The plank in the materialist's eye

npetreley · May 31, 2002

Philip E. Johnson wrote an excellent essay called "How can we tell Science from Religion?"

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/scirel98.htm

In it, he makes the case that many people with outstanding credentials who call themselves scientists deliberately exclude testable hypotheses due to their a-priori commitment to materialism. That this is the case can be established clearly by quotes from the scientists themselves, including my favorite quote from Richard Lewontin, which is included in Johnson's essay.

Some evolutionists and scientists admit that they take this a-priori stance and defend it with objections to doing otherwise. Based only on the posts I've read, here are the typical objections which seem to appear most often on this board:

1. OBJECTION: To postulate a creator is to postulate the supernatural, which leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of religion. You cannot mix the two because science can only discover, test and confirm natural causes, not supernatural causes.

When the discussion involves evolution, the objection is usually this variation of the previous objection.

2. VARIATION: You cannot refute evolution by arguing that abiogenesis is impossible because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

The variation (2) simply pretends that what you assume about creation or abiogenesis has nothing to do with how you study evolution. But this is one of the most dangerous attitudes a scientist can adopt. If you dismiss the possibility of the supernatural or arbitrarily separate abiogenesis vs. creation from evolution, you have adoptied a set of a-priori assumptions that is likely to contaminate everything you do thereafter. Everything you have discovered by your so-called "scientific method" has been contaminated by your a-priori assumptions, and many, if not most, of your conclusions may be wrong.

It is not necessary to take this risk. For example, it is not necessary to study the supernatural itself to entertain it as a possible "cause."

Johnson explains this better than I, so here's what he says in the essay (emphasis mine):

If I say that "the first life form was designed by intelligence," my statement explains something, even if I can say nothing about the identity of the designer or the means by which the design was executed. What it explains (if it is true) is that we are on the wrong road if we are seeking to discover how life can be made without a designing intelligence. Detailed truth builds upon basic truth. If we base our research on counterfactual assumptions we are likely to be heading up a blind alley.

How does this actually play out in practice? Johnson explains it in terms of "mind-first" or "matter-first". In other words, it is the difference between intelligent design and accidental design. (Emphasis mine)

The advantage of starting with mind is that mind has capacities which matter lacks, capacities which may be necessary to explain the world. If there is convincing evidence that mindless matter can produce life, and even mind, then the matter-first position holds the advantage. But if matter lacks those capacities, then it will be more productive of truth to start with mind. It is not scientific to assume that matter has such capabilities merely because that is what scientists would like to believe.

Johnson exposes bad science well in his essay, but since I would like to avoid putting evolutionists here on the defensive, here's an excerpt that is probably the least volatile and yet it is still extremely revealing about the problem. It is the last part of Johnson's essay.

A quote from the late Carl Sagan captures the essential issue. In a book published shortly before his death he said:

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterproductive, and the most ruthless scrutiny of all ideas, old and new... Consider this claim: As I walk along, time -- as measured by my wristwatch or my aging process -- slows down.... Here's another: Matter and antimatter are all the time, throughout the universe, being created from nothing. Here's a third: once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. They're all absurd! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the other two are consequences of quantum mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and barrier tunneling, they're called). Like it or not, that's the way the world is. If you insist it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the universe. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, p. 306 (Random House 1995).

"Like it or not, that's the way the world is." Sagan understood that prejudice of every kind is the ultimate enemy of science, but he could not grasp the possibility that he might be guilty of the fault he ascribed to others. He was incapable of conceiving that his own faction might have so strong a wish that materialism be true that they would be willing to set up an a priori philosophical principle as their God, and exempt it from the ruthless scrutiny that science otherwise requires.. (I know this for a fact, because I tried without success to explain the concept to Sagan in a long dinner conversation at Cornell University hosted by our mutual friend William Provine. Sagan didn't just disagree -- he couldn't grasp the concept.) If Sagan could have removed the plank from his own eye, he would have seen better to remove the splinter from his brother's eye.

True believers in the scientific method, among whom I count myself, do not exempt ourselves from scientific standards. If we prefer to believe in divine creation we recognize that the facts may not support our preference, and if we prefer to believe in materialism we do the same. That insistence on questioning what we might want to believe, and applying the same critical standards to ourselves that we recommend to others, is how I define "science." How do you define it?

Jerry Smith · May 31, 2002

Nick,

Science doesn't ask you to believe in materialism absolutely. It merely requires that you accpet that there are materialistic causes and that they (and only they) can be studied by the scientific method.

Edited to add (I lost part of my post while cleaning it up)
Science cannot detect, document, and test supernatural causes. Therefore, wisely, scientists do not postulate them. The commitment to materialism acknowledges the limitations of science and forbids an attempt to bring in the untestable.

The alternative to a materialist cause is scientific ignorance. If there are supernatural causes for some events, then we will never have a good scientific theory for what caused them. That doesn't mean we stop looking, because you can never know what does and does not have a supernatural cause. You look, assuming that you have hope of finding a natural cause.

end of edit

VARIATION: You cannot refute evolution by arguing that abiogenesis is impossible because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Of course you cannot. Evolution must stand on its own evidence, and therefore it must only fall by evidence against it, not evidence against abiogenesis.

The variation (2) simply pretends that what you assume about creation or abiogenesis has nothing to do with how you study evolution. But this is one of the most dangerous attitudes a scientist can adopt. If you dismiss the possibility of the supernatural or arbitrarily separate abiogenesis vs. creation from evolution, you have adoptied a set of a-priori assumptions that is likely to contaminate everything you do thereafter. Everything you have discovered by your so-called "scientific method" has been contaminated by your a-priori assumptions, and many, if not most, of your conclusions may be wrong.

This would be a valid criticism if evolution were deduced from abiogensis. Since it is not, then no assumptions or lack of them we make about abiogenesis can have any impact on the credibility of evolution.

I think that Johnson may have had a hard time getting his point across to Sagan for reasons other than just that Sagan "just couldn't grasp it".

The scientific method is of necessity a materialistic one. If there is a supernatural cause for a thing, science cannot reliably detect, document and test its effect or action. Therefore, science, knowing its limitations, never postulates a supernatural cause. If it is the case that there is a natural cause to be found, science will hopefully discover it and report it.

If it is the case that a supernatural cause exists for a thing (be it creation of life or creation of the universe), we cannot hope to have a scientific understanding of how the thing came to be (be it life, or the universe). We do not quit looking though, because we don't know in advance whether the cause is supernatural - we have to look because of the possibility that the cause is natural.

seebs · May 31, 2002

I think it's fair to point out that some things which we might think "supernatural" today could be understood later on, and stop being "supernatural". I do think scientists sometimes err on the side of caution in such things - and yet, in the long run, it'll get straightened out.

DonaldW112 · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
Philip E. Johnson wrote an excellent essay called "How can we tell Science from Religion?"

Oh my, were to start.

First, I find Philip Johnson, J.D. writing about science I little interesting since he is not trained in science and has never practiced it. But clearly he is a very intelligent person and his comments should be addressed.

Second, the whole thing about mind and matter:

The advantage of starting with mind is that mind has capacities which matter lacks, capacities which may be necessary to explain the world. If there is convincing evidence that mindless matter can produce life, and even mind, then the matter-first position holds the advantage. But if matter lacks those capacities, then it will be more productive of truth to start with mind. It is not scientific to assume that matter has such capabilities merely because that is what scientists would like to believe.
[\QUOTE]

For this to be true or even relavent you have to prove that the "mind" is more than the matter it is made up of. There is no evidence that the "mind" can exist outside of the matter that makes up the brain. There is a lot of evidence that changing the matter that makes up the brain changes the "mind". So you can't say the mind is more than matter -- the mind IS matter.

Third,
Jerry Smith handled the abiogenesis thing well. In many of my discussions with YECs I give them the fact that the first replicator may have been made by a god just to get past this and talk about evolution (I don't believe that but it gives the conversation a good starting point).

Fourth,
Science including the supernatural: It is self-defeating for science to postulate a supernatural cause because it cannot be proven (or disproven). By definition a supernatural cause can do anything. Because whatever evidence I bring up a "supernatural" scientist can always say that "god did it". What is to stop a "supernatural" scienist from saying the fossil record was placed there by god on day 4. Then all arguement about transitional forms, dating, etc. is mute. If you allow one "god did it" into science then all science can become "god did it". In science we say "we don't know yet". We may never know, and maybe god did do it, but science can not address it.

Fifth,
If the bible is literally true and a world-wide flood occured and there was one special creation event 6000 years ago. The scientific evidence would indicate this. Scientists don't care which way the evidence points they just want to get the facts correct. Remember science started out creationist (at least in the western world) it was turned against creationism by the over-whelming evidence against it. They were creationists, this is not where they thought the evidence would lead, but it is where the evidence has lead.

Sixth,
I would love to hear the lawyer Johnson lecturing the scientist Sagan on the theory of science.

npetreley · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Of course you cannot [refute evolution based on the argument that abiogenesis cannot happen]. Evolution must stand on its own evidence, and therefore it must only fall by evidence against it, not evidence against abiogenesis.

For readability I added the part in brackets. If you meant something else, I apologize.

I agree that it is not necessarily possible to prove evolution is false by proving abiogenesis as false (it may be, but it's not that simple). But that isn't the point that Johnson is making, and neither is it the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that the two are inextricably linked by the affect they have on your "scientific approach" if you take an a-priori view of materialism (which necessitates abiogenesis).

If abiogenesis is impossible, then life MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED. That opens up a whole new set of possibilities that evolutionists are currently ignoring when studying what they think is the evidence for evolution.

If it is possible that simple life was created, then it is also possible that complex life was also created (life in any form at any level of sophistication that we now observe). This doesn't disprove evolution, but it changes the way you have to look at things. A proper scientific approach says you can't rule out that a chimp and a man have a common ancestor. But a proper scientific approach that accepts that there may not be material causes can neither rule out the possibility that they were both created. If you have an a-priori commitment to materialism, you MUST RULE OUT the possibility that both were created.

The end result is that you are not only in danger of coming to the wrong conclusion, you are in danger of doing so because you are being UNSCIENTIFIC in your approach. You have an entirely different outlook when you examine the evidence from a materialist view, which is the same thing as saying you refuse to consider the possibility that abiogenesis is false or even impossible.

So if you admit that creation may be true, then if it IS true you're more likely to discover that it is true.

If you look only for material causes, then you are assuming creation cannot be true, and therefore even if it IS true you will probably never find out.

In short, an a-priori commitment to material causes limits your ability to find out the truth, no matter what the truth may be, because it is UNSCIENTIFIC in its approach by arbitrarily eliminating one of the possible explanations (hypotheses).

npetreley · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by DonaldW112

If the bible is literally true and a world-wide flood occured and there was one special creation event 6000 years ago. The scientific evidence would indicate this.

You're right. And scientists wouldn't understand the evidence when they saw it because their a-priori commitment to materialism requires them to dismiss any evidence that contradicts the basic assumptions that arise from believing in material causes only.

I would love to hear the lawyer Johnson lecturing the scientist Sagan on the theory of science.

Me, too, especially now that Sagan knows he was wrong.

edgeo · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
You're right. And scientists wouldn't understand the evidence when they saw it because their a-priori commitment to materialism requires them to dismiss any evidence that contradicts the basic assumptions that arise from believing in material causes only.

But evolution was not always an a priori assumption. In fact, creationism was the a priori assumption, and look what happened to it. No, your analysis is too simplistic. There is more going one here. Like evidence.

Me, too, especially now that Sagan knows he was wrong.

Kind of presumptuous don't you think? Talk about a priori assumptions! You haven't even talked to him lately.

DonaldW112 · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

You're right. And scientists wouldn't understand the evidence when they saw it because their a-priori commitment to materialism requires them to dismiss any evidence that contradicts the basic assumptions that arise from believing in material causes only.

Absolutely 100% wrong!!! The evidence is the evidence. Now if I am a hard core atheist I might say well yea the evidence looks the bible story but yada, yada, yada ... I still not believe in your god. But this is not the case. The evidence does not support creation and it the creationists going yea but I still believe it because yada, yada, evilutionist, yada, yada, yada....

A materialistic outlook says nothing about the evidence. If the evidence said there was world-wide flood 4000 years ago then that would materialistic, if special creation happened it would be materialistic. Now it might be hard to explain but the evidence would be there -- it is not.

Jerry Smith · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
If abiogenesis is impossible, then life MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED. That opens up a whole new set of possibilities that evolutionists are currently ignoring when studying what they think is the evidence for evolution.

If life WAS created, this HAD to be a supernatural event. If it WAS a supernatural event, we can never have scientific knowledge of it. If we never have scientific knowledge of it, then about the only new possibility opened up for evolution is that tehre is SOME POSSIBILITY that we can never have scientific knowledge of how the diversity of life came about either, because it two is the result of supernatural causes. However, that possibility has already been discounted by the fact that it did at least have the natural cause of evolution.

If it is possible that simple life was created, then it is also possible that complex life was also created (life in any form at any level of sophistication that we now observe). This doesn't disprove evolution, but it changes the way you have to look at things. A proper scientific approach says you can't rule out that a chimp and a man have a common ancestor. But a proper scientific approach that accepts that there may not be material causes can neither rule out the possibility that they were both created. If you have an a-priori commitment to materialism, you MUST RULE OUT the possibility that both were created.

You must rule out scientific knowledge of their creation, if it is supernatural.

The end result is that you are not only in danger of coming to the wrong conclusion, you are in danger of doing so because you are being UNSCIENTIFIC in your approach.

Quite the contrary. The only danger of coming to the wrong conclusion comes from the possibility of doing poor science. If there is no natural cause, science will not find it, and no conclusion will be reached. If there is no natural cause, and science finds one anyway, it can only be because of faulty methodology, not because of the materialist commitment. The materialist commitment means only that we must give natural explanations IF THEY CAN BE FOUND.

You have an entirely different outlook when you examine the evidence from a materialist view, which is the same thing as saying you refuse to consider the possibility that abiogenesis is false or even impossible.

Not quite right. You are saying you refuse to give up the effort to find a natural explanation for the origin of life. Sure there is the possibility that abiogenesis is false or impossible, but we cannot let that mere possibility prevent us looking for an abiogenetic explanation.

So if you admit that creation may be true, then if it IS true you're more likely to discover that it is true.

How? If it is supernatural in character, it isn't testable by scientific means. Admitting it may have happened doesn't increase the ability of science to discover it.

If you look only for material causes, then you are assuming creation cannot be true, and therefore even if it IS true you will probably never find out.

Even if it is true we will probably never find out (scientifically). We do not have to assume that creation cannot be true in order to restrict our search to material causes: we must only admit that the supernatural is out of our reach to understand. On the other hand, if we look for material causes, we may find them: and we did, where it concerns common descent by evolution.

In short, an a-priori commitment to material causes limits your ability to find out the truth, no matter what the truth may be,

It does not limit our ability to find the truth, it merely acknowledges the limits of our abilities to find the truth.

because it is UNSCIENTIFIC in its approach by arbitrarily eliminating one of the possible explanations (hypotheses).

As I have explained, the exclusion of the supernatural is neither unscientific or arbitrary.

randman · May 31, 2002

I don't have time to hang out here tonight, but this one comment expresses the crux of the matter well. Thanks.
Btw, the issue is not what classifications man has created, nor the lines of distinction we d raw, but what is real, what really occurred. If science cannot take into account reality, then something is deeply wrong.

"If abiogenesis is impossible, then life MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED. That opens up a whole new set of possibilities that evolutionists are currently ignoring when studying what they think is the evidence for evolution.

If it is possible that simple life was created, then it is also possible that complex life was also created (life in any form at any level of sophistication that we now observe). This doesn't disprove evolution, but it changes the way you have to look at things. A proper scientific approach says you can't rule out that a chimp and a man have a common ancestor. But a proper scientific approach that accepts that there may not be material causes can neither rule out the possibility that they were both created. If you have an a-priori commitment to materialism, you MUST RULE OUT the possibility that both were created."

npetreley · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by edgeo

But evolution was not always an a priori assumption.

Yes, it was. Even Darwin said as much. He admitted that you could interpret the evidence pretty much any way you like, and that the fossil evidence was against it. Therefore the only way he could have come to his conclusion was the a-priori assumption that it was correct. Every evolutionists after that simply looked for the missing evidence to confirm the conclusion.

npetreley · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by edgeo

You haven't even talked to him lately.

How do you know? Perhaps I held a seance this morning...

npetreley · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

If life WAS created, this HAD to be a supernatural event. If it WAS a supernatural event, we can never have scientific knowledge of it.

That's not even remotely true.

Assume for a moment that creation is true. The reason we have so much trouble unravelling the riddles is not because creation occurred supernaturally, but because it occurred so far in the past when none of us were around.

Imagine for a moment that you and a dozen of your scientist buddies are in your front yard taking pictures of your flower garden when suddenly a redwood tree appears in the middle of the garden, fully grown. Now you and your buddies examine the tree, the surrounding flora, the soil, the sequence of pictures in your film, and no matter how hard you try to pick it apart, all the evidence points conclusively to the fact that one moment there was no tree, and the next, there was. There is no evidence whatsoever of natural causes for it to appear. For example, the soil is not disturbed, so nobody could have simply planted it faster than the speed of light so you didn't happen to notice. And so on...

You now have scientific knowledge of a supernatural event, complete with scientific evidence that it occurred. You may not know HOW it was done, and you may not be able to apply the scientific method (or any other method) in order to discover how it was done. But you not only have scientifically determined that it WAS done, you have the scientific evidence that it was done.

Why is this important? Because I guarantee that, from that moment on, you will approach every scientific problem with a mind that is more open and ready to consider many more alternative explanations.

You must rule out scientific knowledge of their creation, if it is supernatural.

Even if that were true (and obviously I believe it is not true) then it still doesn't mean you need to rule out creation. But that's exactly what materialism does. And that's why it is unscientific.

Taking the above illustration of the tree, assume now that this isn't your house, and that you arrived only after the tree appeared. The fellow who lives there tells you that the tree suddenly appeared out of nowhere. So you look at the soil, look at the tree, and determine that all the evidence seems to indicate that it had grown there. So that's what you conclude.

It's bad enough that you're WRONG about your conclusion. What's worse is that you're not ever likely to findout you were wrong. Since you assumed you must rule out supernatural causes, you failed to ask any questions that might have produced the evidence you needed to realize it appeared supernaturally. (Perhaps you might have asked the fellow if he had before and after pictures on the same roll of film, the reliability of which you might be able to confirm scientifically.)

That's exactly what happens when people examine the evidence now. They don't ask all the possible questions because they've already ruled out supernatural causes.

I said we have trouble unravelling the riddles, I didn't say it was impossible. Perhaps if you would ask the right questions about the evidence you might get answers that surprised you. But you'll never find out either way with the attitude you have now.

npetreley · Jun 1, 2002

This message intentionally left blank.

(I accidentally used "quote" to edit my last post.)

DonaldW112 · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by randman
I don't have time to hang out here tonight, but this one comment expresses the crux of the matter well. Thanks.

"If abiogenesis is impossible, then life MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED. That opens up a whole new set of possibilities that evolutionists are currently ignoring when studying what they think is the evidence for evolution.

If it is possible that simple life was created, then it is also possible that complex life was also created (life in any form at any level of sophistication that we now observe). This doesn't disprove evolution, but it changes the way you have to look at things.

randman, thanks for demonstrating the point I made earlier about once you allow one "god did it" into science then all of science becomes "god did it". Why stop with god creating complex life. Maybe god created the whole world looking old last Tuesday. Anything is possible. You can't tell one "god did it" from another -- chaos. Besides if god created all creatures at one time 6000 years ago and there was a global flood, the evidence would be in the fossil record -- it is not.

DonaldW112 · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

That's not even remotely true.

Assume for a moment that creation is true. The reason we have so much trouble unravelling the riddles is not because creation occurred supernaturally, but because it occurred so far in the past when none of us were around.
[\QUOTE]

What trouble? I think we have a pretty good model of the history of the earth and the facts don't match the story in the bible. There is no trouble here.

Imagine for a moment that you and a dozen of your scientist buddies are in your front yard taking pictures of your flower garden when suddenly a redwood tree appears in the middle of the garden, fully grown. Now you and your buddies examine the tree, the surrounding flora, the soil, the sequence of pictures in your film, and no matter how hard you try to pick it apart, all the evidence points conclusively to the fact that one moment there was no tree, and the next, there was. There is no evidence whatsoever of natural causes for it to appear.

Click to expand...

Why should we conclude there is no natural cause for this? Perhaps ETs transported the tree from their space ship using advanced technology.

You now have scientific knowledge of a supernatural event, complete with scientific evidence that it occurred. You may not know HOW it was done, and you may not be able to apply the scientific method (or any other method) in order to discover how it was done. But you not only have scientifically determined that it WAS done, you have the scientific evidence that it was done.

Click to expand...

No we would have an event we can't explain yet. Why should we ascribe a supernatural cause to it?

That's exactly what happens when people examine the evidence now. They don't ask all the possible questions because they've already ruled out supernatural causes.

Click to expand...

I still don't now what riddles you are talking about. Do you have an example? Also, as randman demonstrated, once you allow "god did it" into science all of science falls apart into chaos since all explanations are possible and equally valid.

Let me see if I can give you an analog you can relate to. What if I believed that supernatural events affected my computer program. I prayed that I will finish my code on time, etc. So one day I am trying to track down a very tough bug in the code and I just can't find it. I decide that in fact the code is correct and the supernatural power has caused the bug so I should just stop trying to find it. In fact maybe it is god's will that this bug stay in my code for some larger purpose that is above me. I then go tell my boss/customer that program has a bug but it is not in the code, it is god's will. That is exactly what you (and Philip Johnson) are saying scientists should do.

Jerry Smith · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
That's not even remotely true.

It is more than remotely true: please read on.

Assume for a moment that creation is true. The reason we have so much trouble unravelling the riddles is not because creation occurred supernaturally, but because it occurred so far in the past when none of us were around.

Imagine for a moment that you and a dozen of your scientist buddies are in your front yard taking pictures of your flower garden when suddenly a redwood tree appears in the middle of the garden, fully grown. Now you and your buddies examine the tree, the surrounding flora, the soil, the sequence of pictures in your film, and no matter how hard you try to pick it apart, all the evidence points conclusively to the fact that one moment there was no tree, and the next, there was. There is no evidence whatsoever of natural causes for it to appear. For example, the soil is not disturbed, so nobody could have simply planted it faster than the speed of light so you didn't happen to notice. And so on...

You now have scientific knowledge of a supernatural event, complete with scientific evidence that it occurred. You may not know HOW it was done, and you may not be able to apply the scientific method (or any other method) in order to discover how it was done. But you not only have scientifically determined that it WAS done, you have the scientific evidence that it was done.

The event could have been supernatural, or it may have had natural causes that are beyond our comprehension (quantum tunnelling, alien technology, whatever): either way, we don't know how it is done, but only that it happened.

Now if it was a supernatural agent, we can never have scientific knowledge of it for this reason: We do not know where to be standing with our cameras and other detection and measuring equipment when it happens again. We cannot reproduce or recreate the appearance in order to study it. Furthermore, this is all true even in the case where we watch the tree grow from a seed. If we assume natural causes, then we can start talking about the process of tree growth. If we allow supernaturalistic explanations, we cannot say that the tree didn't come about suddenly, along with a root structure embedded deeply in the soil and our memories of it embedded deeply in our brains. If we allow the supernaturalistic explanation, then we cannot rely on the regularity of any single aspect of tree growth. We don't know if cell division is natural and can be expected every time, or if that part is facilitated by supernatural causes & the whole remainder of the chain of events will fall apart next time we plant a seed.

Furthermore, people who are offended in their ideology will likely be going behind us to point out to the world that our "theory" of tree growth is based on the materialistic assumption and are therefore untrustworthy. They will insist that the druid notion of Dryad creation of trees be taught alongside our model in science class, because it is "a view equally supported by the evidence."

We can, however, have scientific evidence of its quick appearance, provided the supernatural entity that caused the quick appearance of the tree did not take his efforts further. By this, I mean, he made little tiny channels for the roots in the ground, and inserted the roots snugly into them, imitating a growth pattern - he might also mess with our cameras, so that the "before" photos come out with a tree in them. If he doesn't, though, we can at least show that the tree appeared suddenly, and have some scientific certainty about that fact - here is the remarkable thing - IF we do not allow supernatural causes to explain it. If we DO allow supernatural causes, then another theory that matches the data equally well is that the before pictures show no tree because a supernatural cause erased the tree from them. Our memories of a time of no tree and sudden appearance may exist because a supernatural cause inserted them into our heads. The only way we can even have scientific knowledge of the sudden appearance of the tree is if we approach it with the a-priori materialistic commitment.

The same is true for creation. If indeed the features of the earth appeared suddenly, we have a chance of knowing about it - if we stick to our a-priori materialistic commitment. We may not be able to approach scientific knowledge of the CAUSE of it (if it is a supernatural cause, or a natural cause beyond our intelligence to surmise), but we could at least discover that the features of the earth appeared suddenly if it were the case, and if the supernatural agent that made them appear did not disguise his work to lend the appearance of gradual appearance.

Why is this important? Because I guarantee that, from that moment on, you will approach every scientific problem with a mind that is more open and ready to consider many more alternative explanations.

As you can see from the above, we will probably be open and ready to consider more alternative explanations after an event like this - and we should be open and ready to consider even without an event like this... but we still won't be able to scientifically consider the supernatural alternative.

Even if that were true (and obviously I believe it is not true) then it still doesn't mean you need to rule out creation. But that's exactly what materialism does. And that's why it is unscientific.

Materialism is the inextricable core of scientific methodology

Taking the above illustration of the tree, assume now that this isn't your house, and that you arrived only after the tree appeared. The fellow who lives there tells you that the tree suddenly appeared out of nowhere. So you look at the soil, look at the tree, and determine that all the evidence seems to indicate that it had grown there. So that's what you conclude.

It's bad enough that you're WRONG about your conclusion. What's worse is that you're not ever likely to findout you were wrong.

It is possible to be wrong about our conclusions, even from science - and even on the basis of the materialist assumption. If you are ever called to come look at a tree in someone's back yard that they claim appeared their suddenly, and they don't have any evidence that it really happened that way apart from their own say-so - what is the reasonable conclusion to draw? Yes, you can be wrong - but how can you go through life not knowing whether the chair you are about to park your butt in is still going to be there for 5 minutes after you park?

Since you assumed you must rule out supernatural causes, you failed to ask any questions that might have produced the evidence you needed to realize it appeared supernaturally. (Perhaps you might have asked the fellow if he had before and after pictures on the same roll of film, the reliability of which you might be able to confirm scientifically.)

I would have done that anyway, but I wouldn't have hung around for lengthy excuses about why he didn't but I should believe him anyway.

That's exactly what happens when people examine the evidence now. They don't ask all the possible questions because they've already ruled out supernatural causes.

You are right: we do not ask the questions that would lead us down a blind alley, even if they turned out to have "yes" answers in the end.

I said we have trouble unravelling the riddles, I didn't say it was impossible. Perhaps if you would ask the right questions about the evidence you might get answers that surprised you. But you'll never find out either way with the attitude you have now.

You have expressed the opinion that the greatest opportunity we have to learn the truth is our own death. If I am desperate to have ALL the answers, that quickly... and to have some kind of certainty about the supernatural, perhaps I could slit my wrists instead of spending my life with idle speculation. Well, this chair MIGHT have been built by a carpenter, but the data is equally explained by the theory that it appeared suddenly out of nothing, created by a supernatural being who, for some reason, had to rely on screws and wood glue to hold it all together, and who only shaped the wood as finely as a scroll saw could have.

randman · Jun 1, 2002

One thing I will oint out is that there is scientific proof of miracles being done in the name of Jesus, and quite a lot of proof over a long period of time.
When I was taking a very liberal women's study course, an odd fact emerged about Aimmee Simple McPhearson, who in her day was a household word and a huge celibrity, followed by dozens of reporters. Well, doctors came out to inspect the numerous miracles taking place, and of course, they expected to prove her to be a fraud, but on the contrary, historians even those hostile to the gospel admit that these doctors verified and proved that manay mighty miracles took place that could not be explained by natural causes.
I personally have witnesses numerous miracles, including fillings being replaced by tooth, and being filled in with gold, and a very close friend and relative has been at meetings where not only were fillings turned to gold, but that intricate, tiny drawings were placed on the gold fillings, and all of this has been verified by medical records.
Anyone that wants to know the truth can find out about these miracles. I used to find reports and post t hem on the web, but I learned that the skeptic chooses not to beleive.
However, we can safely say that it is a fact that miracles have be documented to have occurred, and that anyone that rejects that is simply ignorant of basic history of religion, and just hasn't bothered to check into it.
Aimme Simple McPhearson's miracles were well-documented and proven. She was, by the way, very controversial, and did get divorced and remarried.

DonaldW112 · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by randman
One thing I will oint out is that there is scientific proof of miracles being done in the name of Jesus, and quite a lot of proof over a long period of time.

Once again randman gives an example of why science cannot deal with the supernatural. Thanks! Scientific proof of miracles is an oxymoron. Science can only disprove "miracles" not prove them.

Satoshi · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by randman
One thing I will oint out is that there is scientific proof of miracles being done in the name of Jesus, and quite a lot of proof over a long period of time.

Wow! What an amazing coincidence! There's exactly as much scientific proof of miracles being done in the name of Zeus! And Allah! And Binky, the security czar that only Bill Gates can see! And the invisible pinky unicorn!

I personally have witnesses numerous miracles, including fillings being replaced by tooth, and being filled in with gold, and a very close friend and relative has been at meetings where not only were fillings turned to gold, but that intricate, tiny drawings were placed on the gold fillings, and all of this has been verified by medical records.

Ah, I see why God can't save starving children in Africa--He's too busy drawing on gold fillings and making Jesus appear in tortillas. It all makes sense now.

Anyone that wants to know the truth can find out about these miracles. I used to find reports and post t hem on the web, but I learned that the skeptic chooses not to beleive.

Just like the skeptic chooses not to believe in perpetual motion machines, cold fusion, and vampires. What's gotten into these skeptics?

However, we can safely say that it is a fact that miracles have be documented to have occurred, and that anyone that rejects that is simply ignorant of basic history of religion, and just hasn't bothered to check into it.

Gosh, you don't even need an argument--you just assert something and that makes it true. Tell me, how does it feel to have the entire universe change whenever you feel like it should?

Aimme Simple McPhearson's miracles were well-documented and proven. She was, by the way, very controversial, and did get divorced and remarried.

Please, tell us what scientific journals documented these miracles.

The plank in the materialist's eye

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

Active Member

Active Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

Active Member

Active Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency