Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[Wiccan_Child]

I found conjecture mentioned in connection with radiometric dating on William Lane Craig's website.

Again, can you be more specific? I can't find such an article via Google. If you're not aware of what Craig's objections are, why are you asserting them as if they're fact?

I believe he is a theistic evolutionist. The salt issue is important, though. I am actually quite the skeptic and do not accept the ipse dixit of either creationists or evolutionists uncritically. A psalmist once remarked, "All men are liars" (Psalm 116). I can believe God (hence I am a YEC) but, as for my fellow brothers in Adam--bias, fallibility, etc. all detract from the authority of their assertions. Science is not conclusive, as G.K. Chesterton observed, because science has not concluded.

I believe the central thrust behind Craig and other theistic evolutionists' views on the Bible and origins, is that the book doesn't teach a 6000 year old Earth. That if human interpretation of a book translated through a multitude of languages and dialects contradicts the physical reality of God's own creation, then it's the interpretation, rather than reality, that's flawed.

Meanwhile, scientists who are Christians have at least an a priori advantage favoring their creditworthiness in that, according to their principles, to lie would be a sin against God.

If you believe this, then you really don't know people. Christians are just as likely to lie as the next person.

Atheists, however, do not believe that they are answerable to God for what they say.

Indeed, so, by your logic, they don't have the personal bias that theists have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The sea salt argument was busted years ago. The people who propose it always conveniently forget that there are mechanisms that remove salts from sea water too. Their calculations of the sea salt age of the Earth would be identical to a "rain water age of the Earth" except that one is in reverse. We can easily calculate the maximum amount of water that the atmosphere can hold and how much water is lost on a daily basis by precipitation. It should be easy to "prove" how young the Earth is since it still rains sometimes.

Also the "sea salt clock" gives different ages if you choose different ions. The sodium ion gives a different date that the aluminum ion. When you get different answers using a scientific tool that is very often good evidence that there is something wrong with the tool.

You can get wrong dates using radiometric dating too. When that happens you need to see if it was the tool that was misused or if the tool is faulty itself. With radiometric dating so far it has been the fault of the tool user and not the tool itself.

 

[Tomk80]

Okay, to start with lets drop all comments and discussion concerning evolution. Evolution being true or false has no bearing on radiometric dating whatsoever. Let's also drop the apologetics and whether one is a Christian, atheist, or whatever. Let's discuss the science and only the science.

Now, what has salt got to do with radiometric dating? Why would it be an issue? No radiometric dating methods are based on a salt of any kind, whether it be inorganic, organic, monoatomic or polyatomic.

I think he was referring to "taking it with a grain of salt" mentioned by Subduction Zone, not literal salt

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think he was referring to "taking it with a grain of salt" mentioned by Subduction Zone, not literal salt

Aaargh, of course

William Craig of course is infamous for misapplying the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is a failed argument and then he assumes the god that is proved by it is the Christian version of god. A multi-level fail to say the least.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well isn't it obvious that if science does not prove creation that that is not real science

Someone needs to learn what science is and I don't think it is you Ken

Science is not defined as an ability to prove creation. Maybe it is YOU who needs to learn what science is.

Ken

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is not defined as an ability to prove creation. Maybe it is YOU who needs to learn what science is.

Ken

I do believe that you misunderstood my post Ken. The limited smileys on this site make it difficult to tell a joke properly at times.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether you agree with everything science puts out or not, you gotta admit; at the end of the day science can sit back and proclaim (as I said before) it has filled many holes once occupied by religion; forcing religion to scamper off looking for new holes to fill.

Any holes left behind by Christianity would be the kind not worth filling.

Do you suspect religion will ever be able to say that about science?

I doubt it.

In my opinion, science is going to outgrow [true] religion and become the Antichrist's religion of choice during the Tribulation.

I will be up to Jesus, not us, to put a stop to it.

 

[kenvin]

Both the man of science and the man of action live always at the edge of mystery, surrounded by it.
J. Robert Oppenheimer

 

[steve_bakr]

Both the man of science and the man of action live always at the edge of mystery, surrounded by it.
J. Robert Oppenheimer

Karl Rahner might say that the infinite mystery is God. All men are oriented towards this holy mystery.

 

[CabVet]

Any holes left behind by Christianity would be the kind not worth filling.

Hey, AV, honest questions, imagine this scenario if you will: say a natural disaster wiped out the entire human race except one group of 20 kids in Sidney, Australia and one group of 20 kids in Knoxville, Tennessee (all 40 kids know how to read). All technology is wiped out, boats, airplanes, buildings all destroyed. The Australian kids are able to save about 10,000 science books (including medicine, engineering, all those other "holes" left behind by Christianity). The American kids save only the Bible (KJVO if you will).

So, a few questions: which group has the better chance of survival? Why? Assuming that both groups survive, which group will reach modern standards of civilization faster?

I doubt it.

In my opinion, science is going to outgrow [true] religion and become the Antichrist's religion of choice during the Tribulation.

I will be up to Jesus, not us, to put a stop to it.

I remember you mentioned on this very forum that Christianity was not a religion, so what is this [true] religion of which you speak?

Your unfounded fear of science proves my point.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Any holes left behind by Christianity would be the kind not worth filling.

I doubt it.

In my opinion, science is going to outgrow [true] religion and become the Antichrist's religion of choice during the Tribulation.

I will be up to Jesus, not us, to put a stop to it.

As science describes reality, you now have reality as the religion of the antichrist and Jesus putting a stop to it. Talk about ever decreasing circles...

 

[AV1611VET]

So, a few questions: which group has the better chance of survival?

The kids in Tennessee.

Why?

God would take care of them.

In fact, history would repeat itself, wouldn't it?

Remember the Pilgrims? but that's too many, since you said 20.

Remember the Ark? but now 20 is too high.

Remember Adam & Eve? but 20 is too higher.

Assuming that both groups survive, which group will reach modern standards of civilization faster?

The kids in Australia.

 

[Mediaeval]

Yep, the reference to salt was figurative

Again, can you be more specific? I can't find such an article via Google. If you're not aware of what Craig's objections are, why are you asserting them as if they're fact?

If you believe this, then you really don't know people. Christians are just as likely to lie as the next person.

Indeed, so, by your logic, they don't have the personal bias that theists have.

I know not whether the reference to conjecture on ReasonableFaith.org referred to WLC's own objections or not. That's a question for further study if it reaches your interest threshold. As a liberal arts graduate, I assert no facts here. What I know of the subject is based on secondhand sources at best, which I must weigh according their own motives of credibility. I can say, however, that I find the claim to be highly questionable that methods used for dating great spans of time in the remote past involve no conjecture or working assumptions whatsoever. That carbon-14 dating, e.g., has produced varying results when correlated is axiomatic among YEC scientists.

Your latter two comments support my skepticism. Theists have a personal bias but atheists do not? As a longtime Christian and longtime acquaintance of other Christians, I am not so sure that Christians are as likely as the next person to lie. The law of God, where known, serves as a check on bad tendencies even in the broader culture, but especially on Christians. Thanks be to God that Christian influence is significant where I live.

 

[Tomk80]

Yep, the reference to salt was figurative



I know not whether the reference to conjecture on ReasonableFaith.org referred to WLC's own objections or not. That's a question for further study if it reaches your interest threshold. As a liberal arts graduate, I assert no facts here. What I know of the subject is based on secondhand sources at best, which I must weigh according their own motives of credibility. I can say, however, that I find the claim to be highly questionable that methods used for dating great spans of time in the remote past involve no conjecture or working assumptions whatsoever. That carbon-14 dating, e.g., has produced varying results when correlated is axiomatic among YEC scientists.

Perhaps your quetsion is wrong?

Yes, assumptions are used in all scientific methods. But it is not sufficient to then just stop there. What you have to do is show that:
1) those assumptions are unreasonable
2) whether those assumptions can be verified
3) that the assumptions you would have to use to arrive at a YEC are more reasonable
4) how different methods using different assumptions correlate.

I would submit that in the case of radiometric dating the age of the earth for these questions are respectively no, yes, hell no and very well.

Your latter two comments support my skepticism. Theists have a personal bias but atheists do not? As a longtime Christian and longtime acquaintance of other Christians, I am not so sure that Christians are as likely as the next person to lie. The law of God, where known, serves as a check on bad tendencies even in the broader culture, but especially on Christians. Thanks be to God that Christian influence is significant where I live.

Nice prejudice you have there. I'll take that one with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The kids in Tennessee.

God would take care of them.

In fact, history would repeat itself, wouldn't it?

Remember the Pilgrims? but that's too many, since you said 20.

Remember the Ark? but now 20 is too high.

Remember Adam & Eve? but 20 is too higher.

The kids in Australia.

The Ark never happened, Adam and Eve never happened. Even the Pilgrims were not cut off from the rest of humanity for very long so there were no inbreeding problems there.

The Pilgrims tried a version of Christian communism the first year. It failed badly. They went back to good the good old Darwinist practice of every man for themselves. That worked. Enlightened selfishness is a evolved behavior. It works for people. Artificially developed philosophies usually fail.

 

[Ken-1122]

Any holes left behind by Christianity would be the kind not worth filling.

Really??? Christians thought the Earth was the center of the Universe until science proved otherwise; they thought the moon emitted light, the Earth was flat, and that the Earth preceded the Sun until science proved otherwise. Remember it was only 500 years ago that Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for having the audacity to suggest that the Earth orbited the Sun rather than the other way around. Now Christians admire his work.

No my friend; Christianity didn’t abandon any holes; they were dragged kicking and screaming away from them and replaced with science by those more interested in the truth than personal agendas. Only the blissfull ignorant would consider those holes not worth filling.

Ke n

 

[CabVet]

The kids in Tennessee.

God would take care of them.

Anasema wewe.

In fact, history would repeat itself, wouldn't it?

Remember the Pilgrims? but that's too many, since you said 20.

Pilgrims had much more than just the Bible.

Remember the Ark? but now 20 is too high.

Remember Adam & Eve? but 20 is too higher.

Well, you would have to show me that those actually happened first.

The kids in Australia.

At least on that we agree .

 

[diychristian]

What enigma? There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars, and a good percentage of those have Earth-like planets. Odds are, in all the universe, at least one such planet has the conditions necessary for life to develop.

Yeah its called earth. There's more to earth than just water and its sun that helps support life. let alone complex and intelligent life.

What improbability? Can you walk me through the mathematical derivation of this conclusion? Don't be afraid, I can handle the maths

I'll get back to you on this concern.

What preservation? Mutations by definition disprove that notion.

I'm talking about the problem of mutations and genetic degradation. Most mutations are so small ns will likely not act upon them, many mutations are preserved and not repaired by the cells, after awhil fertility and vital processes are effected this endangers the whole species. The upper limit calculated for the longevity of the human species is 1.5 million years and a lower limit of only a couple thousand years.
Mutations are evolutions end

Perhaps, but I'm at a loss as to how any of these phenomena proclaim God's existence, and I'm dubious some of them are even real.

How many of these proclaim disorder and randomness?

How are any of these things evidence against evolution? Stasis and living fossils don't contradict evolutionary theory, they simply show that not all species are constantly changing their phylogeny - if there's no selection pressures, then there's not going to be much morphological change. Evolution doesn't require change in any and all circumstances, indeed, it demands stasis if that is the most effective thing to do.

Looking at the history of different species today we see that they go practically unchanged for millions some time tens or hundreds of millions of years with all kinds of selection pressures such as changes in CO2 levels, massive climate changes, the rise and fall of different prey and predators, extinction of critical vegetation, tectonic activies seperating species and many other things. Mutations happen all the time and they happen at random. Mutations do occur in hot spots in the genome, but this fact would be an advocate for evolution. Yet! So many changes are minute.

And how is abiogenesis evidence against evolution?

without it evolution doesn't get off the blocks. Seems like this should be the starting point, but the evolutionists argument though starts backwards and is conjecture all the way back to the beginning.

 

[kenvin]

Yeah its called earth. There's more to earth than just water and its sun that helps support life. let alone complex and intelligent life.

I'll get back to you on this concern.

I'm talking about the problem of mutations and genetic degradation. Most mutations are so small ns will likely not act upon them, many mutations are preserved and not repaired by the cells, after awhil fertility and vital processes are effected this endangers the whole species. The upper limit calculated for the longevity of the human species is 1.5 million years and a lower limit of only a couple thousand years.
Mutations are evolutions end

How many of these proclaim disorder and randomness?

Looking at the history of different species today we see that they go practically unchanged for millions some time tens or hundreds of millions of years with all kinds of selection pressures such as changes in CO2 levels, massive climate changes, the rise and fall of different prey and predators, extinction of critical vegetation, tectonic activies seperating species and many other things. Mutations happen all the time and they happen at random. Mutations do occur in hot spots in the genome, but this fact would be an advocate for evolution. Yet! So many changes are minute.

without it evolution doesn't get off the blocks. Seems like this should be the starting point, but the evolutionists argument though starts backwards and is conjecture all the way back to the beginning.

The term is Biologist not evolutionist.

 

[steve_bakr]

Really??? Christians thought the Earth was the center of the Universe until science proved otherwise; they thought the moon emitted light, the Earth was flat, and that the Earth preceded the Sun until science proved otherwise. Remember it was only 500 years ago that Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for having the audacity to suggest that the Earth orbited the Sun rather than the other way around. Now Christians admire his work.

No my friend; Christianity didn’t abandon any holes; they were dragged kicking and screaming away from them and replaced with science by those more interested in the truth than personal agendas. Only the blissfull ignorant would consider those holes not worth filling.

Ke n

FYI, Galileo was not excommunicated.

IMHO, there really doesn't have to be a science vs religion thing. Theologians such as Karl Rahner took scientific learning into account, including evolution. Tielhard de Chardin was a scientist and had an evolutionary theology. So, every Christian is not opposed to science, and every scientist is not opposed to Christianity.