact” outside his evidence set, or , observation window in space and tIme.
Just as ohms law is an experimental law based on limited observation.
You use the word fact as wrongly as Dawkins did.
i suspect you are “ not very clear” on that.
You have no idea. so spare the insults. Play the ball not man.

 

[Jipsah]

In the end, it all comes down to faith. Faith in God or faith in science. The question is where are you placing your faith?

I assume that, based your dichotomy there, that you'd prefer to fly on an airplane based on Biblical aeronautical principles rather than scientific ones. Oh, wait...

The fact is that this "either science of the Bible nonsense is just that, nonsense. Science and Scripture are talking about two different things, as anyone who isn't busy thumping a tub for some arguing point or the other should know full well. What does the Binble have to say about Science? Nothing. What does science have to say about God? Nothing. Conflating the two is, at best, ridiculous.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nothing to do with what I think.
all to do with what Darwin states as falsification Criterion.

You said they falsify Darwin. I asked you which of Darwin's points you think they falsify. As you know, most creationist organizations now admit that Darwin's points are factual. So we'd like to see which of those points you think are falsified.

And show us where Darwin discussed "falsification" of scientific theories. You really don't have anything, do you?

As for “facts” - understand what Darwin did.

He formulated a theory with several points. Which of them do you think has been "falsified?" If you have no idea what his points are, ask and I'll show you. Otherwise, let us know which of them have been falsified.

He extrapolated a conjecture from limited scope and observation in his time.

Technically, a scientific idea based on observation is a hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a settled theory when it's predictions are repeatedly verified by evidence. Which of his predictions (those points I mentioned) have not been subsequently verified by evidence?

Just as ohms law is an experimental law based on limited observation.

Here, you're confusing scientific law with scientific theory. What do you think the difference is between the two?

What do you think a scientific fact is?

You have no idea.

So spare the insults. Play the ball not man. Tell us what you think about those things, and we'll go for there.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sometimes. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. If only the scientist would plead ignorance in the absence of observable evidence instead of outrageous speculation, ie., Origin of Species.

Darwin observed living things, including incipient species and formulated a hypothesis as to how it worked. The theory has been repeatedly tested and it's predictions have been verified by evidence. I was surprised to learn that most creationist organizations now admit that Darwin's points are facts.

Darwin never observed that which he claims, nor have any of his later toadies.

AIG, for example now readily admits that Darwin was right about speciation, and even evolution of higher taxa. Since speciation has been observed, they can hardly deny the fact.

They conveniently never observed and make an unfalsifiable claim for speciation (never defined adequately):

That's a huge problem for creationism. If there was no speciation, we'd see nice neat divisions between species. But as Darwin pointed out, we see all sorts of intermediate steps between species. This is an unsolvable problem for creationists, but a prediction of evolutionary theory.

after a zillion or so microevolutions (which no one disputes), magically we have a speciation event (whatever that ambiguous word means).

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time....Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

They retreated a few steps, because there was no point in denying something directly observed to happen.

 

[HarleyER]

That is the problem with all this dialogue.

You have a false dichotomy Faith in God OR science. Chalk and cheese.
God is a faith. Science is a process and a model.

It is never appropriate to say "God did this" in a scientific discussion because you have no test for "God ness"
But that does not mean that either God did not do it, or that evidence implies God did it.
Science is testing what you observe and putting it into a pattern if evidence shows a pattern.

A one of event does not fit in a pattern. Science little to say.

But for avoidance of doubt neither can science say "life came from abiogenesis". There is no observation it happened, no process for it, no experiment that can be conducted.
Scientists can say "they believe life came from established processes, but they have not a shred of evidence it did"

Too often scientists go way beyond the perimeter of science to make claims that science can never support.
They believe in scientism. They are not making science statements when they do.

The best you can say is there is evidence of a core dogman of christianity, that science is unlikely ever to explain because it breaks all the core tenets of established science. I name for example eucharistic miracles in which flesh became bread in a manner way beyond the ability of science to understand let alone reprocude. And to have done multiple times.

Incidentally falsifying darwin by his own falsification criterion.
But you cannot claim by science God did it, only by belief.


I speak as scientist AND christian.

"Science is testing what you observe and putting it into a pattern if evidence shows a pattern."

When scientists can recreate evolution, please let me know. That is the problem with compartamentalizing science and God. Science over here. God over there. It might fit your paradigm but God is over science and sometimes He decides that He's going to walk on water even though science says it is impossible.

And, btw, I'm so tired of hearing people make claims that science is "based on evidence". There have been PLENTY of times when scientists were wrong. While the more harder science might be based on evidence, the fact is that most scientific research is tainted by scientists that either want/need funding, or they have an agenda. I would have thought that the Covid fiasco would have exposed just how bias scienctists can be when they really don't want to offend or are directed to say what politicians want them to say.

As a Christian you should know that man is basically sinful. Evil lurks in our hearts. So one would think this would include scientists.

 

[HarleyER]

I assume that, based your dichotomy there, that you'd prefer to fly on an airplane based on Biblical aeronautical principles rather than scientific ones. Oh, wait...

The fact is that this "either science of the Bible nonsense is just that, nonsense. Science and Scripture are talking about two different things, as anyone who isn't busy thumping a tub for some arguing point or the other should know full well. What does the Binble have to say about Science? Nothing. What does science have to say about God? Nothing. Conflating the two is, at best, ridiculous.

There is a vast difference between relying upon a scientist who says "This airplane is safe to fly in." verses a scientist who says, "Take my word for it, we all crawled out of some primorial soup." Of course, then again, how likely are you to sit next to the rear door in a 737 Boeing based upon what scientists tell you?

Science will never explain man's thrist for a moral code, right verse wrong. Isn't this what Psychology is all about? Isn't that a science?

If you want to be specific, I'd like for a biologist to tell me how life can spring from non-life. And that has nothing to do with God.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge? - Apologetics Press

Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

apologeticspress.org

When a naturalist encounters a scientific challenge he cannot explain naturally, he cannot claim a supernatural explanation to his problem without contradicting his belief in naturalism. Having examined sufficient evidence to be a supernaturalist, a biblical creationist does have the option of claiming a supernatural explanation, but when is it appropriate to do so?

Of course, the most obvious time that it is appropriate to say “God did it” as a response to a proposed scientific difficulty with Creation is when the Bible explicitly says He did something. From time to time, however, we might come across a new quibble, about which Scripture is silent, and to which we cannot immediately give a reasonable answer. It would be easy to respond to such quibbles by simply saying “God did it” as our answer to the problem. Such an answer, however, becomes a form of the “God of the Gaps” argument, where God is inserted to solve a problem (or as proof that God must exist in order for the problem to be solved).

I consider the claim for "dark matter" to be the scientists equivalent of "God did it."

 

[Reasonably Sane]

There is a vast difference between relying upon a scientist who says "This airplane is safe to fly in." verses a scientist who says, "Take my word for it, we all crawled out of some primorial soup." Of course, then again, how likely are you to sit next to the rear door in a 737 Boeing based upon what scientists tell you?

Science will never explain man's thrist for a moral code, right verse wrong. Isn't this what Psychology is all about? Isn't that a science?

If you want to be specific, I'd like for a biologist to tell me how life can spring from non-life. And that has nothing to do with God.

Yup. I've said for years that science is about the search for "how", and religion is about the search for "why", and the latter is the higher pursuit.

 

[The Barbarian]

When scientists can recreate evolution, please let me know.

We see it every day in populations all over the world. You might as well ask scientists to "recreate gravity."

It might fit your paradigm but God is over science and sometimes He decides that He's going to walk on water even though science says it is impossible.

You're confusing God's rules of nature, with His ability to set them aside from time to time. He doesn't have to do that; He does it to teach us things.

And, btw, I'm so tired of hearing people make claims that science is "based on evidence". There have been PLENTY of times when scientists were wrong.

Well, let's look at particulars. Which of the points of Darwin's theory do you think have been proven wrong? Be specific. If you don't know what Darwin's points are, just say so, and I'll show them to you. What do you have?

While the more harder science might be based on evidence, the fact is that most scientific research is tainted by scientists that either want/need funding, or they have an agenda.

The cult dodge...
"Everyone who disagrees with us is LYING!!!"

Sure...

I would have thought that the Covid fiasco would have exposed just how bias scienctists can be when they really don't want to offend or are directed to say what politicians want them to say.

The scientists turned out to be right. The cults turned out to be wrong. Want to see some evidence?

Of course, then again, how likely are you to sit next to the rear door in a 737 Boeing based upon what scientists tell you?

You think scientists build airplanes? Even the engineers didn't get it wrong. The guys who built them ignored the engineer's standards. C'mon.

Science will never explain man's thrist for a moral code, right verse wrong.

Altruism has a survival value for a social species. God made humans to fit His ways. Creationists are just angry about the way He did it.

If you want to be specific, I'd like for a biologist to tell me how life can spring from non-life.

God says it did.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

The more science learns about it, the more evidence we have that God is right.

And that has nothing to do with God.

God says it does. I believe God. You should, too.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yup. I've said for years that science is about the search for "how", and religion is about the search for "why", and the latter is the higher pursuit.

Winner.

 

[HarleyER]

We see it every day in populations all over the world. You might as well ask scientists to "recreate gravity."


You're confusing God's rules of nature, with His ability to set them aside from time to time. He doesn't have to do that; He does it to teach us things.


Well, let's look at particulars. Which of the points of Darwin's theory do you think have been proven wrong? Be specific. If you don't know what Darwin's points are, just say so, and I'll show them to you. What do you have?


The cult dodge...
"Everyone who disagrees with us is LYING!!!"

Sure...


The scientists turned out to be right. The cults turned out to be wrong. Want to see some evidence?


You think scientists build airplanes? Even the engineers didn't get it wrong. The guys who built them ignored the engineer's standards. C'mon.


Altruism has a survival value for a social species. God made humans to fit His ways. Creationists are just angry about the way He did it.

God says it did.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

The more science learns about it, the more evidence we have that God is right.


God says it does. I believe God. You should, too.

Can you please explain how non-life can create life? I'm wondering if my Ford Explorer is going to turn into a poodle given enough time.

: O)

 

[The Barbarian]

Can you please explain how non-life can create life?

God says it did. That should be good enough for you. However, if you don't believe God, let's look at the evidence...

Amino acids and short proteins found in Murchison meteorite

Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RNA world hypothesis gets more confirmation:

The RNA world ‘hypothesis’ - Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

Hiroshide Saito discusses two seminal papers that provided foundational evidence for the hypothesis that RNA with both genetic information and catalytic activity had an essential role in the origin of life.

www.nature.com

Crucial chemical for life can form in conditions found on early EarthPantetheine, which helps enzymes to work and is found in every organism, can be formed by simple reactions and may have played a role in the origins of life​

Crucial chemical for life can form in conditions found on early Earth

Pantetheine, which helps enzymes to work and is found in every organism, can be formed by simple reactions and may have played a role in the origins of life

www.newscientist.com

So far, all the evidence indicates that God was right, and none of it so far, says He was wrong.

Why not just accept it His way?

I'm wondering if my Ford Explorer is going to turn into a poodle given enough time.

The amusing thing is that YE creationists actually think that's what God is talking about in Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, you were going to tell us...

(Barbarian, earlier)
Well, let's look at particulars. Which of the points of Darwin's theory do you think have been proven wrong? Be specific. If you don't know what Darwin's points are, just say so, and I'll show them to you. What do you have?

 

[HarleyER]

God says it did. That should be good enough for you. However, if you don't believe God, let's look at the evidence...

Amino acids and short proteins found in Murchison meteorite

Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RNA world hypothesis gets more confirmation:

The RNA world ‘hypothesis’ - Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

Hiroshide Saito discusses two seminal papers that provided foundational evidence for the hypothesis that RNA with both genetic information and catalytic activity had an essential role in the origin of life.

www.nature.com

Crucial chemical for life can form in conditions found on early EarthPantetheine, which helps enzymes to work and is found in every organism, can be formed by simple reactions and may have played a role in the origins of life​

Crucial chemical for life can form in conditions found on early Earth

Pantetheine, which helps enzymes to work and is found in every organism, can be formed by simple reactions and may have played a role in the origins of life

www.newscientist.com

So far, all the evidence indicates that God was right, and none of it so far, says He was wrong.

Why not just accept it His way?



The amusing thing is that YE creationists actually think that's what God is talking about in Genesis.

From one of your articles:

"Powner has spent most of his career finding ways to make biological molecules from simple chemicals in ways that could have occurred naturally. "​

Imagine that, he just found something that exist in everything. And POOF, he's right! No evidence, just that this must be the case.

Talk about bias science. It's pretty much like the human reproduction cycle. Scientists know the various ingredients of sperm, yet none of the articles I've read tells me how these chemicals are thrown together to create the life of sperm cells.

You never answered my question of whether you believe in Adam, Eve and the Garden. Nor about whether my car is going to change into a poodle.

 

[The Barbarian]

From one of your articles:

"Powner has spent most of his career finding ways to make biological molecules from simple chemicals in ways that could have occurred naturally. "

Yes, more evidence that God was right when He said life was brought forth by non-living matter.

Imagine that, he just found something that exist in everything.

You think it was just a coincidence that God made the Earth with the capacity to bring forth life as He intended?

And POOF, he's right!

As usual. God is always right.

No evidence,

As you see, that is evidence that the Earth did bring forth life.

Talk about bias science.

Science requires evidence. We're pretty one-way about that.

It's pretty much like the human reproduction cycle.

No. Not at all like that. Would you like me to show you the differences?

You never answered my question of whether you believe in Adam, Eve and the Garden.

I did. You just didn't like the answers. As I explained to you, Adam and Eve were real people who were the ancestors of all humans today. Even most creationists will admit that much. Why is a problem for you? Eden was a place wherein Adam and Eve had fellowship with God. When they lost that fellowship, Eden was closed to them.

Nor about whether my car is going to change into a poodle.

That's a creationist superstition; you'll have to take that up with them.

 

[Jipsah]

That's a creationist superstition; you'll have to take that up with them.

I had a motorcycle that devolved into simple pieces of ironmongery in the middle of US 31 one afternoon. OK, it may not have happened quite that abruptly, but I still haven't bought another Chinese bike since.

 

[The Barbarian]

I had a motorcycle that devolved into simple pieces of ironmongery in the middle of US 31 one afternoon. OK, it may not have happened quite that abruptly, but I still haven't bought another Chinese bike since.

I think creationists refer to that as "devolution."

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, more evidence that God was right when He said life was brought forth by non-living matter.

Why the passive voice?

Seems you have not only missed the complete material cause and entirely the efficient cause. Or do you believe that a soul, the animating principle, exists in and evolved from the dust? Got evidence for such a belief?

"... biological molecules from simple chemicals in ways that could have occurred naturally" is not evidence but merely wild speculation.

 

[o_mlly]

I had a motorcycle that devolved into simple pieces of ironmongery in the middle of US 31 one afternoon. OK, it may not have happened quite that abruptly, but I still haven't bought another Chinese bike since.

Entropic principle at work. Did you know that the brown bear living in the northern climates suffered the same kind of devolution? It lost its function to pigment its fur. Their fur is not white but neutral.