Reply to creationist re: miracles and science

[Mallon]

Posted in the creationist subforum...

If they [TEs] reject Creation/Creationism as "unscientific", at least they are partly right: all of God's miracles are unscientific. That is, He defied natural laws to do them, and they cannot be replicated using scientific method.

Then stop claiming that God's miracles (creation, Noah's flood, etc.) are supported by science!
I don't know of one TE who wouldn't respect a faith-based stance on such issues. But to claim that such views are supported by science, citing places like AiG or ICR, completely contravenes such a stance. God's miracles can't be supernatural and scientific. This is one of the many internal inconsistencies I see with creationism.

 

[Mallon]

Ok, I tried changing the thread title, because evidently it's uncouth mentioning a poster's name in the title. But it didn't work. Apologies. Hope no one's offended...

 

[Melethiel]

I changed it for you.

 

[Jadis40]

Posted in the creationist subforum...

Then stop claiming that God's miracles (creation, Noah's flood, etc.) are supported by science!
I don't know of one TE who wouldn't respect a faith-based stance on such issues. But to claim that such views are supported by science, citing places like AiG or ICR, completely contravenes such a stance. God's miracles can't be supernatural and scientific. This is one of the many internal inconsistencies I see with creationism.

What's worse than that in my mind is they start from the conclusion (6,000 year old earth) while ignoring a ton of evidence from the fields of astronomy, paleontology, geology and so on that points to the earth being 4.6 billion years old.

As someone who holds a degree in history, I find that terribly insulting to my intelligence. I know what they propose doesn't even fit into the timeline of world history. The whole 6,000 year old earth basically came on the scene thanks to Archbishop Ussher back in the 17th century. He arbitrarily chose 4004 BC for the creation of the world and ran with it, and it was later picked up by YECs.The problem with that is the ice age was coming to an end about 10,000 years ago, and mankind was rather spread out already. There's a strike right there against YEC, because if the earth is in fact only 6000 years old, then the time frame that they propose for the flood and world history doesn't even match up with anything historical. There was massive flooding, but they're way off the mark of when the "global" flood supposedly happened:

Circa 6000 BC – Between 12,000 BC and 5,000 BC it appears that massive inland flooding due to catastrophic glacier melt was taking place in several regions of the world, making for subsequent sea level rises which could be relatively abrupt for many worldwide.

Flooding - yes, but enough to wipe out mankind? Definitely not.

There are other serious flaws with the timeline presented:


The oldest part of Stonehenge (in England) dates to 3100 BC. That's only 904years after Ussher's proposed date of creation, and within the lifespan of Adam if you still take Genesis 1 and 2 literally!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

The history of Egypt continues in a continous time span dating back to at least 9500 B.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predynastic_Period_of_Egypt

Just a couple of examples, there are countless others.

 

[shernren]

I think there is a valid way for creationism to explore the plausibility of miraculous occurrences using a combination of forensic science and the concept of causality. So I think the OP (that miracles aren't scientific therefore they cannot be proved with science) is a little simplistic, though that is probably appropriate in keeping with the simplicity of the post being responded to

...what does cause contradiction is the assertion that since science cannot directly replicate the past, therefore it is impossible for science to make authoritative statements regarding past events (and therefore that science should teach evolution as a "Theory" instead of a fact, etc). Either this leads to a solipsistic view of reality, or creationism has to concede that there are scientific concepts that allow us to manipulate present observations in a manner which is equivalent to manipulating the past to test hypotheses. If they admit this, however, they open the concept of miracles to falsification no matter how hard they try to press for immunity under the excuse that "miracles are unscientific".

In brief:

If science can theoretically prove that the global flood happened,
creationists will have to answer to how
science has actually proved that the global flood did not happen.

etc.

 

[Mallon]

I think there is a valid way for creationism to explore the plausibility of miraculous occurrences using a combination of forensic science and the concept of causality.

(Hypothetical) example?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

For those interested in this thread there is a book to look at:
Howard Vantils' _Fourth Day of Creation_

one of his contributions to the discussion is the phrase "fully gifted creation". What is hidding in this idea is that God doesn't need to tinker with creation. Like the really good pool player he knows how to line up the balls from one shot to get ready for the next.

One of the threads running through YECism is the ongoing miraculous. Perhaps it stems from its origins in the American frontier where handling snakes and laying on of hands to cure was part and parcel of being believers. To believe in the ongoing work of the Spirit not just in creating new soul, not just in regeneration and santification but in the physical world as well.

To me, both this attitude and speaking in tongues are first cousins to magic and a sacramental way of viewing the world. Protestantism began the desacralization of the modern worldview and science continues this. Perhaps there really is a fundamental difference in the way YECists view miracles, expecting them to pop up everyday and the way most TE's view God's providence as working within the natural framework that He setup in the beginning.

 

[Calminian]

Posted in the creationist subforum...

Then stop claiming that God's miracles (creation, Noah's flood, etc.) are supported by science!
I don't know of one TE who wouldn't respect a faith-based stance on such issues. But to claim that such views are supported by science, citing places like AiG or ICR, completely contravenes such a stance. God's miracles can't be supernatural and scientific. This is one of the many internal inconsistencies I see with creationism.

I'm in full agreement with the post you responded to. He/She was right on the money. Who is it BTW?

But I disagree with your deduction that science then can never lend support to a historical miracle. Science has even contributed to the validity of the Resurrection account. What? What did he just say? Now settle down and let me explain. In an attempt to explain away the resurrection account naturally, skeptics have suggested that Jesus really didn't die, that he somehow survived the crucifixion. The swoon theory is perhaps the most popular one. It basically suggests that Jesus passed out on the cross but was revived later. There are of course many problems with this theory, but medical science has contributed significantly. In John's gospel we read,

John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Some medical scientists have confirmed that this signified that the heart had stopped beating and the blood was settling in the chest cavity. Jesus was dead.

I don't know all the ins and outs of the technicalities of this and I’m sure there’s debate, but here we have a clear case of historical testimonial evidence and science (understandings of natural processes) working together. It's a beautiful thing, don't you think?

But if one approaches the resurrection account with a science alone bias, they would employ the fact that medical science has proven humans don't resurrect after 3 days. Thus we must reject or reinterpret the resurrection account. Sound familiar?

So again I applaud AiG and other creationists that make a stance on keeping the Bible central, despite the charge to leave the Bible out of it.

Our courts of law work the same way. We employ scientific understands when they apply but also use testimonial evidence. Sometimes testimonial evidence will even trump science as humans have been known to tamper with physical evidence (both intentionally and unintentionally). The fact is our world is not solely deterministic in the sense where we can predict all events. There is a debate in christianity over freewill (incompatibilistic), but regardless of who is right, science cannot yet predict human decisions. Thus in regard to who-done-it crimes, science can only play a limited role.

So science should neither be the sole method of our search for understand about origins, nor should it be left out of the equation. There is a balance and groups like AiG seem to have it. They are staffed not only with highly qualified scientists (Sarfati, Lisles), but good theologians and philosophical thinkers (Ham, etc.).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So science should neither be the sole method of our search for understand about origins, nor should it be left out of the equation. There is a balance and groups like AiG seem to have it. They are staffed not only with highly qualified scientists (Sarfati, Lisles), but good theologians and philosophical thinkers (Ham, etc.).


can you mark parodies and jokes with a *grin* or giggling head icon? i am humor impaired and find it impossible to know when people are joking and when they are serious.

i keep replying seriously to jokes and missing serious postings because they are so very wrong i thought that they were a parody and sarcasm.

which is why Poe's law exists.


if and only if this is a serious paragraph.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/d_faulkner.asp
i've read for hours on AiG's website. afaik danny faulkner is the only real scientist writing there that works in the field with the proper degrees. i've written to him several times with astronomy questions and he is an excellent resource and a good example of how a Christian ought to interact with others online. Others at AiG have been online in forums and have been completely obxious and destructive to their position with their words and attitude. I'll need a lot more evidence before i think anyone else on AiG is serious and even a mediocre scholar.

I have been personally exposed to both very good theologians (John Frame) and good secular philosophers (John Pollock) and good scientists as Christians (Martinez Hewlett).
I see no one writing for AiG or for that matter YECists books that even match the stature of most of my undergrad profs. But please start a new thread and present your evidence that AiG is staffed by good scholars, it would prove to be an interesting thread.

 

[shernren]

(Hypothetical) example?

Let's say Noah's Flood really happens.

And let's say I have the grave misfortune to be his next-door neighbour.

I can't think of any scientific explanation for this flood. Can't imagine where the water must have come from or where it's going to.
But I can see the physical effect of this flood: the earth covered with water.
And this physical effect is going to have a causal relationship with me that is very, very empirical: I am going to drown and die.

Miracles have physical effects on the world.
And the occurrence of these physical effects can theoretically be verified or denied empirically.
We could therefore verify or deny the miracle via the proxy of its physical effects.
If a miracle needs to have physical effects A and B and C to achieve its aims, and effects A and B and C have not occurred, it's meaningless to say that the miracle itself occurred, either.

That is really what we are doing when we discuss the "evidence for the flood" etc. We aren't trying to prove (or disprove) that the flood itself occurred, from an empirical standpoint we are trying to prove or disprove that "the whole earth was covered with water about 4,000 years ago for a few months". It is correct to say that since we have no known mechanism for a global flood and therefore we cannot prove or disprove a flood mechanism-wise. But a flood has physical effects and the causal consequences of these physical effects can be verified or not.

Anyone saying "We can't empirically determine what the universe was like in the past, therefore evolution is just a theory" should really tell AiG that they've completely missed the mark. If we cannot determine the past condition of the universe, then we cannot determine scientifically that the world experienced a global flood 4,000 years ago and shows its effects today, which is exactly what AiG is in the business of doing! If, on the other hand, one admits that it is very possible for us to determine, within the limits of observational and experimental error, what the earth was like 4,000 years ago, then one has to be prepared for the possibility that a global flood doesn't show up at all.

 

[shernren]

But if one approaches the resurrection account with a science alone bias, they would employ the fact that medical science has proven humans don't resurrect after 3 days. Thus we must reject or reinterpret the resurrection account. Sound familiar?

Is the phrase "I answered this four months ago" starting to sound familiar?

 

[Mallon]

But I disagree with your deduction that science then can never lend support to a historical miracle.

Science can lend support to a miracle if, as shernen described above, its findings coincide with the description of the miraculous event. Science can never conclude that such an event was miraculous in origin, however, so saying that science can confirm miracles is a misapplication of the practice.
Assigning the label "miracle" to any phenomenon we cannot yet fully account for scientifically is not just bad science, but bad theology, too (look what happened to the ID movement -- all of its touted icons have been debunked by the same science it claims to practice, leaving them with no nooks in which to cram God).

Science has even contributed to the validity of the Resurrection account.

Your attempt at drawing a parallel between the scientific approach to creationism and the resurrection is faulty for the very reason that shernren explains in the post he linked you to. Put simply, most creationists point to the fossil record in support of the Noachian flood. That's positive evidence that science can test. Pointing to an empty tomb as support for the resurrection is negative evidence, since there's nothing there for science to test. Bringing someone from death to life would have to be a miracle, but you cannot say it is supported scientifically unless we can check that person's pulse before and after the resurrection.

 

[Calminian]

Let's say Noah's Flood really happens.

And let's say I have the grave misfortune to be his next-door neighbour.

I can't think of any scientific explanation for this flood. Can't imagine where the water must have come from or where it's going to.
But I can see the physical effect of this flood: the earth covered with water.
And this physical effect is going to have a causal relationship with me that is very, very empirical: I am going to drown and die.

Miracles have physical effects on the world.
And the occurrence of these physical effects can theoretically be verified or denied empirically.
We could therefore verify or deny the miracle via the proxy of its physical effects.
If a miracle needs to have physical effects A and B and C to achieve its aims, and effects A and B and C have not occurred, it's meaningless to say that the miracle itself occurred, either.

All of this is true but completely misses the point. We're talking about starting with an effect and extrapolating back to the original cause. This is where miracles really throw a monkey wrench into things. We look at the current evidence and then from there retrace the natural steps (processes) as they would have gone according to their natural way.

Here's a simple example.

When we look at bullet holes, we can determine from those holes the trajectory of the shot. But if the bullet was deflected supernaturally, and was caused to change direction, science would be ineffective in detecting this merely from the hole. Only testimonial evidence could tell of a miracle in which a shooter aiming in one direction was thwarted by some supernatural force. The scientist with purely naturalistic presuppositions would be unable to discover the reality in this situation. He would conclude from the physical evidence that a shot was fired from a particular direction. Yes he would see the effect of the miracle, but misinterpret the details about it.

The same holds true when science attempts to determine the duration of events. If a bullet is fired from say 1000 feet away and becomes embedded into a wall, scientists can tell by the depth of the penetration how far back the shot was fired from, how long it traveled, etc.. A shot closer up would naturally penetrate deeper. But if a supernatural force slowed the bullet down from a close range shot before it struck the wall, the scientists observing the effect (the hole from the bullet) would come to wrong conclusions about the distance and time the bullet traveled. They would see the effect, but misinterpret it.

This is why the concept of methodological naturalism is so essential to science. Science must always assume before investigation even starts that natural processes were working normally. There is no possible way around it.

So yes, miracles have effects, and yes we can observe them. We just can't interpret them properly using science alone. The example I gave was just a single simple supernatural intervention of a bullet. Imagine all the confusion all the interventions listed in Genesis 1 would cause! It boggles the mind. Imagine how much confusion the interventions in the Flood account would cause. Sure we see the affects of the Flood, but the naturalist must compare those to the effects of natural floods we observe today. We really have no idea what mechanisms God used to start it, sustain it and end it. We just know God did it! Creationists have come up with quite a few models, but these include the biblical testimonial data, which includes supernatural interventions. Naturalists don't like this and cry foul. But the real foul is a bias in presuppositions.

So for someone to ask me to reinterpret Genesis because science demands it is quite irrational in my view. The explicit and implicit miracles of the creation account are vast in both number and scope. God created a fully functioning world instantaneously for all practical purposes. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that scientists, without biblical presuppositions, are so confused.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The same holds true when science attempts to determine the duration of events. If a bullet is fired from say 1000 feet away and becomes embedded into a wall, scientists can tell by the depth of the penetration how far back the shot was fired from, how long it traveled, etc.. A shot closer up would naturally penetrate deeper. But if a supernatural force slowed the bullet down from a close range shot before it struck the wall, the scientists observing the effect (the hole from the bullet) would come to wrong conclusions about the distance and time the bullet traveled. They would see the effect, but misinterpret it.


Let's continue with this excellent example. Say you are this "supernaturalist CSI". How do you know that the bullet was deflected supernaturally? not just open to the possibility that it might occur, but genuinely show that it did happen?

Why is it that miracles in the Scripture are attached to testimony that they occurred? explanations effectively saying "look here is a miracle?"

Go back to your supernatural CSI. You and your buddy are both supernatural CSI's how can you compare your understanding of the miracle deflection of the bullet with your buddies? how can you agree on when, how much, and who did the deflection? maybe you think God was protecting a good person it would have hit, and he thinks Satan deflected it to confuse people. How do you settle conflicts among the supernaturalistic CSI's on your staff?


it is one thing to claim that science rules out the supernatural as a presupposition and yet another thing to show how, exactly, it would be useful in the science. Start the analysis with the distinction between publically accessible knowledge and that knowledge which is only accessible privately. Can you see my faith in God? how do you know that i love my wife? do you have more access to my inner mind than i do to yours? is the supernatural deflection of this bullet public or private knowledge? Does God have to reveal the supernatural to you or can you see it with your physical eyes?

problematic.

 

[Calminian]

Your attempt at drawing a parallel between the scientific approach to creationism and the resurrection is faulty for the very reason that shernren explains in the post he linked you to. Put simply, most creationists point to the fossil record in support of the Noachian flood. That's positive evidence that science can test. Pointing to an empty tomb as support for the resurrection is negative evidence, since there's nothing there for science to test. Bringing someone from death to life would have to be a miracle, but you cannot say it is supported scientifically unless we can check that person's pulse before and after the resurrection.

I don't think you read my post carefully. I never cited the empty tomb as scientific evidence. That would be historical testimonial evidence. Rather, I pointed to blood and water that came from Jesus' side. Medical science has informed us this is evidence of death and evidence against the swoon theory. And yes medical science confirms to us that people cannot be revived from the dead after 3 days. We’ve made a lot of advances in CPR, but we’re not that good yet. So science alone cannot possible lead us to the conclusion of the Resurrection, but it certainly corroborates it.

 

[Assyrian]

So you believe God didn't just send the flood, but that the water itself somehow operated supernaturally so it wouldn't leave the evidence a natural flood would? I don't see that in the bible.

The flood was ordinary water doing the things ordinary water does when it floods. It sweeps people away, boats float, waters subside after the flood. God used natural processes to send the flood, rain falling, the fountains of the deep bursting. Even the end of the flood describes God using natural means, wind, to remove the water.

So if the water God sent was natural water, doing according to the bible, the sort of things natural water does, why would scientists have such difficulty examining the water's effects?

Incidentally, how do you think fossils formed?

 

[Mallon]

I don't think you read my post carefully. I never cited the empty tomb as scientific evidence.

But your example implies it. Read on...

Rather, I pointed to blood and water that came from Jesus' side. Medical science has informed us this is evidence of death and evidence against the swoon theory.

Agreed. We know from science that water spilling from someone's side is a good indicator of death. Therefore, science and eyewitness testimony are in harmony here and testify to Jesus' death.
You cannot use science, however, to support the second half of the story -- that is the resurrection. At best, the only tangible evidence you could provide science would be the empty tomb (and even now we don't know where that is). But as I explained, the empty tomb is negative evidence and not testable.
So yes, we can know from science that Jesus died.
No, we cannot know from science that he was resurrected. Enter the importance of faith that Christ emphasized during his short stay on Earth. Of what use is faith if we rely on science to validate the Gospel?

 

[Mallon]

You and your buddy are both supernatural CSI's how can you compare your understanding of the miracle deflection of the bullet with your buddies? how can you agree on when, how much, and who did the deflection? maybe you think God was protecting a good person it would have hit, and he thinks Satan deflected it to confuse people. How do you settle conflicts among the supernaturalistic CSI's on your staff?

This is a very important point, and one of the reasons why science doesn't appeal to supernatural explanations. Once we throw our hands up in the air and say some supernatural force caused the bullett to change direction, the question then becomes "who or what did it?" Did God do it? Did Satan do it? Did Zeus do it? All three? Such supernatural beings are immune to scientific inquiry and so cannot be either confirmed or rejected as a result. This is why science sticks with what is tangible. If you have some objective, scientific way of distinguishing between any of the supernatural beings I've mentioned as the force behind that wild bullett, I would love to hear it.

 

[shernren]

All of this is true but completely misses the point. We're talking about starting with an effect and extrapolating back to the original cause. This is where miracles really throw a monkey wrench into things. We look at the current evidence and then from there retrace the natural steps (processes) as they would have gone according to their natural way.

Here's a simple example.

When we look at bullet holes, we can determine from those holes the trajectory of the shot. But if the bullet was deflected supernaturally, and was caused to change direction, science would be ineffective in detecting this merely from the hole. Only testimonial evidence could tell of a miracle in which a shooter aiming in one direction was thwarted by some supernatural force. The scientist with purely naturalistic presuppositions would be unable to discover the reality in this situation. He would conclude from the physical evidence that a shot was fired from a particular direction. Yes he would see the effect of the miracle, but misinterpret the details about it.

The same holds true when science attempts to determine the duration of events. If a bullet is fired from say 1000 feet away and becomes embedded into a wall, scientists can tell by the depth of the penetration how far back the shot was fired from, how long it traveled, etc.. A shot closer up would naturally penetrate deeper. But if a supernatural force slowed the bullet down from a close range shot before it struck the wall, the scientists observing the effect (the hole from the bullet) would come to wrong conclusions about the distance and time the bullet traveled. They would see the effect, but misinterpret it.

This is why the concept of methodological naturalism is so essential to science. Science must always assume before investigation even starts that natural processes were working normally. There is no possible way around it.

So yes, miracles have effects, and yes we can observe them. We just can't interpret them properly using science alone. The example I gave was just a single simple supernatural intervention of a bullet. Imagine all the confusion all the interventions listed in Genesis 1 would cause! It boggles the mind. Imagine how much confusion the interventions in the Flood account would cause. Sure we see the affects of the Flood, but the naturalist must compare those to the effects of natural floods we observe today. We really have no idea what mechanisms God used to start it, sustain it and end it. We just know God did it! Creationists have come up with quite a few models, but these include the biblical testimonial data, which includes supernatural interventions. Naturalists don't like this and cry foul. But the real foul is a bias in presuppositions.

So for someone to ask me to reinterpret Genesis because science demands it is quite irrational in my view. The explicit and implicit miracles of the creation account are vast in both number and scope. God created a fully functioning world instantaneously for all practical purposes. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that scientists, without biblical presuppositions, are so confused.

Yes, if science could ascertain that the physical effect of the miracle had occurred, then science would now have to choose between having a scientifically inexplicable effect or some other reason (instrumentational error, etc.).

But in the case of origins science can't even find the effect of the miracle. Science can't find the geological or biostratigraphic arrangements a global flood would imply, whether or not the global flood was a miracle or not. Science finds radioactive ratios which indicate that the earth has been around for a long while, whether or not a young-earth creation is a miracle.

See, we're not talking about proving or disproving a miracle based on whether or not its mechanism is understood. If the physical effects associated with a miracle are not even present what does it mean for you to say that the miracle happened?

In your case, it's like your witness saying "God slowed the bullet down!" and the scientist saying "... the bullet has the exact velocity we expected it to have. There isn't any anomaly to begin with, so what exactly you're ascribing to God is a mystery to me."

 

[Calminian]

Yes, if science could ascertain that the physical effect of the miracle had occurred, then science would now have to choose between having a scientifically inexplicable effect or some other reason (instrumentational error, etc.).

But strictly speaking in this scenario, science alone would not have the capability of informing us about the truth? Thus the scientific method has limitations. Do we at least agree on this?

See, we're not talking about proving or disproving a miracle based on whether or not its mechanism is understood. If the physical effects associated with a miracle are not even present what does it mean for you to say that the miracle happened?

This assumes the mechanisms have been revealed and we know what to look for. In the scenario I offered, I gave the specific details of the intervention. I said that a bullet was supernaturally caused to change directions. But what if I merely testified that God prevented the bullet from striking a man?? Now we know a miracle happened, but we don't know the details. We know about one of the results, but not the specific mechanism. This is more analogous to the miracles we read about in Genesis. I don't know what mechanisms creation of light entails. I don't know what mechanisms stretching out the universe (in a day!) entails. I just know that about 17 times in scriptures God is said to have stretched out the heavens. That's quite a amazing thought. If He did perform a miracle like this what would we expect to see? Not knowing the details, seems to make it quite difficult.

In your case, it's like your witness saying "God slowed the bullet down!" and the scientist saying "... the bullet has the exact velocity we expected it to have. There isn't any anomaly to begin with, so what exactly you're ascribing to God is a mystery to me."

Actually it would! That's my point. The scientist would say this is exactly what we would expect if the gun was fired from 1,000 feet away. This is what they would have to assume, since they can't allow a miracle of a slowing bullet into the equation.

For another example, take the classic wine illustration. If wine was created by God yesterday, there would still be a perfectly logical natural explanation for it. That explanation would be based on our knowledge of natural wine making processes. It may be that the wine God created would have taken 5 years naturally. No matter what kind of wine God created, there would still be viable reasonable natural alternative explanation for its existence. Yet that explanation would be wrong, if the miracle indeed happened.

All the BB is, is a backward extrapolation from the current evidence we have today. Since this is a scientific theory, it must assume in advance God did not supernaturally stretch out the universe. The natural theory may turn out just fine in a logical mathematical sense. But this doesn't prove it really happened that way. It only proves it happened that way IF it happened naturally.