Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Mountainmike]

You are bringing up very similar points to a Peaceful Science post so I am posting a reply by Allen Witmer Miller, Biblical Linguist, Retired Professor & Minister which I believe fits perfectly.

"Frankly, I don’t understand your complaint. Both theists and non-theists agree that there was some point in the past when non-living ingredients (various chemical elements found in our universe) came together to produce the first living organisms. Living organisms from non-living ingredients is known as abiogenesis. The alternative is to claim that living organisms ALWAYS existed—and I don’t know anyone who believes that.​

​

So what is the disagreement? The Bible in Genesis 1:12 (NASB 1995) says, “The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind . . .” Genesis 1:24 says, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind." Thus, the Bible clearly teaches that the earth [i.e., non-living material] produced both plants and animal life. That sure sounds like abiogenesis to me.​

​

If you are objecting because “atheist” scientists (as well as scientists who happen to be agnostic and scientists who happen to be theistic and even Bible-affirming Christians) don’t happen to mention God in science textbooks and peer-reviewed journal articles, then you are simply confusing ultimate and proximate causation.​

​

The chemical elements of the planet (as in soil, water, air, and even “the dust of the ground”) combining at some time in the past to form the first living organisms is simply a summary of the proximate cause. Whether or not God was the ultimate cause is a different philosophical and theological question, not a scientific question. The ultimate cause is not a scientific question because there is no way under the scientific method to subject deities (or anything which is not a part of the matter-energy universe) to scientific testing and verification. So there is no reason for scientists (whatever their personal beliefs or non-beliefs about God) to mention God when publishing their scientific research.​

​

Science is not synonymous with philosophy. (It is a small subset of philosophy which arose as natural philosophy and eventually evolved into what became known as modern science.) I think you are confusing the two.​

​

Speaking for myself, I have no problems believing that God could create a universe where abiogenesis processes produced the first living organisms—just as Genesis 1 describes. So I have no beef with “atheist scientists” or anybody else who is trying to understand those proximate causes which, no doubt, involved the laws of chemistry and physics. Only a weak deity would be incapable of creating a universe which inevitably produced living things through natural processes, aka abiogenesis.​

​

I don’t see any conflict between the abiogenesis described in Genesis 1 and the abiogenesis being investigated by scientists. Why create an argument where none is warranted? I would be delighted if within my lifetime I could read detailed scientific descriptions of how the first living organisms came to be. The discovery of the proximate cause(s) of biological life in no way undermines philosophical/theological claims of the ultimate cause.​

​

Your position reminds me of those chemists in the era before Friedrich Wohler who insisted that scientists would never be able to synthesize a biochemical produced by a living organism. (If you are not familiar with the distinction between organic and inorganic chemistry in those days, please check it out.) They insisted that organic compounds were somehow “magical” in that only God (through the living organisms he had created) could make them. Of course, Wohler proved them wrong.​

​

It will not surprise me in the least if someday a headline reads, “Scientist produce a synthetic organism in the lab.” It certainly poses no threat to my theology—just as the synthesis of urea by Wohler posed no threat."​

You are entitled to your opinion.

Evolution will always fall short of explanation. Wonderful! Young scientists will always have much to look forward to.

What did I write about Patteson that was inaccurate or was deliberately made by vested interests? Perhaps you like his his quote that creationists often misquote him?

I also reference Kenneth Miller to an wiki article so you could get an an idea of his contributions w/o having to research him for a CF forum discussion.

You appear to have a problem with keeping things simple.

Miller is one of those who appears to believe that an abiogenesis event , kicked of an evolutionary process that ultimately accounts for all life. It is convenient, I grant you that. It is also a fudge.

I disagree because the evidence disagrees. First there is no evidence of the pathway to present cells. Don’t know is the only honest scientific answer, not is there evidence of an abiogenesis process in chemistry. And as our paleontologist noted, between there and present life is an undefined mush.

Second there is evidence of cells that appeared by other than evolution. If it can happen at all, all bets are off on where life came from.
Theists consider God can do what he likes, how he likes when he likes.
That God also loves that he has “ hidden it from the so called wise , revealed to little children”
man’s arrogance in the face of his lack of understanding is breathtaking.

in answer to your final point, The world is not simple, I cannot pretend it is so.

From past posts you don’t seem to have studied the philosophy of science.what it can say and what it can’t.
It is a blurred portal on the real world limited to our senses and what interacts with them.. We know the universe by how it reflects , obscures or irradiates. What doesn’t normally interact, can exist happily undetected. We describe it by what it normally does, nor what it “is.“ We can’t say whether it will always do what it normally does. That is just an assumption, The so called “ fundamental laws” are part of a model of the universe, not the universe itself, which to a large extent is unknowable: that’s the philosophy scientific realists need to study,

by the age of 12 I had built an oscilloscope, studied black holes, had a home chemical lab, made my own fireworks, solved differential equations. A geek , in a geek world. I lived in A world that at that time thought it “understood“ : alas the deeper I went from there, the less it makes sense . go to the depths of quantum theory , and you see the philosophical cracks. There is not a “shrinking” gap of “non explanation” in which a God can hide Because None of it is explained other than by description of what it “normally does” , which is no explanation at all.

Answer the question? What “ is” gravity? Why is gravity? When and how did gravity start?
You can answer none , you can answer only with math models of what it is normally observed to do…
And only then with “ not sure if it is valid everywhere, or why , with that model. most of the matter seems to be missing. Far off galaxies don’t rotate the way they are supposed to do.

Even the simplest bits of science are not as simple as kids are taught, or as simple as adults think.

 

[Hammster]

You make a lot of noise against science which makes zero claims about for or against any gods.

I haven’t made any noise against science, actually. My noise is against scientists who ignore God’s clear teaching in His word. They are the ones who echo the serpent in the Garden who asked “did God really say?”

 

[Hammster]

I gave you my answer why Jason Lisle fails in his capacity as a scientist when advocating YEC.
Rather than giving you the opportunity of using red herrings such as Jason Lisle in this general question, I will ask you a specific question instead.
I am a scientist who is also a Christian, am I a true Christian yes or no?

I have no idea if you are regenerated, if that’s the question. Judas spent years looking like a true Christian.

 

[Hammster]

No, people understood at their level at the time.

The statement is unambiguous.

 

[driewerf]

I haven’t made any noise against science, actually. My noise is against scientists who ignore God’s clear teaching in His word. They are the ones who echo the serpent in the Garden who asked “did God really say?”

Every scientist needs to go there where the empirical evidence leads them. Any appeal to authority, to tradition is an appeal to an antiscientific attitude.

 

[Hammster]

Every scientist needs to go there where the empirical evidence leads them. Any appeal to authority, to tradition is an appeal to an antiscientific attitude.

How did you determine that this is true?

 

[driewerf]

How did you determine that this is true?

What does this "that" refers to? What have I determined to be true?

 

[Hammster]

What does this "that" refers to? What have I determined to be true?

How have you determined that the method you says is the way to determine the truth is the actual method to use?

 

[driewerf]

How have you determined that the method you says is the way to determine the truth is the actual method to use?

First of, the scientific method is the best for understanding the physical world. It is useless for establishing “truths” everything outside the physical world, like the judiciary, economics, ethics, aesthetics and so on. So “the truth” is quite a stretch. It is useful nonetheless, since the physical world implies physics (obviously), chemistry, astronomy, biology, geology, genetics and many other sciences.
Second, you give me too much credit, Sir.
I didn’t establish the scientific method or didn’t contribute to it in the slightest. Most credit goes to Francis Bacon, with his book Novum Organum and to Karl Popper .
I hope this answered your question.

 

[Hammster]

First of, the scientific method is the best for understanding the physical world. It is useless for establishing “truths” everything outside the physical world, like the judiciary, economics, ethics, aesthetics and so on. So “the truth” is quite a stretch. It is useful nonetheless, since the physical world implies physics (obviously), chemistry, astronomy, biology, geology, genetics and many other sciences.
Second, you give me too much credit, Sir.
I didn’t establish the scientific method or didn’t contribute to it in the slightest. Most credit goes to Francis Bacon, with his book Novum Organum and to Karl Popper .
I hope this answered your question.

How do you know that the methods you use addresses these issues correctly? My point being that you make a truth claim (Every scientist needs to go there where the empirical evidence leads them), and you do so as if it’s authoritative. Are you seeing the flaw here? Let me help. You also said, “Any appeal to authority, to tradition is an appeal to an antiscientific attitude.” Your authority is the scientific method and empirical data.

 

[driewerf]

How do you know that the methods you use addresses these issues correctly?

By the results they yield.

 

[Frank Robert]

Miller is one of those who appears to believe that an abiogenesis event , kicked of an evolutionary process that ultimately accounts for all life. It is convenient, I grant you that. It is also a fudge.

I don't know if Professor Miller believes it or not but he makes as a Biblical Linguist & Minister he makes a good case that abiogenesis is biblical.

I disagree because the evidence disagrees. First there is no evidence of the pathway to present cells. Don’t know is the only honest scientific answer, not is there evidence of an abiogenesis process in chemistry. And as our paleontologist noted, between there and present life is an undefined mush.

What specific evidence disagrees with the potential for abiogenesis? You really do not understand the nature of science. That there is disagreement between scientists is a good thing because it advances science.

Second there is evidence of cells that appeared by other than evolution. If it can happen at all, all bets are off on where life came from.

There were likely many cells prior to the LUCA which were dead ends. Evolution began with the LUCA

Theists consider God can do what he likes, how he likes when he likes.

That God also loves that he has “ hidden it from the so called wise , revealed to little children”
man’s arrogance in the face of his lack of understanding is breathtaking.

God of the gaps is not science nor is it evidence against abiogenesis or evolution.

in answer to your final point, The world is not simple, I cannot pretend it is so.

No one is pretending it is.

From past posts you don’t seem to have studied the philosophy of science.what it can say and what it can’t.
It is a blurred portal on the real world limited to our senses and what interacts with them.. We know the universe by how it reflects , obscures or irradiates. What doesn’t normally interact, can exist happily undetected. We describe it by what it normally does, nor what it “is.“ We can’t say whether it will always do what it normally does. That is just an assumption, The so called “ fundamental laws” are part of a model of the universe, not the universe itself, which to a large extent is unknowable: that’s the philosophy scientific realists need to study,

Philosophy has a role in guiding science but is not science nor can it predict what scientific research will produce in the future.

Quoting Miller:
"Whether or not God was the ultimate cause is a different philosophical and theological question, not a scientific question."

by the age of 12 I had built an oscilloscope, studied black holes, had a home chemical lab, made my own fireworks, solved differential equations. A geek , in a geek world. I lived in A world that at that time thought it “understood“ : alas the deeper I went from there, the less it makes sense . go to the depths of quantum theory , and you see the philosophical cracks. There is not a “shrinking” gap of “non explanation” in which a God can hide Because None of it is explained other than by description of what it “normally does” , which is no explanation at all.

Answer the question? What “ is” gravity? Why is gravity? When and how did gravity start?
You can answer none , you can answer only with math models of what it is normally observed to do…
And only then with “ not sure if it is valid everywhere, or why , with that model. most of the matter seems to be missing. Far off galaxies don’t rotate the way they are supposed to do.

Even the simplest bits of science are not as simple as kids are taught, or as simple as adults think.

I have no idea what your point is but so far in our exchange your only agreement made against abiogenesis is "science does not know everything" therefore "God of the gaps." Reminds me of the ancient Greeks who did not understand lighting therefor Zeus.

My crystal ball stopped working when I four so I have no idea if science will find the answers for abiogenesis or not but it would be tragic for science if the gave up.

 

[Hammster]

By the results they yield.

Lol. Mkay.

 

[Frank Robert]

I haven’t made any noise against science, actually. My noise is against scientists who ignore God’s clear teaching in His word. They are the ones who echo the serpent in the Garden who asked “did God really say?”

Scientists are not theologians. If you want to interact with both I recommend the forum at Peaceful Science.

 

[Hammster]

Scientists are not theologians. If you want to interact with both I recommend the forum at Peaceful Science.

Non sequitur.

 

[Frank Robert]

Non sequitur.

You said that scientists ignore god and I pointed out that scientists are not theologians. You missed the point that scientists deal with science while theologians deal with gods. In case you are unaware science is quiet on the supernatural.

 

[Hammster]

You said that scientists ignore god and I pointed out that scientists are not theologians. You missed the point that scientists deal with science while theologians deal with gods. In case you are unaware science is quiet on the supernatural.

Still a non sequitur.

 

[Frank Robert]

Still a non sequitur.

If you think it is a non sequitur tell us how and why you think scientists should take Christianity teaching into consideration. The only religion that I can think of that science might fit in with is the Tao te ching.

See:
Tao Science: The Science, Wisdom, and Practice of Creation and Grand Unification

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think it is a non sequitur tell us how and why you think scientists should take Christianity teaching into consideration.

If I was an astrophysicist, I would focus my work in the field of wormholes, since I believe the Christian teaching that the universe has only been in existence for some 6000 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

See: Tao Science:

Have you ever used collective concentration to stop a tornado in its tracks?