- Dec 20, 2003
- 14,278
- 2,997
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
This is a simple yet profound point. Aristotle speculated there were 2 types of movement, violent and nature. Perhaps predictable and unpredictable would be a very boiled down way to look at it. His downfall was in his examples, most of which shown to also be natural movements.
I think there are 3 types of movement (causality if you will). Natural (uniform/predictable), random (predictably/uniformly unpredictable), and willful/purposeful (experimentally unpredictable). This last one will always be outside of the realm of science. And IMO, it's that last one that played a primary role in our origins.
While it's neat seeing advances in physics, I don't get too excited about it in regard to the origins question.
Many of the models of modern science appear to believe they can explain everything including origins and remote cosmology. But given the existence of things which do not follow known laws or are unpredictable because unobservable (maybe socalled dark matter is an example of this) and given the rare and unique ways God chose to intervene at the creation, flood, creation miracles and also coming judgments of Revelation these models seem quite artificial to many Christians. Furthermore big assumptions made such as uniformitarianism may be poorly founded in the grand scheme of things while working well on the more local and practical level.
Science works very well with what can be tested and repeated but not so well on this speculative level in my view. Yet the budget for these speculative studies of things we may never verify are enormous. I think the development of a better rocket propulsion technology or a space elevator might be a better use of resources than what was spent on the Hadron Collider, But if we are going to get research out of these things I want to hear the results however expensive they were.
People seem to think that because there is a dominant theory about the universe it must also be excepted as such. But actually it might remain just an inhouse fantasy that does not really explain anything of real value to human lives. Such a theory is not there to be overthrown and replaced by another overarching grand deception. It is there to be exposed as being useless here and there. One can accept 90% of the practical fruit of science while entirely rejecting the theories that scientists claim to have spawned them. Altoften I think its actually the other way around. What is proven to work in one area is overextended to explain things outside its remit. People accept the results because they work but then mistakenly also accept the explanations for things outside of sciences remit on the basis of the authority of these successes. It is like a man who builds a car explaining how space ships work. He has insights but is not an authority that can be accepted 100%. People love his cars but they only assume he knows about spaceships.
Upvote
0