The Fallacy of the Alternative Interpretation

[shernren]

I see statements of this nature so often from YECs:

But the data only gives 4.5 billion years / 13.2 billion years / [some other offensive figure] by your interpretation!

So let's clear this up.

Now, it is true that we can interpret the same set of data in alternative ways. However, there are limited options available to us with physical data.

The first, of course, is to simply dismiss unexplainable data as being incorrect. That is the materialist view. The second is to accept unexplainable data as being possible but, well, unexplainable.

The third, as proposed by some who don't want science to interfere with their pet theories, is that the current set of data can be reinterpreted to yield new possibilities of physical laws. Sounds farfetched? This is precisely what scientific creationism is trying to do.

Science (whatever type) doesn't operate without laws, and if YECism is trying to investigate the Creation scientifically, they are trying to come up with a new set of laws that will make the idea of a 6 day 6000 year old creation scientifically feasible within the limits of currently available data. Now here's the problem with such an approach:

Let's take Elisha's miracle of floating the axehead as an example (I like it: it's simple). Using Archimedes' Principle we know that v1p1 = v2p2 where v1 and p1 are the volume and density of the axe, and v2 and p2 are the displaced volume and density of the water. Now, assuming that the axe is 100 cc in volume and displaced 50 cc of water so that it could float, the formula gives us p1 (density of iron) = 0.5g/ml. So, if I take 50 cc of iron, I expect it to displace 25 cc of water, right?

But the 50 cc of iron displaces 50 cc of water and sinks all the way down.

Let's try again. What happens if I use 150 cc of iron? Does it displace 75 cc of water?

No ... it displaces 150 cc of iron and goes all the way down.

Now what? At this point, the alternative interpretations come in.

The materialist / naturalist says: "I can't see how iron can float on water, based on all these results. So, the Bible must be wrong about what it said about Elisha floating the axhead. Maybe the ax was made of styrofoam, or the river was made of mercury, or something, but there's no way it could have floated."

The supernaturalist says: "Now, I can see that iron doesn't float on water. But it seems it did in the past. Well, that must have been an isolated incidence of a miracle, and just because it happened in the past doesn't mean that today I can throw iron into the water and it would float. It has happened, but I can't use its happening to predict what should happen in a future similar instance."

The "creation scientist" says: "Hmm. Iron floated on water in the past, but doesn't float on water in the present. ... I know! Maybe, the density of iron has been increasing with time!"



The fallacy is in assuming that statements of miracles in the past have predictive power over the present, or in other words there is a science that can explain a miracle. And yet this is precisely what YECs are doing. The best example of it was the RATE committee (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) determined to make radioisotopes decay faster while obeying rules. Which is quite a futile try, because hey, since it's a miracle, why do you even need rules? Why not just be 100% supernaturalist and say "We don't know how, why or when, but God made the whole universe look older, fullstop, end of website"?

Because in fact the creation science ministry is also a compromise. (Note I am not attacking the theology of creation, but the science of it) It is aimed at a demographic with a slight layman's knowledge of science but with a deep thirst for typical Christianity: in other words, a breed which is educated enough to know science is important, but not too much to actually know how it's done beyond what they read; and at the same time religious enough to respect the Bible without taking the effort to question their interpretations of it. (Note I am saying this is the target demographic of creation science ministries and I am not implying here that anyone is as such.) So creation science steps in and explains away the uncomfortableness of grappling with miracles, by showing that they are scientific. But isn't this a lack of faith in their books? Why the reliance on science?

 

[Maccie]

 

[Vance]

Very good points, Shenren. YEC's tend to fall into two categories when it comes to science. Either they cover their ears and do a "la, la, la" act, and pretend that the evidence of the natural world does not matter, or they attempt to cram the evidence into their Biblical interpretation, then say it is just a different (but just as valid) interpretation of the data.

 

[Biblewriter]

Because in fact the creation science ministry is also a compromise. (Note I am not attacking the theology of creation, but the science of it) It is aimed at a demographic with a slight layman's knowledge of science but with a deep thirst for typical Christianity: in other words, a breed which is educated enough to know science is important, but not too much to actually know how it's done beyond what they read; and at the same time religious enough to respect the Bible without taking the effort to question their interpretations of it. (Note I am saying this is the target demographic of creation science ministries and I am not implying here that anyone is as such.) So creation science steps in and explains away the uncomfortableness of grappling with miracles, by showing that they are scientific. But isn't this a lack of faith in their books? Why the reliance on science?

I appreciate these comments. The "creation scientists" think any interprtation of scripture other than their own is compromise. But there are Biblical literalists who honestly believe that the Bible not only allows, but actually teaches what "creation scientists" call "the gap theory."

 

[shernren]

comments? So far I haven't seen any replies from the people who should be inclined to disagree... if I'm liked that much there must be something wrong with what I'm saying!

 

[billwald]

The use of "law" by scientists is traditional but not accurate. The alchemists like Newton thought they were discovering God's laws that God imposed on nature, thus "natural laws." Better to use "physical relationships."

 

[SBG]

You stated this:

"The fallacy is in assuming that statements of miracles in the past have predictive power over the present, or in other words there is a science that can explain a miracle."

By this are you stating that science cannot explain miracles and make claims about the physical affects of the actual miracles?

 

[shernren]

You stated this:

"The fallacy is in assuming that statements of miracles in the past have predictive power over the present, or in other words there is a science that can explain a miracle."

By this are you stating that science cannot explain miracles and make claims about the physical affects of the actual miracles?

I think that science can observe a miracle. I mean, let's say we had a materialist and a supernaturalist watching when the axhead floated on water. The observation is that there is an axhead which isn't sinking into the water.

The materialist says "Gee, something is wrong here. I think the axhead is a faker. Maybe it's a trick, like, there's a pillar hidden in the water that nobody can see because it has the same refractive index or something."
The supernaturalist says "Well, God must have done something fantastic."

But both would agree that just because the axhead floated this once, doesn't mean that if I throw another axhead in it will float. The point is that just because iron floated on water once doesn't mean it will do so again.

Science can observe the effects, and declare them anomalous. But any attempted explanation is ultimately metaphysical in nature and untestable simply because the event cannot be repeated. I mean, the axhead floated, presumably until the person took it out of the water. So the anomalous state only lasted for those short moments in which the axhead was in the water. Can we learn anything about the physical properties of water and iron from those few moments? Nothing that we can apply outside that situation.

That's why I say science cannot process miracles. If the same force is pulling two apples to the ground, I can compare the magnitude and come to a conclusion about what will happen with a third apple. If the same amount of current going through a resistor generates this much heat, I can hook another resistor up to the same current and see how much heat this resistor dissipates instead. But if I only have once in the history of man that an axhead floated on water, what conclusion can I draw about other axheads?

(Oh dear. I definitely have an axe to grind. XD)

So let's take one "disputed assumption": that radioisotope decay rates are variable, thereby rendering suspect the mainstream age of the earth. Now, you could say that a miracle of God speeded up the decay (and simply vanished the insane amount of heat from the universe, but that's a different story) but can you say how? It is pointless to do so: for the simple reason that God isn't doing it today, certainly not in the proportions required to shorten 5 billion to 6 thousand years. (If nuclear waste decayed in the wild a few million times faster than in the lab, why aren't we using nuclear tech all the way? Isn't Chernobyl still dangerous?)

And yet, scientific predictions only have value as observed, reproducible relations. (A result that is not reproducible by independent teams is immediately suspect!) So how does one call the study of an irreproducible relation "science"? Or is this just a misnomer to lend a halo of credibility?

 

[Delta One]

shernern,

The third, as proposed by some who don't want science to interfere with their pet theories, is that the current set of data can be reinterpreted to yield new possibilities of physical laws. Sounds farfetched? This is precisely what scientific creationism is trying to do.

How so? Creationists use the same science and scientific facts as the evolutionists use! They instead just come to different conclusions about the facts given the different initial starting assumptions. They realise the many assumptions involved in radiometric dating methods (such as how much daughter element there was originally, whether the rate of decay was constant, and so on) and realise that if you change the assumption you will just get a different age (usually by vast ages). To test how good these radiometric dating methods, it is wise to test them on rocks of known ages. Many tests have been done (including one by Oxford) on rocks of known ages (although the dating laboratory was not told that the age was known) and the dates recieved through these methods have resulted in millions of years, if not billions of years, for these 50 year old rocks and 200 year old rocks! The point is, if you can't trust the radiometric dating methods for rocks that you know everything about and can observe (i.e. no assumptions needed), then why should you trust the very same methods for trying to find the age of an unknown rock when you must make many unprovable assumptions. Further more, radiometric dating appears to be quite circular in its reasoning; put simply, many scientists use old age assumptions to "prove" an old earth.

Also, since when have any informed creationist argued that there were new laws in the beginning??

Science (whatever type) doesn't operate without laws, and if YECism is trying to investigate the Creation scientifically, they are trying to come up with a new set of laws that will make the idea of a 6 day 6000 year old creation scientifically feasible within the limits of currently available data.

How can you investigate the actual creation week when we were not there, i.e. can't observe anything, have very little knowledge of the circumstances and can not experiment on it and can not repeat the event?? Similarly, the same is true for evolutionism. However, the descriptive language in Genesis and other parts of the Bible (for example, it is referred many times to God "streaching out the heavens") gives creation scientists some idea of how God may have created the universe. Dr Humphreys' creationist cosmology is a prime example of this in action.

Creationists believe that all the laws that apply today did then. That said, God was obviously preserving the animals and humans from suffering the decaying effects of the second law (while still allowing for the 2nd law to be in action, for example when Adam digested a carrot). If you scoff at this, then its a good thing that this isn't the only place where God preserves something perfectly in the Bible. In Deuteronomy 29:5 and Nehemiah 9:21, we are told that the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years, and yet their clothes didn’t wear out, their shoes didn’t wear out and their feet didn’t swell. Obviously God miraculously upheld their clothing, shoes and feet so that they would not wear out or fall apart as the rest of the creation is doing. One can only imagine what the world would be like if God upheld every detail of it like this.
The book of Daniel, chapter 3, gives us another glimpse, when we read about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego walking into an intensely blazing furnace yet coming out without even the smell of smoke on their clothes. When the Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of the universe, upheld their bodies and clothing in the midst of fire (v. 25), nothing could be hurt or destroyed.

These examples help us understand a little of what it would be like if God upheld every aspect of the creation—nothing would fall apart.

How did God do these things? By His power. As the supreme Creator of the universe, it makes sense to realise that God has power over the laws that He created and when He acts on the world like in the above, it is called a miracle and cannot be explained by science, natural laws and so on.

Let's take Elisha's miracle of floating the axehead as an example (I like it: it's simple).

You example is nothing more than utter rubbish (no offence) and has no bearing on or no relation to the creationary scenario. Every Christian knows that it was a miracle - denies the natural processes and laws. Miracles do not have to be repeated (in fact, probably none are) and only occur when God personally (or sends His angels) interferes with the normal way that nature goes.

Take as a case study what happened to Roger Morneau - who is a man of incredible faith who when he prays, things happen - one cold winter day in the US. It was five degrees below zero, and Roger Morneau was out of petrol [I don't like the American word "gas" cuz its not gas at all]. If his toes froze, they would have to be amputated. The man bowed his head in prayer. "It was almost as if something hit the back of my automobile and it shot forward," he says. "Then the motor started to accelerate and hummed like never before." He drove the 27 miles to home without a drop of petrol [once again, the word "gas" is not used by me]. When he got out and tried to start the car in the morning it wouldn't start. [From Incredible Answers to Prayer]

I'm not going to go driving imense kilometres when the fuel gauge is on because I know that the car will run out of fuel and then the engine will just splutter and die. The Bible tells us not to put God to the test. I know that once the fuel gauge comes on, I've got around 50 km to find fuel depending on what kind of driving I'm doing, e.g. city driving, country, freeway, etc. I'm not willing to put God to the test on the little things because He probably won't do what He did for Morneau for me because I willingly wanted to put God to the test (which He specifically tells us not to do).

The fallacy is in assuming that statements of miracles in the past have predictive power over the present, or in other words there is a science that can explain a miracle. And yet this is precisely what YECs are doing. The best example of it was the RATE committee (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) determined to make radioisotopes decay faster while obeying rules. Which is quite a futile try, because hey, since it's a miracle, why do you even need rules? Why not just be 100% supernaturalist and say "We don't know how, why or when, but God made the whole universe look older, fullstop, end of website"?

For one, creationists do have a good idea of how God made His whole Creation -- it's written in Genesis 1 and 2 by God Himself! He told us how He made everything (Exodus 20:11, "For in six days God made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day")! We can have a fairly good idea of when He made everything -- by using the genealogies that appear in the Bible starting with Adam and going right down to our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ (the last Adam).

I'm not to informed on the RATE project (although I have heard about it before this).

Since the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God that tells us how He said He made everything, isn't it smart of use the Bible and it's authorative statements about Creation (where it is obvous there is no poetical or figurative language to imply that it isn't meant to be taken literally) to be the basis of our science rather than believing fallible man's theories who were not there and who don't know everything and who are, by their nature, in rebellion against God like the first man Adam?

Although the Bible isn't primarly a science book, it does contain many accurate scientific verses, including Isaiah 40:22 (the earth is round); the earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7); the stars are countless (Genesis 15:5); the first and second laws of thermodynamics (take for example Isaiah 51:6); and Job 38:31 which is correct in saying that the Pleiades cluster stays together while the Orion cluster is breaking up; and others. IF the Bible was not correct in these simple things, then it could not be the Word of God. The fact that all of the above have been proven by process science adds further reputation to the Bible being the Word of God, then it is a good basis from which to do one's science from (if it's infallible which all Christians should believe other wise their faith is in vain).

Because in fact the creation science ministry is also a compromise.

You have not proven this at all. Creation science tries to explain how God made everything taking into full account what the Bible says. How can we do this? There is only one way, and that's using science to test different ideas based on Scripture (e.g. Dr Humphreys' realitivistic cosmolgoy). Take again for example, trying to understand the "deep". However, the assumption that the Bible is the inspired Word of God does not change and totally drives the theories that the creationists come up with. If a creationary theory goes against the Bible's authorative and clear statements, then it is scrapped and a new one that is compattible is thought up.

It is aimed at a demographic with a slight layman's knowledge of science but with a deep thirst for typical Christianity: in other words, a breed which is educated enough to know science is important, but not too much to actually know how it's done beyond what they read; and at the same time religious enough to respect the Bible without taking the effort to question their interpretations of it.

Actually no, AiG and other respectable creationary instutitions are quite up front about what they assume to be true (e.g. the Bible as being the infallible world of God) and they also fully define the nature of science and how it can and cannot be used effectively and what its limits are. Currently, when ever I have quoted from the Answers Book or their website that contains a little bit of information on science and what it is and how it works, I have recieved no argument from any TEs or OECs. Kind of weird if they don't know what they're talking about, isn't it?

So creation science steps in and explains away the uncomfortableness of grappling with miracles, by showing that they are scientific. But isn't this a lack of faith in their books? Why the reliance on science?

There is nothing wrong using miracles as the basis of ones work provided that they come from a reliable source. In this case, the Bible, which claims to be the infallible Word of God many times, is the source. I'll let you determine how credible that is.....

Creation science shows the flaws in evolutionary theory while at the same time sets out to demonstrate how the creationary theory is a good alternative to the man made fallible theory of evolutionism for the origin of the universe (including life) by illustrating how the Bible's statements in Genesis 1 fit with process science and are not against the evidence we observe today (e.g. varriation within a kind).

Do you want to know how miraculous evolutionism is? Read what Sir Fred Hoyle said about the chance of evolution being true:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado wepping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

The chance of the above scenario happening? Zero. And evolutions criticize and scoff at creationists for having faith! Hypocritical to the max!

 

[shernren]

How so? Creationists use the same science and scientific facts as the evolutionists use! They instead just come to different conclusions about the facts given the different initial starting assumptions. They realise the many assumptions involved in radiometric dating methods (such as how much daughter element there was originally, whether the rate of decay was constant, and so on) and realise that if you change the assumption you will just get a different age (usually by vast ages).

I hate to sound like a broken record, but isochron dating only relies on two assumptions:

1. Radioisotope decay rates are mostly constant. Proven. If the rates varied enough to produce 85 years' worth of decay in an hour, half the radioactive waste on earth would be gone, and the Earth would be a whole lot hotter as a result.

2. Rocks don't discriminate between isotopes when incorporating atoms. Mostly proven. The discrimination if there is any is very small, less than 1% and surely not enough to turn 4.5 billion years into 6000 years.

Many tests have been done (including one by Oxford) on rocks of known ages (although the dating laboratory was not told that the age was known) and the dates recieved through these methods have resulted in millions of years, if not billions of years, for these 50 year old rocks and 200 year old rocks!

Sources? I can bet that either those rocks were acknowledged as unsuitable for testing, that some inclusion within the rock was being tested, or the lab was just a plain darn lousy lab. Besides, saying that isochron dating produces absolutely no reliable dates just because a few rocks don't line up is something like saying there are no good Muslims in the world just because a few of them have the habit of blowing themselves up in crowded places.

Also, since when have any informed creationist argued that there were new laws in the beginning??

The same ones who suggest that radioisotopes can decay a few million times faster according to their whim and fancy. That would require a whole lot of quantum mechanic ninjitsu.

Dr Humphreys' creationist cosmology is a prime example of this in action.

Straight from ICR themselves: Humphreys' cosmology acknowledged as unscientific! http://www.icr.org/research/df/ with emphasis on:...

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While the Humphreys cosmogony met with little discussion or opposition at first, the level of debate has increased tremendously. Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.[/font][/font]

Creationists believe that all the laws that apply today did then. That said, God was obviously preserving the animals and humans from suffering the decaying effects of the second law (while still allowing for the 2nd law to be in action, for example when Adam digested a carrot). If you scoff at this, then its a good thing that this isn't the only place where God preserves something perfectly in the Bible.

So where does God say this applied to Creation before the Fall?

You example is nothing more than utter rubbish (no offence) and has no bearing on or no relation to the creationary scenario. Every Christian knows that it was a miracle - denies the natural processes and laws. Miracles do not have to be repeated (in fact, probably none are) and only occur when God personally (or sends His angels) interferes with the normal way that nature goes.

No offence would have been taken if you had shown me just why it was rubbish right before giving me a very similar argument. Miracles are irreproducible occurrences producing irreproducible effects. Science is concerned with reproducible occurrences producing reproducible effects. So why is "creation science" studying miracles and calling it science?

Although the Bible isn't primarly a science book, it does contain many accurate scientific verses, including Isaiah 40:22 (the earth is round); the earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7); the stars are countless (Genesis 15:5); the first and second laws of thermodynamics (take for example Isaiah 51:6); and Job 38:31 which is correct in saying that the Pleiades cluster stays together while the Orion cluster is breaking up; and others.

The Dogon culture of Mali has a myth that amphibian beings from the stars visited them. Utterly absurd? Then how did they know that Sirius has a dark companion and how did they know that it followed an elliptical orbit?
http://www.unmuseum.org/siriusb.htm
Just because a book or a story has a few scientifically valid points here and there doesn't automatically make it lecture material. If the Bible was written for scientific guidance then why weren't Israel more scientifically advanced than their neighbours? (And they weren't. During the time of Saul, everybody but Saul and Jonathan used wooden swords, presumably, because only the Philistines knew how to make sharp blades.)

Actually no, AiG and other respectable creationary instutitions are quite up front about what they assume to be true (e.g. the Bible as being the infallible world of God) and they also fully define the nature of science and how it can and cannot be used effectively and what its limits are.

The first I agree with. The second, I don't.

This from AiG:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

Now look carefully: "apparent" and "perceived" are more or less synonyms for "observed", right? In other words, if what you say you saw doesn't click with what I say the Bible says, then what you saw must be invalid! Now, was that more like the materialist or the supernaturalist in my example?

Science progresses when "apparent, perceived and claimed evidence" contradicts earlier theories, developing a necessity for new theories. If AiG says contrary evidence is invalid then by definition they aren't doing science, they are doing theology, and they shouldn't let anyone think otherwise.

Currently, when ever I have quoted from the Answers Book or their website that contains a little bit of information on science and what it is and how it works, I have recieved no argument from any TEs or OECs. Kind of weird if they don't know what they're talking about, isn't it?

Go on, quote me something. Have you ever answered when I quote talkorigins.faq?

Creation science shows the flaws in evolutionary theory while at the same time sets out to demonstrate how the creationary theory is a good alternative to the man made fallible theory of evolutionism for the origin of the universe (including life) by illustrating how the Bible's statements in Genesis 1 fit with process science and are not against the evidence we observe today (e.g. varriation within a kind).

Wow. If creation science has found fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, they should stop printing their findings in invisible ink, if you get my drift.

Do you want to know how miraculous evolutionism is? Read what Sir Fred Hoyle said about the chance of evolution being true:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Let me give you something about chance:

The chance of 4.5 billion years' worth of radiodecay happening in 6000 years is comparable to the chance of me running a mile in a second, unaided. How's that for faith?