The historicity of Adam

ArmyMatt · Oct 8, 2013

truthseeker32 said:
An important question to be asked pertaining to this issue is why the Early Church Fathers believed as they did. Were they inclined to take a more literal approach to Genesis because it was revealed to be absolutely true to them, or because the ancient world in which they lived didn't offer compelling alternatives?

I think they were inclined to the literal more than we are because they spent less time contemplating the Creation, and more time in communion with the Creator. that is why someone like Elder Joseph would have had his vision. he is of that mold.

and even if you wanna get on whether or not it was a literal day or not, you have plants being created before the sun. so clearly that presents a problem with evolution.

buzuxi02 · Oct 8, 2013

truefiction1 said:
It's literature. It's not science, and not even a literal history. It's written so that children can learn the beliefs and values of their parent culture, so it is put into stories which can be understood even by the simple minds of children. But are we children in our understandings of our real origin and history? Do we need to remain as such in order to be Orthodox Christians. No. We do not.

That would depend on whether you believe those stories have some divine inspiration to them. If you do not theres probably no point to being a Christian at all.

You may be able to pass as a protestant Christian since you'd be able to legitimately (re)interpret scriptures based on the times you live in. Orthodox Christianity is based on an unchanging teaching, so if there was no fall, then there was no death wrought by that fall, and if that is the case there was never a need for a God-man to be born in order to save us from it.

rusmeister · Oct 8, 2013

SCIENCE is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an airplane even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own backyard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own backyard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a caveman like a cat in the backyard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if be finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything.

G.K.CHESTERTON: THE EVERLASTING MAN

The whole chapter is an excellent condemnation of scientism, or the worship of science, the conversion of observations we can make today into global theories that are only used to attack the faith.

Dale Ahlquist said "To argue with Chesterton is to lose", and I agree with him.

My general objection to the claims of modern science is that I CAN'T prove them. I have to accept, on faith, whatever they claim. I have to accept, on faith, that they have a million pieces of evidence I have never seen, AND both their stated conclusions, and unstated assumptions about the alleged evidence. I "know" that e=mc2 because I first believe it. And that is a process that CAN undergo experiment. But never yet has a scientist gone back in time to confirm his ideas with his own eyes. He has never seen his arbireal ancestor falling from the tree. We are to believe in "Lucy", or whoever, on the authority of the claims of scientists, and the leap of imagination from actual evidence to imaginary conclusions is never considered, because we believe in science as we believe in the teachings of the Church.

MariaRegina · Oct 8, 2013

Rus, when was this book by G.K.Chesterton published?

Was it written before or after C.S.Lewis wrote That Hideous Strength?

gurneyhalleck1 · Oct 8, 2013

If memory serves, Everlasting Man was published around 1925 or so? That Hideous Strength was 1945, 20 years later. GKC influenced Lewis tremendously. But I guess Rus would be the better guy to discuss this. I'm a "novice" of Chesterton for sure.

MariaRegina said:
Rus, when was this book by G.K.Chesterton published?

Was it written before or after C.S.Lewis wrote That Hideous Strength?

MariaRegina · Oct 8, 2013

gurneyhalleck1 said:
If memory serves, Everlasting Man was published around 1925 or so? That Hideous Strength was 1945, 20 years later. GKC influenced Lewis tremendously. But I guess Rus would be the better guy to discuss this. I'm a "novice" of Chesterton for sure.

Ah. one can see the influence of Chesterton in Lewis' That Hideous Strength, where C.S. Lewis attacks not only scientists but also academia with their NICE police.

In Obama Care we already have NICE doctor-police who record our every word during our medical interviews. All of my friends are warning others the less you tell your doctors, the better.

For example, do you realize that the three to four page medical inventory that your doctor wants you to check off once a year (yes, no, sometimes), the one that lists all those symptoms, is primarily a psychiatric inventory? If you have ever had ....they do not even want current symptoms, but symptoms from one's childhood. When the inventory is completed, medical staff simply put an overlay on it, and get a general diagnosis based solely on symptoms. Apparently psychiatrists at Kaiser helped pioneer this inventory. If you score high on the psychiatric inventory (headaches, stomach aches, hives, confusion, stuffy nose, etc.), even though your major complaint is a fever and difficulty breathing due to allergies, they would make you see a psychiatrist first. Forget that all those symptoms could mean a serious allergic reaction that may be overlooked. I am not going to fill out that inventory ever again. I may never go see my doctor again if I can help it, not when the Obama Card is tied to all a person's bank and credit cards which they can debit without your permission.

MKJ · Oct 9, 2013

rusmeister said:
G.K.CHESTERTON: THE EVERLASTING MAN

The whole chapter is an excellent condemnation of scientism, or the worship of science, the conversion of observations we can make today into global theories that are only used to attack the faith.

Dale Ahlquist said "To argue with Chesterton is to lose", and I agree with him.

My general objection to the claims of modern science is that I CAN'T prove them. I have to accept, on faith, whatever they claim. I have to accept, on faith, that they have a million pieces of evidence I have never seen, AND both their stated conclusions, and unstated assumptions about the alleged evidence. I "know" that e=mc2 because I first believe it. And that is a process that CAN undergo experiment. But never yet has a scientist gone back in time to confirm his ideas with his own eyes. He has never seen his arbireal ancestor falling from the tree. We are to believe in "Lucy", or whoever, on the authority of the claims of scientists, and the leap of imagination from actual evidence to imaginary conclusions is never considered, because we believe in science as we believe in the teachings of the Church.

Well, you could, actually, go look at the evidence if you wanted to/were in a position too. But that is a problem with all knowledge, yes? If you wish to be very strict with science in that sense, you should, to be consistent, be equally as strict with history and other subjects. If we are willing to believe that there is adaquate reason to accept the existance of Alexander the Great, it may also be reasonable to accpt the existance of atoms -I personally have never seen either.

There are certifiably limits on how things that happen in the past testable, but it is not so much so as you think. One of the most common ways to do it is to make a prediction, and then look to see if you find evidence.

As a simple example, if we had a theory of evoltion, we might predict that in the fossil record we would see a general progression from less complex to more complex forms. And in fact, that is just what they did find. This is one of the big problems creation scientists have had - their flood theories cannot really explain why the fossil record appears in the way it does.

Of course this is not a mathematical proof, but for that, you pretty much have to study math. And even then you won't always get something so clear-cut.

It is important not to misunderstand the weight we should put on the kinds of proofs offered in science. People who subscribe to scientism put too much weight on it. But too little and you simply have reduced all human knowledge that is not axiomatic to faith. At that point there is no real reason to prefer any one set of beliefs over another.

I am not sure if that is what you are trying to do, but it rather seems like it.

MKJ · Oct 9, 2013

gurneyhalleck1 said:
If memory serves, Everlasting Man was published around 1925 or so? That Hideous Strength was 1945, 20 years later. GKC influenced Lewis tremendously. But I guess Rus would be the better guy to discuss this. I'm a "novice" of Chesterton for sure.

That's the date mine has.

rusmeister · Oct 9, 2013

MariaRegina said:
Rus, when was this book by G.K.Chesterton published?

Was it written before or after C.S.Lewis wrote That Hideous Strength?

Gurney is correct. GKC died in 1936, when Lewis was just getting started. GKC influenced Lewis, not the other way around.

rusmeister · Oct 9, 2013

MKJ said:
Well, you could, actually, go look at the evidence if you wanted to/were in a position too. But that is a problem with all knowledge, yes? If you wish to be very strict with science in that sense, you should, to be consistent, be equally as strict with history and other subjects. If we are willing to believe that there is adaquate reason to accept the existance of Alexander the Great, it may also be reasonable to accpt the existance of atoms -I personally have never seen either.

There are certifiably limits on how things that happen in the past testable, but it is not so much so as you think. One of the most common ways to do it is to make a prediction, and then look to see if you find evidence.

As a simple example, if we had a theory of evoltion, we might predict that in the fossil record we would see a general progression from less complex to more complex forms. And in fact, that is just what they did find. This is one of the big problems creation scientists have had - their flood theories cannot really explain why the fossil record appears in the way it does.

Of course this is not a mathematical proof, but for that, you pretty much have to study math. And even then you won't always get something so clear-cut.

It is important not to misunderstand the weight we should put on the kinds of proofs offered in science. People who subscribe to scientism put too much weight on it. But too little and you simply have reduced all human knowledge that is not axiomatic to faith. At that point there is no real reason to prefer any one set of beliefs over another.

I am not sure if that is what you are trying to do, but it rather seems like it.

The vital difference I would point out is that with HISTORICAL evidence (written records of eyewitnesses), there is a claim that a thing was definitely witnessed. With the scientific claims regarding history - the issue at hand here, a different thing from the existence of atoms - admittedly no one was there to see any human evolution. It is conclusions based on evidence combined with assumptions. I say that the evidence can be acceptd - we certainly have bones and fossils - but that humans are fallible, and assumptions may be flawed. Our doubts about recorded history and the bases on which we accpt it are of a diffrent nature. So from that standpoint, I think the existence of Alexander better proven than human evolution- and that stems from how I understand authority and what we accept and on what basis.

But I think we should consider Chestertons words. One "post" of his is worth fifty of mine.

MariaRegina · Oct 9, 2013

rusmeister said:
Gurney is correct. GKC died in 1936, when Lewis was just getting started. GKC influenced Lewis, not the other way around.

Exactly.

MKJ · Oct 9, 2013

rusmeister said:
The vital difference I would point out is that with HISTORICAL evidence (written records of eyewitnesses), there is a claim that a thing was definitely witnessed. With the scientific claims regarding history - the issue at hand here, a different thing from the existence of atoms - admittedly no one was there to see any human evolution. It is conclusions based on evidence combined with assumptions. I say that the evidence can be acceptd - we certainly have bones and fossils - but that humans are fallible, and assumptions may be flawed. Our doubts about recorded history and the bases on which we accpt it are of a diffrent nature. So from that standpoint, I think the existence of Alexander better proven than human evolution- and that stems from how I understand authority and what we accept and on what basis.

But I think we should consider Chestertons words. One "post" of his is worth fifty of mine.

I think this is actually an instance where Chesterton is largely wrong.

It is not true there is no means of correcting the theoretical aspects of science. That would only be true if there was no real relation between data and the processes and incidents that produced the data. Which even the most ardent dualists would not say.

You also pretty much ignored what I said about the tests for such things being predictive. If the data is not in fact related to the theory tying it together, then using the theory to predict should not work. You might get some good results by chance in some cases, but that is why you ideally have a lot of tests. And you try to exclude the impossible mathematically. That is to say - you are not testing the data in this, as you seem to think, you are testing the theory - what you quite incorrectly call the assumption.

You are wrong if you think the study of history does not use similar analysis and assumptions. Most of history was, supposedly, based on someone supposedly seeing something at some time. That is not always more sure than a physical example - it can be far less so. There is a good reason the police prefer physical evidence to tell a story than witness accounts. When I was in the army, I would much prefer to base any analysis I did off of a clear physical sign than an eyewitness account - they were notoriously unreliable and often even lies.

History also, as in science, has to assume that the nature of the physical universe and time and such has not radically changed. If it has, who knows what really went on when some person said he saw Alexander the Great. There is no good reason to think that this change could have happened before recorded history began, but not after.

Remember too that real history is very rarely asking questions like "did Alexander really exist" or even things like when and where he was born. That is just the raw data - like a fossil with no meaning attached to it. The questions history is most interested in are things like how Alexander the Great influenced the history of the near east and Europe, or what were the causes of WWI, or why the relationship between England and Rome went sour. All questions not of facts we can see, but rather analysis of those facts, theoretical structures which we believe show the relationship between the facts. And of course this includes even the history we look at when we want to consider the development of the Church.

If Chesterton wants to say that scientific theories have no means of correction, he will equally have to say the same about a great deal of history. Both are corrected by how well the observed or known facts explain are explained by the evidence without leaving loose ends.

You can test them in similar ways too. If you think the Iliad might be a historical account as well as literature, you know there must be a city of Troy, and when you find it, that strengthens your theory.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Oct 9, 2013

Noah's ark. Most of the pairs were mammals. If so, would not the genetic diversity be much greater in non-ark species (those living in the water) than from just a pair?

rusmeister · Oct 9, 2013

MKJ said:
I think this is actually an instance where Chesterton is largely wrong.

It is not true there is no means of correcting the theoretical aspects of science. That would only be true if there was no real relation between data and the processes and incidents that produced the data. Which even the most ardent dualists would not say.

You also pretty much ignored what I said about the tests for such things being predictive. If the data is not in fact related to the theory tying it together, then using the theory to predict should not work. You might get some good results by chance in some cases, but that is why you ideally have a lot of tests. And you try to exclude the impossible mathematically. That is to say - you are not testing the data in this, as you seem to think, you are testing the theory - what you quite incorrectly call the assumption.

You are wrong if you think the study of history does not use similar analysis and assumptions. Most of history was, supposedly, based on someone supposedly seeing something at some time. That is not always more sure than a physical example - it can be far less so. There is a good reason the police prefer physical evidence to tell a story than witness accounts. When I was in the army, I would much prefer to base any analysis I did off of a clear physical sign than an eyewitness account - they were notoriously unreliable and often even lies.

History also, as in science, has to assume that the nature of the physical universe and time and such has not radically changed. If it has, who knows what really went on when some person said he saw Alexander the Great. There is no good reason to think that this change could have happened before recorded history began, but not after.

Remember too that real history is very rarely asking questions like "did Alexander really exist" or even things like when and where he was born. That is just the raw data - like a fossil with no meaning attached to it. The questions history is most interested in are things like how Alexander the Great influenced the history of the near east and Europe, or what were the causes of WWI, or why the relationship between England and Rome went sour. All questions not of facts we can see, but rather analysis of those facts, theoretical structures which we believe show the relationship between the facts. And of course this includes even the history we look at when we want to consider the development of the Church.

If Chesterton wants to say that scientific theories have no means of correction, he will equally have to say the same about a great deal of history. Both are corrected by how well the observed or known facts explain are explained by the evidence without leaving loose ends.

You can test them in similar ways too. If you think the Iliad might be a historical account as well as literature, you know there must be a city of Troy, and when you find it, that strengthens your theory.

What IS true, MK, is that there is no means of going back beyond history to see if scientific assumptions over large periods of time are true. it s no response to say that a theory is corrected by more theory and calculation. Calculation is a wonderful thing, but if there is an anomaly, an unknown variable anywhere along the way that you don't know about, then the calculation may be off, perhaps even wildly so. That we can observe a constant rate of radioactive decay today tells us nothing about whether it could suddenly and drastically change two hundred years later. That's where predictive science using observations today are useless. We can only test them effectively as far back as historical record goes (with the relability we assign to that), giving us, not millions, or even hundreds of thousands, and not even ten thousand years of a certaintythat can be considered infallible even only for practical purposes. Again, it is a matter of faith to accept the scientific assumptions. I can understand every calculation, every prediction and the basis for it, every method, and I can still see how they can go wrong.

When you express doubt about eyewitness accounts, a number of GKC's observations on those things come to mind, affirming why we do, as a rule, trust them. I do agree that we can, to an extent, hold reasonable doubts about history for the reasons you cite. I merely object to the insistence that we must not doubt current scientific assumptions.

And I don't see anything you say as really dealing with, let alone defeating Chesterton's observations. Especially when he speaks of going by evidence and not by experiment. For the scientist can only experiment in the here and now. There is no time machine to confirm the theory and take us back a million years to observe and experiment. Accepting that there WERE a million years is an act of faith. Not unreasonable faith, but faith, nonetheless.

ArmyMatt · Oct 10, 2013

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
Noah's ark. Most of the pairs were mammals. If so, would not the genetic diversity be much greater in non-ark species (those living in the water) than from just a pair?

only if it were purely natural

Knee V · Oct 10, 2013

ArmyMatt said:
only if it were purely natural

I'm reminded of the stable in The Last Battle.

ArmyMatt · Oct 10, 2013

knee-v said:
I'm reminded of the stable in The Last Battle.

neat way of thinking about it

MKJ · Oct 10, 2013

rusmeister said:
What IS true, MK, is that there is no means of going back beyond history to see if scientific assumptions over large periods of time are true. it s no response to say that a theory is corrected by more theory and calculation. Calculation is a wonderful thing, but if there is an anomaly, an unknown variable anywhere along the way that you don't know about, then the calculation may be off, perhaps even wildly so. That we can observe a constant rate of radioactive decay today tells us nothing about whether it could suddenly and drastically change two hundred years later. That's where predictive science using observations today are useless. We can only test them effectively as far back as historical record goes (with the relability we assign to that), giving us, not millions, or even hundreds of thousands, and not even ten thousand years of a certaintythat can be considered infallible even only for practical purposes. Again, it is a matter of faith to accept the scientific assumptions. I can understand every calculation, every prediction and the basis for it, every method, and I can still see how they can go wrong.

When you express doubt about eyewitness accounts, a number of GKC's observations on those things come to mind, affirming why we do, as a rule, trust them. I do agree that we can, to an extent, hold reasonable doubts about history for the reasons you cite. I merely object to the insistence that we must not doubt current scientific assumptions.

And I don't see anything you say as really dealing with, let alone defeating Chesterton's observations. Especially when he speaks of going by evidence and not by experiment. For the scientist can only experiment in the here and now. There is no time machine to confirm the theory and take us back a million years to observe and experiment. Accepting that there WERE a million years is an act of faith. Not unreasonable faith, but faith, nonetheless.

You are discussing several different things here - not all of which were really related to the text you posted.

First of all - all knowledge is an act of faith. That is really not something that damages the credibility of science any more than it damages my knowledge that I had a muffin for breakfast this morning.

Regarding dating techniques - Certainly it is possible that some change to the nature of the underlying laws of the universe has occurred without us knowing it, and that various radioactive dating techniques are unreliable. Because that is the kind of change that would be required for radioactive dating techniques to behave differently - you see, we understand not just what happens in those techniques, but also why it happens in the way it does - those elements are simply obeying the basic laws of physics.

A change in the underlying order of the universe has a host of problems attached to it. It could have occurred last year, and we might not even know it. The stability of the basic laws of nature, whether we understand them or not, is a pre-requisit to all of human knowledge, not just science.

THe other issue is that there are actually many different kinds of dating techniques applied to biological and geological history, not just radioactive dating - many types of dating are used to place events and develop timescales, not just one. There are chemical types of dating, dating based on geological wear and tear or the time it takes for geological events to happen, dating based on tree rings, dating based on light, dating based on relative position of elements, dating based on amino acids, and many others.

So you are suggesting either that all of these techniques have been affected in some way, that they all have at the same time in history gone wrong, and in the same ways. That seems rather incredible.

People think the dating, broadly, is fairly good, not because they have mindlessly gone along with what science gods have told them, but because the weight of evidence is very persuasive, and seems far more probably than other possible conclusions - like the laws of physics have suddenly changed, or three very different sorts of dating have gone wrong at the same time in the same way.

As far as historical observation - I have no problem accepting it is often telling us true things, or partly true things, or it is possible to know of historical events. I would never try and dissuade someone of that. But again, it always comes down to the assessment of probability, having multiple sources, how well the theories fit in with other things that are known more surely. And if you don't know the details, you are simply in no position to make any sort of assessment of those things.

My point was that knowing there are difficulties with historical reliability does absolutely nothing towards making Prof. Pedantic's theory of WWI less likely - you have to look at what he actually says and the evidence. Just like knowing there are limits to the reliability of scientific knowledge does absolutely nothing towards saying that modern cosmological theories or evolutionary theories are wrong - you have to examine the actual theories.

It seems like this is what you have tried to argue here - that the limits of reliability of human knowledge mean that any scientific theories about the past are untenable.

However, what Chesterton seems to make his main point in my reading of this passage was the idea that it is only possible to know facts, not to test theories about them, if they happened in the past, and so there is no way to Only what can be directly observed can be tested. That is simply untrue. There are tests for such things as I pointed out (and not only in science), and it seems that Chesterton may not have been aware of that. And every time that new evidence from the past comes to light, it acts to reinforce or dispute and theory we have about the past. It is possible to see this has happen on many occasions in the history of science.

Now it is interesting to note that he seems to think that there are very few actual data points for theories about development to consider - that is something that is arguably changed from his period in many cases.

In any case, as Chesterton had no particular issue with the scientific idea of evolution, it is rather funny to see him constantly brought out to beat people who also have no problem with the scientific concept of evolution.

truthseeker32 · Oct 10, 2013

Relevant:

http://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/episode/god_and_science

Skip to 10:00 for discussion of evolution.

rusmeister · Oct 10, 2013

MKJ said:
You are discussing several different things here - not all of which were really related to the text you posted.

First of all - all knowledge is an act of faith. That is really not something that damages the credibility of science any more than it damages my knowledge that I had a muffin for breakfast this morning.

Regarding dating techniques - Certainly it is possible that some change to the nature of the underlying laws of the universe has occurred without us knowing it, and that various radioactive dating techniques are unreliable. Because that is the kind of change that would be required for radioactive dating techniques to behave differently - you see, we understand not just what happens in those techniques, but also why it happens in the way it does - those elements are simply obeying the basic laws of physics.

A change in the underlying order of the universe has a host of problems attached to it. It could have occurred last year, and we might not even know it. The stability of the basic laws of nature, whether we understand them or not, is a pre-requisit to all of human knowledge, not just science.

THe other issue is that there are actually many different kinds of dating techniques applied to biological and geological history, not just radioactive dating - many types of dating are used to place events and develop timescales, not just one. There are chemical types of dating, dating based on geological wear and tear or the time it takes for geological events to happen, dating based on tree rings, dating based on light, dating based on relative position of elements, dating based on amino acids, and many others.

So you are suggesting either that all of these techniques have been affected in some way, that they all have at the same time in history gone wrong, and in the same ways. That seems rather incredible.

People think the dating, broadly, is fairly good, not because they have mindlessly gone along with what science gods have told them, but because the weight of evidence is very persuasive, and seems far more probably than other possible conclusions - like the laws of physics have suddenly changed, or three very different sorts of dating have gone wrong at the same time in the same way.

As far as historical observation - I have no problem accepting it is often telling us true things, or partly true things, or it is possible to know of historical events. I would never try and dissuade someone of that. But again, it always comes down to the assessment of probability, having multiple sources, how well the theories fit in with other things that are known more surely. And if you don't know the details, you are simply in no position to make any sort of assessment of those things.

My point was that knowing there are difficulties with historical reliability does absolutely nothing towards making Prof. Pedantic's theory of WWI less likely - you have to look at what he actually says and the evidence. Just like knowing there are limits to the reliability of scientific knowledge does absolutely nothing towards saying that modern cosmological theories or evolutionary theories are wrong - you have to examine the actual theories.

It seems like this is what you have tried to argue here - that the limits of reliability of human knowledge mean that any scientific theories about the past are untenable.

However, what Chesterton seems to make his main point in my reading of this passage was the idea that it is only possible to know facts, not to test theories about them, if they happened in the past, and so there is no way to Only what can be directly observed can be tested. That is simply untrue. There are tests for such things as I pointed out (and not only in science), and it seems that Chesterton may not have been aware of that. And every time that new evidence from the past comes to light, it acts to reinforce or dispute and theory we have about the past. It is possible to see this has happen on many occasions in the history of science.

Now it is interesting to note that he seems to think that there are very few actual data points for theories about development to consider - that is something that is arguably changed from his period in many cases.

In any case, as Chesterton had no particular issue with the scientific idea of evolution, it is rather funny to see him constantly brought out to beat people who also have no problem with the scientific concept of evolution.

I feel like we are talking past each other.
I've been saying from the beginning that the just objection of those that have doubts about the idea of the evolution of all things, including human beings, is NOT against science in general, but against the assumptions and conclusions of what is popular in science today.

When you refer to the stability of the laws of nature, I certainly agree that they are stable to our observation today. I complain about the assumption that there can be no variables that would alter the calculations and conclusions. And I do NOT say that the variable is a "going wrong"; if God began a process, that would be a turning point, the process acted on by an external Force, and it would be going right, not wrong. The person who simply continued following a calculation past that point (into an imaginary past) would be in error, though a quite understandable one.

I understand that ideas can be persuasive, but a persuasive idea can still be wrong. And that is my point - that the evidence is being INTERPRETED via assumptions and calculations. I accept the evidence. I think it can be interpreted wrongly. In the justice system it is called circumstantial evidence. It may be right - coincidentally. But it may be a drastically wrong interpretation. Just because the silhouette in my earlier example LOOKS like a murder in progress does not make it so. The curtain and light behind it are real, as are the shadows. It is the interpretation that can prove wrong, even radically, though understandably so.

And so, we may examine theories. I say that our danger is in forgetting that the theory is a theory, that it is in treating a theory like an unquestionable fact. It is not that the theory is untenable; it is that we are condemned for questioning it, and for continuing to doubt even after we have received the answers. It is a reversal of what our attitudes should be towards faith and the sciences, respectively. We are now expected to doubt our faith, but never, ever, to doubt the scientist, the new priest of our time.

And with that, I think I have largely answered the comments on Chesterton as well. The tests are still subject to interpretation of evidence based in assumptions. And that will still apply, no matter HOW many bones you find.

I have not even begun to defend the idea of special creation of man by God - as man, and not amoeba; the rejection of human evolution (and I do reject it). My only concern hitherto has been the rejection of the idea that Christians who doubt modern popular science are necessarily unreasonable; that ideas such as intelligent design CAN be intelligently held, despite the furious ridicule heaped on them by "the scientific community", (really only a percentage of vocal scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking) mostly enemies of faith.

The historicity of Adam

Regular Member

Veteran

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Well-Known Member

Reader

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Regular Member

It's phonetic.

Regular Member

Contributor

Lost in the Cosmos

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Similar threads