How certain is 'science'

[Micaiah]

By science here, I'm refering to theories derived from evidence that is apparently many millions of years old.

I suggest that there are many YEC's, including myself, who believe the theory of evolution is based on evidence which is at best flimsy. This is quite apart from our belief that God's word plainly presents historical facts about Creation which are not compatible with the TOE. In other words, we reject evolution partly because it is not what the Bible teaches, but also because we find the evidence less than convincing.

I note the following comment from another thread:

OTOH, I have often seen creationists who do not, though I am not speaking personally here. I am referring rather to those who shoehorn modern scientific concepts like the inflation period of big bang cosmology into scripture.

Given that they are both deriving their theories from the same evidence in many cases, I accept that YEC theories may be as speculative as those by TE's. The difference is that YEC's hold their belief in Scripture independently of what theories may or may not suggest. However, TE's reject the plain (historical) interpretation of Scripture largely because it contradicts what has become a popular scientific theory.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the popularity of a theory is no guarantee of its truthfulness.

 

[gluadys]

By science here, I'm refering to theories derived from evidence that is apparently many millions of years old.

I suggest that there are many YEC's, including myself, who believe the theory of evolution is based on evidence which is at best flimsy. This is quite apart from our belief that God's word plainly presents historical facts about Creation which are not compatible with the TOE. In other words, we reject evolution partly because it is not what the Bible teaches, but also because we find the evidence less than convincing.

I note the following comment from another thread:



Given that they are both deriving their theories from the same evidence in many cases, I accept that YEC theories may be as speculative as those by TE's. The difference is that YEC's hold their belief in Scripture independently of what theories may or may not suggest. However, TE's reject the plain (historical) interpretation of Scripture largely because it contradicts what has become a popular scientific theory.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the popularity of a theory is no guarantee of its truthfulness.

Indeed, popularity is never a guarantee of truthfulness. And scientific theories are not accepted into science on the basis of popularity, but on the basis of consensus.

Winning consensus is not easy. Scientific consensus means that the vast majority of scientists in a given field have been won over to a specific theory on the basis of how well it explains the evidence--even if they formerly opposed it and supported a rival theory. Of course, there are always a few stubborn hold-outs who will cling to their pet theory come h*ll or high water. And sometimes we need scientists like that, because sometimes it really does take a long time to get the majority of the scientific community to take one seriously. Look how long it took Wegener to have plate tectonics taken seriously.

Evolution is a consensus theory because it has been tested in every way imaginable by scientists and won their support on the basis of its predictability and usefulness in biology. It explains all sorts of evidence as no rival theory does.

Rival theories sometimes seem to offer promise if one is looking at only part of the picture, but none match evolution for dealing with all the details of biology in a coherent rather than ad hoc way.

I have often heard people say they find the evidence for evolution unconvincing. To date I have always found this opinion combined with 1) unfamiliarity with the range of evidence for evolution and/or 2) misunderstanding of what evolution is and therefore of what the evidence ought to show.

 

[TheBear]

By science here, I'm refering to theories derived from evidence that is apparently many millions of years old.

I suggest that there are many YEC's, including myself, who believe the theory of evolution is based on evidence which is at best flimsy. This is quite apart from our belief that God's word plainly presents historical facts about Creation which are not compatible with the TOE. In other words, we reject evolution partly because it is not what the Bible teaches, but also because we find the evidence less than convincing.

I note the following comment from another thread:



Given that they are both deriving their theories from the same evidence in many cases, I accept that YEC theories may be as speculative as those by TE's. The difference is that YEC's hold their belief in Scripture independently of what theories may or may not suggest. However, TE's reject the plain (historical) interpretation of Scripture largely because it contradicts what has become a popular scientific theory.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the popularity of a theory is no guarantee of its truthfulness.

Are you aware that evolutionary biology is the basis for many agricultural improvements? Did you know that evolutionary principles were used to produce some of our best vaccines? Will you be keeping up with all the biotechnology and pharmaceutical advancements based on evolutionary biology?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[Micaiah]

Darwin himself acknowledge the big leap of faith required to extrapolate from the small variations he saw within species to the notion that we evolved from a single celled animal.

 

[notto]

Darwin himself acknowledge the big leap of faith required to extrapolate from the small variations he saw within species to the notion that we evolved from a single celled animal.

Where did Darwin make reference to this leap of faith?

Of course scientific discoveries since his time have confirmed much of his theory and predictions. The fossil record continues to reveal evidence of a nested hierarchy of common ancestry and the discovery of DNA provided the means of heredity that Darwin knew was there while also showing a nested hierarcy of common ancestry.

 

[Micaiah]

Off hand I don't have a reference. Are you questioning this was what he said? As someone familiar with the arguments of evolution, I would have thought you would be aware of this one.

 

[notto]

Off hand I don't have a reference. Are you questioning this was what he said? As someone familiar with the arguments of evolution, I would have thought you would be aware of this one.

I'm not aware of any leap of faith referenced by Darwin. I reference including context of his statements would certainly be helpful.

Reading his conclusions in Origins, I find no such reference to faith. He lays out possible challenges and opposition to his theory and explains why he thinks that in light of the evidence, they do not hold merit.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-14.html

Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, -- that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, -- that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, -- and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.

Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgement they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modification.

We clearly see this in the fossil remains from consecutive formations invariably being much more closely related to each other, than are the fossils from formations distant from each other in time.

 

[notto]

Given that they are both deriving their theories from the same evidence in many cases, I accept that YEC theories may be as speculative as those by TE's.

The problem is that two of the main pieces of YEC theories have been falsified. The earth is not young and the global flood never happened. Basing a theory on falsified concepts does not make for a valid theory.

Multiple independent lines of evidence falsify a young earth and a global flood. This has been consensus within the scientific community for years and the evidence just continues to stack up to show that these ideas are false.

 

[Micaiah]

By faith I mean accepting a theory in spite of the lack of evidence. Thanks for the article. Some quotes:

That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor.

Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered on the theory of descent with modification are grave enough. All the individuals of the same species, and all the species of the same genus, or even higher group, must have descended from common parents; and therefore, in however distant and isolated parts of the world they are now found, they must in the course of successive generations have passed from some one part to the others. We are often wholly unable even to conjecture how this could have been effected.

As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may be asked, Why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos? With respect to existing forms, we should remember that we have no right to expect (excepting in rare cases) to discover directly connecting links between them, but only between each and some extinct and supplanted form.

On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history.

I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the countless generations of countless species which certainly have existed. We should not be able to recognise a species as the parent of any one or more species if we were to examine them ever so closely, unless we likewise possessed many of the intermediate links between their past or parent and present states; and these many links we could hardly ever expect to discover, owing to the imperfection of the geological record. Numerous existing doubtful forms could be named which are probably varieties; but who will pretend that in future ages so many fossil links will be discovered, that naturalists will be able to decide, on the common view, whether or not these doubtful forms are varieties? As long as most of the links between any two species are unknown, if any one link or intermediate variety be discovered, it will simply be classed as another and distinct species.

 

[notto]

By faith I mean accepting a theory in spite of the lack of evidence. Thanks for the article. Some quotes:

Can you point out the specific parts by which you think Darwin suggested:
Darwin himself acknowledge the big leap of faith required to extrapolate from the small variations he saw within species to the notion that we evolved from a single celled animal.

Obviously he felt the evidence was sufficient enough. No BIG leap of faith required.

You also left out his addressing of the concerns. Next you will be telling me that he said the evolution of the eye was impossible.

What leap of faith do you think that Darwin suggests is required? Please be specific. You seem to be taking his words out of context. Read what follows the parts you outlined. Nothing suggests that Darwin did not accept the theory on the evidence he found. No faith required. He addresses possible challenges to his theory and concluded:

Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgement they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modification.

Modern biology and geology has only shown us that his conclusions were valid and his addressing of the hypothetical challenges to his theory were spot on.

 

[Micaiah]

Darwin doesn't seem very certain that the evidence confirms his theory.

 

[notto]

Darwin doesn't seem very certain that the evidence confirms his theory.

Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgement they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modification.

Nope, not at all.

Have you read origins? What evidence does Darwin present? How can you claim that he doesn't seem certain that this evidence confirms his theory?

If you are unfamiliar with the evidence presented by Darwin then how can you make this statement? His book is filled with evidence that he is certain confirms his theory. You seem to be commenting on something you are unfamiliar with.

 

[Micaiah]

Winning consensus is not easy. Scientific consensus means that the vast majority of scientists in a given field have been won over to a specific theory on the basis of how well it explains the evidence--even if they formerly opposed it and supported a rival theory. Of course, there are always a few stubborn hold-outs who will cling to their pet theory come h*ll or high water. And sometimes we need scientists like that, because sometimes it really does take a long time to get the majority of the scientific community to take one seriously. Look how long it took Wegener to have plate tectonics taken seriously.

I don't think TE's should use the general consensus of the scientific community on a question like evolution to support their case. The general consensus of the scientific community is that God's truth should be rejected. We don't accept their beliefs on Christianity, why accept their beliefs on origins. Evolution is an essential part of the explanation of origins apart from God.

 

[Micaiah]

Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgement they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modification.

Nope, not at all.

Have you read origins? What evidence does Darwin present? How can you claim that he doesn't seem certain that this evidence confirms his theory?

If you are unfamiliar with the evidence presented by Darwin then how can you make this statement? His book is filled with evidence that he is certain confirms his theory. You seem to be commenting on something you are unfamiliar with.

We are often wholly unable even to conjecture how this could have been effected.

I fully agree with the what Darwin says here about an aspect of his theory, and that is the point of this thread.

The notion that we evolved from a single primitive life form is as speculative now as it was back then.

 

[gluadys]

The general consensus of the scientific community is that God's truth should be rejected.

That is a lie.

The scientific consensus is that science can make no statement on metaphysics one way or the other.


I would agree, however, that science does contradict the way you intepret scripture. Science does reject both a young earth and a global flood. If you believe these are "God's truth", your logic is right. What you have not established is that they are indeed "God's truth".

So the most you can say is that science rejects your belief that a young earth and a global flood are God's truth.

 

[Micaiah]

I'm speaking here about the gospel which I understand you and I both accept as God's truth. I think you will agree with me that those in society who believe the truth concerning Christ are in the minority. Scientists are a small subset of society, but I assume that among scientists you'd find the same trend. Christians would be in the minority. That is why I said 'The general consensus of the scientific community is that God's truth should be rejected.' If you have statistics that show otherwise, I'd be interested to see them.

I hope we can agree that the consensus of the scientific community is not reliable in this case.

 

[notto]

I fully agree with the what Darwin says here about an aspect of his theory, and that is the point of this thread.

The notion that we evolved from a single primitive life form is as speculative now as it was back then.

Now contrast the part you quote with the full context of your quote.

We are often wholly unable even to conjecture how this could have been effected. Yet, as we have reason to believe that some species have retained the same specific form for very long periods, enormously long as measured by years, too much stress ought not to be laid on the occasional wide diffusion of the same species; for during very long periods of time there will always be a good chance for wide migration by many means.

 

[Bushido216]

Darwin doesn't seem very certain that the evidence confirms his theory.

Shockingly, Micaiah, science doesn't work like a religion. Darwin isn't the Messiah of the ToE. He isn't the be-all-and-end-all of the theory. Since his time other scientists have done work to confirm this viewpoints. You do realize that a century and a half have passed, right?

 

[notto]

I'm speaking here about the gospel which I understand you and I both accept as God's truth. I think you will agree with me that those in society who believe the truth concerning Christ are in the minority. Scientists are a small subset of society, but I assume that among scientists you'd find the same trend. Christians would be in the minority. That is why I said 'The general consensus of the scientific community is that God's truth should be rejected.' If you have statistics that show otherwise, I'd be interested to see them.

I hope we can agree that the consensus of the scientific community is not reliable in this case.

But that would not be based on their scientific work. The consensus of scientific work does not claim God one way or the other. The science involved in the theory of evolution is accepted by people of all faiths or no faith at all including Christians. Their personal beliefs have nothing to do with the science they accept. This is a point that favors that the consensus is correct. It shows that it is not accepted due to religious belief but due to overwhelming evidence.

 

[gluadys]

I'm speaking here about the gospel which I understand you and I both accept as God's truth. I think you will agree with me that those in society who believe the truth concerning Christ are in the minority.

There is no refutation of the gospel in science. It says nothing about Christ one way or another. Christians have no difficulty working in science, because nothing in the scientific consensus contradicts anything in the NT or the ecumenical creeds or the statements of faith espoused by the vast majority of Christians.

Scientists are a small subset of society, but I assume that among scientists you'd find the same trend. Christians would be in the minority.

The most recent statistic I saw was that 42% of scientists were theists. I don't know how many of the theists were Christian, but as it was an American statistic, I would expect it would be most of them.

That is why I said 'The general consensus of the scientific community is that God's truth should be rejected.' If you have statistics that show otherwise, I'd be interested to see them.

And you are still wrong. If the scientific consensus was to reject God's truth, Christian scientists, theistic scientists would not be in a minority. They couldn't be scientists at all. There is no scientific consensus on metaphysics at all, because science doesn't study metaphysics. There is no scientific consensus on theology or the gospel; that is why theists and non-theists of all stripes can work together and come to a consensus on scientific matters.

I hope we can agree that the consensus of the scientific community is not reliable in this case.

No, we can't. You are claiming that your belief about a few chapters in Genesis is God's truth. We do not have consensus on that, so we do not have consensus on the relationship of science to God's truth.