Can evolutionists handle the truth

[notto]

When getting knowledge through science the evolutionist assumes the following:

Note how all of these are simply limitations on the methods of investigation on how to look at physical (natural) evidence to make the observation explainable and repeatable (scientific).

1. Science can only investigate the natural.

2. Only natural phenomena can be admitted in the study of origins.

3. Science cannot prove God exists.

4. Man's observations and reason are the supreme authority.

When getting knowledge through science the YEC makes his own assumptions:

Note how all of these are conclusions that are drawn before looking at the evidence.

1. There is no conflict on the matter of origins between science and the inspired word of God.

2. While science is primarily limited to investigating and interpreting the natural, if can verify what God says about Creation and demonstrate attributes of the Creator.

3. The inspired word of God is the supreme authority on Creation.

4. The YEC approaches the topic of origins assuming he will discover God. "Thinking God's thoughts after Him" is the way it has been described.

There is absolutely no comparison. One is science, one is not. This list only confirms that.

 

[Micaiah]

When YECs talk about "truth", it usually comes down to some sort of religious or spiritual truth. But one doesn't need to adopt the creationist (YEC) position to get that.

There are plenty of scientists that accept mainstream scientific findings, yet still hold very spiritual beliefs.

A necessary condition of getting this knowledge is that you do not limit yourself to naturalistic explanations. The degree to which TE's are prepared to do this varies.

 

[notto]

A necessary condition of getting this knowledge is that you do not limit yourself to naturalistic explanations. The degree to which TE's are prepared to do this varies.

How can we test for non-naturalistic explanations? How can this knowledge be gained from scientific investigation of the evidence that follows the scientific method?

Can you give us an example where the scientific method has been followed that has exposed this knowledge? Where are the repeatable observations that point to this non-naturalistic explanation?

Was the conclusion that it was not a natural cause based on the preconceived notion that it was or was it a conclusion based on the physical evidence.

I'm guessing that I already know your anwers to this and again they will show why what YEC's do to explain evidence can't be considered science and certainly isn't an objective way to gain knowledge about nature.

 

[tocis]

If we assume for a moment that the YEC version of origins is correct, then there is no way that an evolutionists can come to an understanding of the Creator God through 'science'.

And if pigs could fly...

It's not exactly good reasoning to say (like you basically say) "If we presuppose that we're right then we find out that we're right and you're wrong".
Am I supposed to be impressed now?

 

[rjw]

In a recent thread, I made the following statement.



The important part for this thread is highlighted. If we assume for a moment that the YEC version of origins is correct, then there is no way that an evolutionists can come to an understanding of the Creator God through 'science'.

When getting knowledge through science the evolutionist assumes the following:

1. Science can only investigate the natural.

2. Only natural phenomena can be admitted in the study of origins.

3. Science cannot prove God exists.

4. Man's observations and reason are the supreme authority.

When getting knowledge through science the YEC makes his own assumptions:

1. There is no conflict on the matter of origins between science and the inspired word of God.

2. While science is primarily limited to investigating and interpreting the natural, if can verify what God says about Creation and demonstrate attributes of the Creator.

3. The inspired word of God is the supreme authority on Creation.

4. The YEC approaches the topic of origins assuming he will discover God. "Thinking God's thoughts after Him" is the way it has been described.

Given that the YEC method of getting knowledge on the subject is much broader than the naturalists, and draws from special revelation as well as science, I believe it is superior.

A typical response from the evolutionist is to claim the approach is unscientific.

The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.

Gidday Micaiah,


You want special treatment for your theology. Given that your theology does not appeal to ideas which all people can agree are known or understood, you say – “well, let’s be fair and let’s just assume that it is correct”. Two points:-

1) You assume that only you are in this situation or deserved of special treatment.

2) Naturalism does not make this kind of appeal (i.e assume that is is correct).

If your theology is offended, you require that your theology be accepted as the basis for science, without telling us how this “science” explains anything, let alone explains anything better than a theory based on naturalism. What is more, you demand that only your theology be accepted. You pay no regard to the idea that other people of differing theologies might have exactly the same rights as you.

If your theology is not offended, then you accept naturalism as the basis for your science which happens to match that of the mainstream in that your god is removed in the manner you object to his removal when your theology is offended.

You ask that your theology be assumed to be correct when you are offended. You assume your theology is not needed, when you are not offended.

Naturalism does not behave like this. It does not argue – “assume that naturalism is correct”. Naturalism only allows those ideas to be used which are known and understood. That is, naturalism says – “use this because it is known to be correct”.

I have no idea as to how your science works and explains things in the manner that naturalistic science does. As far as I can see, you have provided no indication of this. If your supernaturalistic science only applies to origins, then why is this so? What kind of origins are you talking about? Do these origins also include rain, wind, snow, thunder, stormy oceans etc? If not them I am curious, given that God supposedly has a direct hand in these in the same manner he supposedly did in the creation of the earth and life. So why do you pick and choose the origins you require special treatment for?

The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.

As I said above, why should your theology be given special treatment?

Why not give mine (There Is No God) special treatment?

As several have already asked you, (and I think I have), how does your theology give us a “scientific understanding” of origins? I do not think you have ever explained this.

I suspect that the understanding we would get on using your theology as a basis for science, would be nothing more than the theology itself. That is, the understanding we would get on using “God did it” as a basis, would be that “God did it”.

Naturalism does not work that way. The understanding we get, say, on the origin of a star, using naturalism, is that a star probably originates when a gas cloud gets disturbed. A slight enhancement in gravity in a region causes material to be drawn into that region, As this happens, small impurities (of heavy elements) allow any excess heat to radiate away, so maintaining a very cool interior which continues to allow more matter to accrete. As a certain point, general cloud rotation translates into …

Do you see that this is a very different kind of understanding to the understanding one gets using your theology as a world view – if I am correct. The understanding one gets using your theology is nothing more than your theology. The understanding naturalism gives is a nuts and bolts description of how something came to be and how it operates.

So the problem is for you to demonstrate how your theology would give us an understanding (i.e a nuts and bolts description) in the same sense that naturalism does. And you also have to explain why only you should be given special treatment.


Regards, Roland

 

[caravelair]

A necessary condition of getting this knowledge is that you do not limit yourself to naturalistic explanations. The degree to which TE's are prepared to do this varies.

that all you got?

so are you going admit that science cannot test supernatural claims?

 

[Dragar]

The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.

That's right.

The thing is, science is the best we've got. There is no better way of determining truth. The fact it can't ever use supernatural explanations is as much a failure of supernatural explanations being useful as it is of science being limited.

I'd rather have a natural explanation I can test for validity, than pick one supernatural explanation from an infinite number and cling to the hope I guessed right.

 

[Phred]

All that's required to make your statements reasonable is to present some evidence that your deity even exists. Without this you are discussing belief vs. evidence and I'll take the evidence every time.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That's right.

The thing is, science is the best we've got. There is no better way of determining truth. The fact it can't ever use supernatural explanations is as much a failure of supernatural explanations being useful as it is of science being limited.

I'd rather have a natural explanation I can test for validity, than pick one supernatural explanation from an infinite number and cling to the hope I guessed right.

How do you determine if a painting is beautiful?
How do you judge whether a law is just or not?
How do you decide if your action was good or bad?

These are not accessible to science. Science has a very truncated domain. Not just the physical world but a very small piece of it. Science doesn't do: justice, morality, art, lots of spheres that human beings really are interested in.

 

[JGG]

How do you determine if a painting is beautiful?

We compare figure and lines (a la Gestalt Principles) to previously seen figures which may have been similar. Similarity between them creates a quicker reaction to the painting which we judge to mean it is beautiful. In reality its simply that we are content with its familiarity.

How do you judge whether a law is just or not?

We compare a given situation to prior situations and deduce similarity to an interpretation of justice (most likely created, or taught by some authority in early life), and either assimilate or accomodate into our memory structure to create a mental representation of "justice."

How do you decide if your action was good or bad?

This depends on the ethics principles which we have been taught to value. For instance if we are taught Kantianism then an action is good if it is universally acceptable, it is bad if it is not. If we are taught utilitarianism, it is good if it is satisfying to a great number of people.

These are not accessible to science. Science has a very truncated domain. Not just the physical world but a very small piece of it. Science doesn't do: justice, morality, art, lots of spheres that human beings really are interested in.

I'm fairly interested in them from a scientific perspective.

 

[Dragar]

How do you determine if a painting is beautiful?

Beautiful to who?

How do you decide if your action was good or bad?

Good or bad to who?

These are not accessible to science.

Mostly because these statements make no sense without a person specified (and in the case of morality, as the poster above has mentioned, you have no criteria specified!). With a person specified, I can tell you a quite simple way of finding out - asking them. If that isn't scientific enough for you, we could carry out a number of observations of a person's reactions to various actions and paintings and (with a knowledge of psyschology) answer the questions. Or at least hopefully - human behaviour is still poorly understood.

As for 'just', it's hard to tell what people mean by the word in the first place. Suffice to say that we create laws to make the society we want, and we determine if laws are helping create the society we want by observing their effects on society.

 

[Mocca]

Occam's Razored.

 

[Dale]

Micaiah,In
In response to the OP, I will start by assuming that Genesis is literally true, make a verifiable prediction based on that assumption, and see if we can verify it.Genesis is as plain about one thing: "After he [God] drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."Genesis 3:24If Genesis is literaly true, the walled Garden of Eden, still guarded by cherubim with flaming swords, is still somewhere on Earth. There is nothing in the Bible about God removing it. If God removed it at some point in time, you'd think he'd have had one of the prophets mention that point. Some verse, "God took the Garden of Eden off the face of the Earth because of the sins of men and women." That would be fine but there is no such verse.It is astonishing that through the centuries no theologian ever thought to look for the Garden of Eden. Could it be that all the theologians who say that Genesis must be interpreted literally actually know that it is not that literal?Either the Garden of Eden, guarded by cherubim with flaming swords, is still somewhere on Earth, as yet undiscovered, or God intended Genesis to be taken figuratively. Those are the choices.