Reply to creationist re: miracles and science

[rmwilliamsll]

It is one thing to not be able to explain something, but quite another to have an entire theory rested on something you can't explain.

like gravity?

Gravity is something tested and observed. It has nothing to do with origins. Your are confusing categories.

i didn't claim that it wasn't tested and observed, i made no claim of relating it to origins, i only pointed out that it is not completely explained. yet that doesn't stop us from using gravity.

although i'm not a physics person, perhaps you can explain to me how gravity works.

It's actually even more confused than that. Gravity is a natural law, whereas the BB is a past event, based on understandings of natural laws. I don't think you are understanding the topic very well.

the label "natural law" is depreciated in modern philosophy of science. the only real usage is historical or for heavily mathematical theories. most philosophers of science simply use the term theory.

i don't understand gravity, that was my point. a theory that is based on something not very well explained at all. i suspect it is you that missed the point, not myself.

 

[Deamiter]

Indeed -- as is often pointed out, there is more evidence describing the mechanisms behind evolution than gravity.

And mswilliamsll is quite right -- the "law of gravity" is a bit of a misnomer. Since we have no really solid theory of gravity, we are less certain that gravity will exist tomorrow than we are that evolution will continue to shape the world's populations.

 

[Calminian]

I wonder if any of you realize how badly you've missed the point.

 

[Assyrian]

These are two different issues. Creationists who are scientists may show deficiencies in scientific theories by pointing to anomalies they can't explain. I can't do this with evolution as I don't know enough about it. But I can show that science is deficient when it comes to origins of the universe. Scientists admit they have no natural explanation for what caused the BB. If that's the case, the theory rests on an unknown. It is one thing to not be able to explain something, but quite another to have an entire theory rested on something you can't explain.

I think you are making a fundamental mistake about the nature of science. Science does not rest on the Big Bang. While philosophies may try to explain everything from the beginning to try and show that philosophers have to exist, science takes a completely different approach. It starts from the world we see around us and examine how it works. Scientists simply assume the world is real, and even that is not a necessary assumption, what they need is for the world to be consistent, and they have tested that.

Science does not need the Big Bang to be real for the system to work, instead the Big Bang rests on observation of the universe we see around us. If further observation disproved the Big Bang, that would not cause a change in any science other then Astronomy and Cosmology, because sciences like Physics, Biology, Genetics and Geology are not based on Big Bang theory, but on observation of the world around us.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Gravity is something tested and observed. It has nothing to do with origins. Your are confusing categories.

Evolution has been tested and observed too.

 

[Calminian]

I think you are making a fundamental mistake about the nature of science. Science does not rest on the Big Bang.

You are correct. But if you feel I believed this, you've misunderstood me.

While philosophies may try to explain everything from the beginning to try and show that philosophers have to exist,

science takes a completely different approach. It starts from the world we see around us and examine how it works. Scientists simply assume the world is real, and even that is not a necessary assumption, what they need is for the world to be consistent, and they have tested that.

You are back to observational science which has nothing to do with speculating about events in the past.

Science does not need the Big Bang to be real for the system to work, instead the Big Bang rests on observation of the universe we see around us.

Origin science is observation, plus an assumption. That assumption is that the processes in the past (which we did not observe) worked the same way they do today, and that there have been no miracles (additions to natural processes) that were instrumental in creating our world. This is called methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism. They are essential to any conclusions about the past based on science. I've given several illustrations in my posts to show why it is essential.

If further observation disproved the Big Bang, that would not cause a change in any science other then Astronomy and Cosmology, because sciences like Physics, Biology, Genetics and Geology are not based on Big Bang theory, but on observation of the world around us.

This is why I worry about scientists. Many can't think past the naturalistic box. Observation alone tells us nothing about the past. It tells us about current processes only. Conclusions about the distant past are always derived from our knowledge of current processes in conjunction with the assumption that things worked then the way they work now. Can we prove this? Not through science. That is a philosophical belief.

But we as christians have a history book of beginnings. We are told that the universe is not the result of natural processes. Yet scientists, even christian scientists, of all people, seem the most reluctant to accept this. They can't accept that something is outside the realm of pure science.

I think rmw summed up nicely where the confusing lies. He compared the law of gravity to the Big Bang. The category confusion here is enormous. Gravity is a repeatable process that we observe presently. The BB is a past singular event that has been derived from the assumption that natural process like gravity have not been interrupted or added to in the past by supernatural acts.

I can appreciate the scientific knowledge some have. But am utterly flabbergasted at times when I see how illogical some of them are when they are forced to think outside of their field. If one can't grasp the difference between the BB and gravity, they have no hope of understanding this debate.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This is why I worry about scientists. Many can't think past the naturalistic box. Observation alone tells us nothing about the past. It tells us about current processes only. Conclusions about the distant past are always derived from our knowledge of current processes in conjunction with the assumption that things worked then the way they work now. Can we prove this? Not through science. That is a philosophical belief.

But we as christians have a history book of beginnings. We are told that the universe is not the result of natural processes. Yet scientists, even christian scientists, of all people, seem the most reluctant to accept this. They can't accept that something is outside the realm of pure science.

the more i read here, the more i realize that there is another gap between YEC and OEC/TE. most YEC come from churches where miracles are "expected", charismatic or pentecostal. where most TE's seem to come from more liberal churches where providence is considered God's usual way of acting in the world and that miracles are really reserved to the Bible and the certification that Jesus is the coming Messiah.

This is worded much like the quote above. How do we expect God to operate from the beginning of time? providentially or miracles and creatively? there is an auxillary idea that i do not know how to put into the picture and that is the Lutheran idea of the hiddenness of God.

is it a bad or unchristian-like assumption to believe that God created the universe from the beginning so that He did not have to continually tinker with it in order to fix it when it drifted too far out of spec?
see how the very wording of the question biases the way it is answered? what are our expectations of how God has operated in the distant past? uniformally or creatively? providence or creation? naturally or via constant miracles?

 

[shernren]

This is why I worry about scientists. Many can't think past the naturalistic box. Observation alone tells us nothing about the past. It tells us about current processes only. Conclusions about the distant past are always derived from our knowledge of current processes in conjunction with the assumption that things worked then the way they work now. Can we prove this? Not through science. That is a philosophical belief.

But we as christians have a history book of beginnings. We are told that the universe is not the result of natural processes. Yet scientists, even christian scientists, of all people, seem the most reluctant to accept this. They can't accept that something is outside the realm of pure science.

the more i read here, the more i realize that there is another gap between YEC and OEC/TE. most YEC come from churches where miracles are "expected", charismatic or pentecostal. where most TE's seem to come from more liberal churches where providence is considered God's usual way of acting in the world and that miracles are really reserved to the Bible and the certification that Jesus is the coming Messiah.

This is worded much like the quote above. How do we expect God to operate from the beginning of time? providentially or miracles and creatively? there is an auxillary idea that i do not know how to put into the picture and that is the Lutheran idea of the hiddenness of God.

is it a bad or unchristian-like assumption to believe that God created the universe from the beginning so that He did not have to continually tinker with it in order to fix it when it drifted too far out of spec?
see how the very wording of the question biases the way it is answered? what are our expectations of how God has operated in the distant past? uniformally or creatively? providence or creation? naturally or via constant miracles?

Whenever a Christian starts saying "how can we know anything for certain about the past through observation?" it reminds me the most of the maya philosophy of classical Hinduism. That reality is nothing more than a dream in God's mind.

But in Christianity creation not only exists, God grants it the grace to be both dependent (because it was and is created) and independent (in its being self-consistent). The major problem I see is that while maya-esque thinking keeps framing God's works as acts of overruling reality's self-consistency, the Biblical view is that God co-opts reality's self-consistency in His plans of redemptive history.

Granted, there is an exception of this in Genesis 1 where there simply is no reality (as of then) to be co-opted. (And this is why in this thread I have confined my philosophical probings to the Flood.) And of course an eschatological perspective (such as that of Revelations) demands another reality altogether. But besides these, there are almost no exceptions. When God wants to wipe the world of injustice, we do not see "Let there not be man!", we see water as it was created - deadly, drowning - used to wipe out man. When Israel is chosen as a symbol of God's presence the Israelites do not suddenly become supermen who can fly and burn holes through Philistine chariots with laser vision, they remain ordinary, breakable, sinful. And in the Institution of the Last Supper the bread and the wine do not become any less bread and wine for being symbols of God's presence.

God does not overrule reality unnecessarily, in the Biblical frame-of-view, rather choosing to undergird it and use it in its self-consistency for His purposes. In the ultimate revelation of Jesus God does not overrule humanity but dwells in it and becomes not un-human but fully, perfectly human.

We are not even told anywhere in the Bible that the Flood waters were not the same kind of water as modern water.

 

[Assyrian]

You are correct. But if you feel I believed this, you've misunderstood me.

Glad to hear it. I have come across that argument before from YECs and you seemed to be using it too with your claim 'If that's the case, the theory rests on an unknown'

You know, 'I think therefore I am', the philosopher who has to prove he actually exists before he can go any further.

You are back to observational science which has nothing to do with speculating about events in the past.

Origin science is observation, plus an assumption. That assumption is that the processes in the past (which we did not observe) worked the same way they do today,

The thing about science is it tests its speculations. All we know about the past comes from examining the evidence of the universe we can study around us. Science does not simply assume lightspeed hasn't changes and radioactive decay rates haven't changed, they examine these in distant galaxies and in ancient natural nuclear reactors deep inside Precambrian rock.

If the speed of light is the same in a galaxy a billion lightyears away, then the light has taken a billion years to reach us. If decay rates were the same 2 billion years ago, the any rock formed since then, dated using those decay rates will give us accurate dates.

and that there have been no miracles (additions to natural processes) that were instrumental in creating our world. This is called methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism. They are essential to any conclusions about the past based on science. I've given several illustrations in my posts to show why it is essential.

There is a limit to what science can say about miracles, but it is not blind. If something happened through a miracle then science will not be able to say how it happened. However if you claim God healed the curvature of you spine, science will be able to tell you if your spine is still curved. Even if you claim you are healed and it is just the symptoms haven't gone yet and you don't put your faith in symptoms, if your spine is still curved out of shape there hasn't been a miracle.

Science, or a steward with a bit of experience, wouldn't have been able to say how water changed into wine. but they would have been able to tell us if so called miraculous wine was actually just water.

YECs claim the earth's crust was created 6000 years ago, or was laid down in the flood. That is something science can test. If the rocks are older, then the YEC claims of their recent formation is wrong.

This is why I worry about scientists. Many can't think past the naturalistic box. Observation alone tells us nothing about the past. It tells us about current processes only. Conclusions about the distant past are always derived from our knowledge of current processes in conjunction with the assumption that things worked then the way they work now. Can we prove this? Not through science. That is a philosophical belief.

Prove? No. Proof is for philosophy, maths and alcohol. But science can test it and they have demonstrated current processes working the very same way in the distant past.

But we as christians have a history book of beginnings. We are told that the universe is not the result of natural processes. Yet scientists, even christian scientists, of all people, seem the most reluctant to accept this. They can't accept that something is outside the realm of pure science.

I think rmw summed up nicely where the confusing lies. He compared the law of gravity to the Big Bang. The category confusion here is enormous. Gravity is a repeatable process that we observe presently. The BB is a past singular event that has been derived from the assumption that natural process like gravity have not been interrupted or added to in the past by supernatural acts.

Actually we only ever observe the effects of gravity and the Big Bang. You do realise gravity is more than apples falling out of trees?

I can appreciate the scientific knowledge some have. But am utterly flabbergasted at times when I see how illogical some of them are when they are forced to think outside of their field. If one can't grasp the difference between the BB and gravity, they have no hope of understanding this debate.

Did you actually understand the point rmwilliamsll was making?

i didn't claim that it wasn't tested and observed, i made no claim of relating it to origins, i only pointed out that it is not completely explained. yet that doesn't stop us from using gravity.

although i'm not a physics person, perhaps you can explain to me how gravity works.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But in Christianity creation not only exists, God grants it the grace to be both dependent (because it was and is created) and independent (in its being self-consistent). The major problem I see is that while maya-esque thinking keeps framing God's works as acts of overruling reality's self-consistency, the Biblical view is that God co-opts reality's self-consistency in His plans of redemptive history.

special words are used to describe this relationship of God to Creation.

the first is contingent.
the second is voluntary.

 

[Brennan]

Certain people around here are blissfully unaware that theories about changes in (currently) unchanging physical constants are posited from time to time.

Beginning with Paul Dirac in 1937, some scientists have speculated that physical constants may actually decrease in proportion to the age of the universe. Scientific experiments have not yet pinpointed any definite evidence that this is the case,

Source
I think that arguments about the 'presuppositions' of science are baseless - science makes no supposition beyond the one that we can trust what we observe around us. Name one scientific theory that actually requires a non-belief in God, Miracles or angels... Having trouble?

 

[shernren]

Certain people around here are blissfully unaware that theories about changes in (currently) unchanging physical constants are posited from time to time.
Source
I think that arguments about the 'presuppositions' of science are baseless - science makes no supposition beyond the one that we can trust what we observe around us. Name one scientific theory that actually requires a non-belief in God, Miracles or angels... Having trouble?

Why do we assume that, as you said, "what we observe around us can be trusted"? It is only because we assume that any effect we observe has a quantifiable (and hence observable) cause. To assume supernatural intervention instantly assumes that anything we observe may not have had a quantifiable cause which we can naturalistically investigate.

If one assumes that a particular cask of wine was supernaturally created, one then cannot use chemical methods to determine the date it was "formed".

 

[Calminian]

Whenever a Christian starts saying "how can we know anything for certain about the past through observation?" it reminds me the most of the maya philosophy of classical Hinduism. That reality is nothing more than a dream in God's mind.

Where have you heard christians saying stuff like this? The above was never stated. What what has been stated over and over in various ways is that science cannot detect historical miracles. How did you jump from that from what you state above?

 

[Calminian]

Glad to hear it. I have come across that argument before from YECs and you seemed to be using it too with your claim 'If that's the case, the theory rests on an unknown'

IOW, there is no natural explanation for the BB as of yet. So far science alone has lead us back 13 billions years to a point where everything must have began if our creation was natural, but there is no natural causative explanation for it starting in the first place.

The thing about science is it tests its speculations. All we know about the past comes from examining the evidence of the universe we can study around us. Science does not simply assume lightspeed hasn't changes and radioactive decay rates haven't changed, they examine these in distant galaxies and in ancient natural nuclear reactors deep inside Precambrian rock.

But it must assume naturalism in the area being studied. This is what they refer to as methodological naturalism. Most scientists will admit to this. I don't think you really understand just how much power God has over the universe. Just the power Jesus exhibited over the elements is enough for us to understand He doesn't need to wait for natural processes to unfold. He feed five thousand from a few fish and loaves of bread. There were 12 baskets left over. If we merely looked at the physical evidence, the twelve baskets, and dismissed a priori the account of the miracle, what would the physical evidence tell us about what Jesus started with? Could science alone tell us He started with a few fish?

If decay rates were the same 2 billion years ago, the any rock formed since then, dated using those decay rates will give us accurate dates.

Correct. So the level of decay we observe shows that there have been X amount of years of decay at today's rates. But what if there was a non-natural intervention that accelerated them somehow? How could science pick that up? With the kind of miracles that are described in Genesis, I find it hard to believe something like this didn't happen.

There is a limit to what science can say about miracles, but it is not blind. If something happened through a miracle then science will not be able to say how it happened. However if you claim God healed the curvature of you spine, science will be able to tell you if your spine is still curved. Even if you claim you are healed and it is just the symptoms haven't gone yet and you don't put your faith in symptoms, if your spine is still curved out of shape there hasn't been a miracle.

I agree. This is why I think science is valuable. It may not be able to tell us how old miraculously created wine is, but it certainly can confirm it is indeed wine and no longer water.

Science, or a steward with a bit of experience, wouldn't have been able to say how water changed into wine. but they would have been able to tell us if so called miraculous wine was actually just water.

We're on the same page.

YECs claim the earth's crust was created 6000 years ago, or was laid down in the flood. That is something science can test. If the rocks are older, then the YEC claims of their recent formation is wrong.

The wine illustration you just offered defeats this, though. In fact, if someone came to me and told me that some wine was allegedly supernaturally created yesterday by God, and the scientific tests came back and affirmed it was only 1 day old, according to the fermentation levels, I would then doubt it was really created via a miracle. This would be evidence it was created naturally. The same is true of creation. If scientific research concluded the earth really did form only 6 ,000 years ago, that would prove it's young, but also that it was not created supernaturally.

Prove? No. Proof is for philosophy, maths and alcohol. But science can test it and they have demonstrated current processes working the very same way in the distant past.

How does science test for miraculous events in the past? Give me a hypothetical example.

i didn't claim that it wasn't tested and observed, i made no claim of relating it to origins, i only pointed out that it is not completely explained. yet that doesn't stop us from using gravity.

If you are still comparing an event to an observed process you are mixing categories.

 

[LightHorseman]

IOW, there is no natural explanation for the BB as of yet. So far science alone has lead us back 13 billions years to a point where everything must have began if our creation was natural, but there is no natural causative explanation for it starting in the first place.

Great. For the purpose of discussion, let say that God set the Big Bang in motion with his divine fingertip.

Fine good, great.

This does not, however, effect the theory of evolution in the slightest insignificant way

 

[Calminian]

Great. For the purpose of discussion, let say that God set the Big Bang in motion with his divine fingertip.

Fine good, great.

This does not, however, effect the theory of evolution in the slightest insignificant way

If a divine fingertip is necessary to make a theory work, it is no longer scientific.

 

[shernren]

Whenever a Christian starts saying "how can we know anything for certain about the past through observation?" it reminds me the most of the maya philosophy of classical Hinduism. That reality is nothing more than a dream in God's mind.

Where have you heard christians saying stuff like this? The above was never stated. What what has been stated over and over in various ways is that science cannot detect historical miracles. How did you jump from that from what you state above?

#13
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.

In other words, science would not be able to tell us if or not a bullet slowed down before it hit its target. We can't know anything for certain about it!

backed by #20:

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?

#29:

I'm sorry, but no it can't. Science can observe anomalies in the present, but how would it know if there was an anomaly in the past? I don’t think you realize just how limited science is. Whatever effect is observed, a natural cause must be assumed.

#50:

Water, like anything else, works and flows in accordance with natural processes. Those processes affect the things water comes into contact with in different ways. And water doesn't always affect its environment in the same way. There are variables that can change its affect. The temperature of water, the speed at which it moves, the volume, etc.. If God bypassed any of these processes or variables, it seems logical to me that some affects we would expect to see (with a naturalistic mindset) may be missing. And depending on the mechanism used, we may find some affects that we wouldn’t expect to see. The Bible gives us very few details about God's interventions in that event. We know it happened, but not how. And remember God needed to restore the world to functionality after the flood. We don’t how much intervention was needed, nor the mechanisms He may have used to accomplish it, but certainly some must have been necessary. Did he physically move the landscape around? What affect did that have on the evidence? Again, it seems irrational to me to dismiss the straightforward account for the sake of science.

which really reduces to "We can't know anything about the Flood besides that it happened and everything off Noah's Ark died."

#66:

Conclusions about the distant past are always derived from our knowledge of current processes in conjunction with the assumption that things worked then the way they work now. Can we prove this? Not through science. That is a philosophical belief.

How is this different from "we can't know anything about the past through observation"?

Now, I understand your delineations. You are trying to say that "science cannot detect historical miracles" is different from "observation cannot tell us anything about the past", because the second is clearly absurd while the first is what you believe. Fair enough. Now, show it:

1. How is "science" different from "observation"?
2. How would the physical effect of a historical miracle be different from any other physical effect occurring in the past?

By the by, I think you have made quite an unfair criticism of rmwilliams. His point - that creationists multiply miracles needlessly - is an important one. Look, for example, at the portion I quoted from your #50. Here is one wonderful chunk of hypothesising that Flood water was somehow miraculously different from normal water. Any basis? None really. When you look at the Scriptural accounts the plain meaning ( any fallacy you can use I can use too!) is clearly that this water was ordinary water. The windows of heaven open up all the time - it's called rain. The waters of the deep gush onto the earth without fail - they're called wells. The Bible posits that Floodwaters are the same basic stuff that falls from the sky and comes up from the earth as they do today, except that these waters swelled with quite unfortunate consequences for the whole world.

Why then the need for miracle water? Unless ... most YEC come from churches where miracles are "expected", charismatic or pentecostal (rmwilliamsll), or at least from worldviews where they are.

 

[Calminian]

How is this different from "we can't know anything about the past through observation"?

Because we don't' believe miracles are normative. Christians generally believe natural processes are vastly normative. Thus we generally believe forensic science is valid. Where we disagree are those places in the Bible when a miracle is (or miracles are) clearly conveyed.

Now, I understand your delineations. You are trying to say that "science cannot detect historical miracles" is different from "observation cannot tell us anything about the past", because the second is clearly absurd while the first is what you believe. Fair enough. Now, show it:

Is this really that hard of a concept? Seems like I'm repeating the same answers post after post. If we don't believe a miracle has occurred in the past in the particular area in question, then science is very useful and can tell us a lot. But if we've concluded a miracle has occurred from a reliable source like the Bible, then that needs to be taken into account. Even christians that believe miracles happen today still believe they are vastly rare compared to normal natural processes. But what you are doing is denying them even in the face of clear biblical testimony. This elevates scientific naturalism to a religion.

1. How is "science" different from "observation"?
2. How would the physical effect of a historical miracle be different from any other physical effect occurring in the past?

I'm amazed you are still asking me this. I've given several illustrations. Which parts are you not clear on?

Why then the need for miracle water? Unless ... most YEC come from churches where miracles are "expected", charismatic or pentecostal (rmwilliamsll), or at least from worldviews where they are.

Scotty! Is the transporter repaired yet?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If a divine fingertip is necessary to make a theory work, it is no longer scientific.

every thing from the point where the divine finger tip ceases to be in action CAN be expressed in scientific terms. Since evolution starts effecting anything about 4 billion years ago, and the Big Bang was 14 billion years ago, theres a good 10 billion years of science between fingertip and evolution.

My point, in short, is that the Big Bang has as much to do with evolution theory as custard tarts have to do with fire engines. Even if you could come up with difinitive proof of divine involvement in the Big Bang, that still does not effect the scientific value of evolution in the slightest, most insignificant way.

 

[Brennan]

Why do we assume that, as you said, "what we observe around us can be trusted"? It is only because we assume that any effect we observe has a quantifiable (and hence observable) cause. To assume supernatural intervention instantly assumes that anything we observe may not have had a quantifiable cause which we can naturalistically investigate.

If one assumes that a particular cask of wine was supernaturally created, one then cannot use chemical methods to determine the date it was "formed".

The effects of miracles would be easy to observe: to use your own examples from your later post:

Bullets changing direction: you assume that nothing is known about the direction of the bullet at the start of it's motion: if we know (eg: from video evidence) that the bullet starts moving in direction a and ends up going in direction b then we know something inexplicable has happened.

Bullets being slowed: easy; place the shooting in a small room. There can be no way the bullet can have been fired from a great distance as determined by the ballistic study.