Why do YECs refuse to do real science?

[Mallon]

The answer to the OP can be found in the following video (thanks to Christian Soldier for bringing the video to my attention):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNyOVEerPC8

Listen to what Lee Strobel has to say:
"If you can show scientifically that life can emerge without any outside assistance, if life can emerge just from naturalistic circumstances, then God was out of a job." (Bolding is mine.)

That's quite the admission from Mr. Strobel. He says that natural phenomena don't require God. And what is science but the exploration of natural phenomena? I think Lee's understanding of natural theology is very similar to that of most other neocreationists, so it's really little wonder that collectively they choose to reject science -- because to them, evoking natural explanations is equivalent to putting God "out of a job". They see God as a magic wand-waver, rather than as a constant sustainer of the natural universe He created.

 

[IndyPirate]

.

Actually evolution is crap and is based upon conjecture, interpretation and hypothesis not real fact or evidence.

...

[Major snip]

Is this what the kids these days call a Poe?

 

[archaeologist2]

Creationism doesn't deal with real science because it's all based on a single fantasy interpretation of scripture and isn't based on the real world. It can't deal with the facts because if it did it would crumble into dust. And yes, it would probably take a lot of peoples' faith with it when they find out that the whole ediface of creationism is based on lies, fantasy and self-delusion.

to answer this allow me to quote Ken Wilber from his book A Brief History of Everything, pg. 36-7:

Q: there has been a recent warming in some scientific circles to a more spiritual or idealistic reading ofcreation.

KW: In a certain sense. The Big Bang has made Idealists out of almost anybody who thinks. First there was absolutely nothing, then bang! something. This is beyond weird. Out of sheerest emptiness, manifestation arises.
This is a bit of a nightmare for traditional science because it puts a time limit on the chance mutations that were supposed to explain the universe. Remember the thousand monkeys and shakespeare-- an example of how chance could give riseto the ordered universe?

Q: given enough time, the randomly typing monkeys would type out a shakespeare play.

KW: Given enough time! One computation showed thatthe chance for monkey powerto produce a single shakespeare playwas one in ten thousand million million million million million million. So maybe that would happen in a billion billion years. But the universe doesn't have a billion billion years. It only has 12billion years.

Well this changes everything. Calculations from Fred Hoyle to B.B. Salisbury consistantly show that 12 billion years isn't even enough to produce a single enzyme.

In other words something other than chance is pushing the universe. For traditional scientists, chance was their salvation. Chance was their god. Chance would explain it all. Chance-plus unending time- would produce the universe. But they didn't have unedning time so their god fails them miserably. That god is dead.Chance is not what explains the universe...

it is not the creationists who believe a fairy tale or a lie. it is those who accept evolution or try to marry that secular sinful idea to God.

 

[shernren]

Or, from the ID perspective:

You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering. (William Dembski)

In other words,

"We ID theorists haven't the slightest idea how to explain anything we discover so we aren't even going to try."

 

[gluadys]

Is this what the kids these days call a Poe?

If you think archeologist2 is not sincere in what he posts and is trying to parody the stated position, yes.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law

IIRC Poe's law was developed right here in Christian Forums--on the Creation vs. Evolution forum.

 

[archaeologist2]

the title of this thread implies that the secular world practices 'real' science and christians do not. problem is, it is an assumption that the secular world is practicing 'real' science, and it assumes that the secular structure of the field of science is absolute and over-rules God.

neither are the case as one only has to look at the prinicipals of science and the attitudes to see that the secualr world wants nothing to do with the truth or God. such 'science' is not honestly investigating anything but producing what want wants to hear because the bias has slanted the playing field in favor of those who want alternatives to the Bible.

nor is it 'real' science. the limitations of the field, led by the idea of 'prediction', shows how unreal it really is as scientists limit the conclusion to only one possible answer as an example:

there was a lecture i sat through where this geneticist claimed if 'if evolution were true...such and such will happen...' well the lecturer claimed it did thus evolution were true. BUT what was dishonest about this was the fact that the only solution which could produce said predicted result was evolution.

there was no honesty nor allowance for other theories to be able to produce the same result. so secular science is not 'real' science, it is a field where it tells people what they want to hear, while shouting down all opposition.

this 'real' science is not honest, trustworthy, or even accurate, let alone close to the truth and christians need to flee from it, looking to God to show them how to do REAL science.

 

[shernren]

This is a perfect time to introduce Dr. Nathan Null.

 

[Mallon]

the title of this thread implies that the secular world practices 'real' science and christians do not.

No, it implies that YECists don't practice science.

 

[Mallon]

That's quite the admission from Mr. Strobel. He says that natural phenomena don't require God. And what is science but the exploration of natural phenomena? I think Lee's understanding of natural theology is very similar to that of most other neocreationists, so it's really little wonder that collectively they choose to reject science -- because to them, evoking natural explanations is equivalent to putting God "out of a job". They see God as a magic wand-waver, rather than as a constant sustainer of the natural universe He created.

Lightning strikes again in the anti-evolution subforum:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49791626&postcount=15

This natural = godless dichotomy is symptomatic.

 

[archaeologist2]

No, it implies that YECists don't practice science

i find this funny as it assumes that the secular knows what 'real' science is and has the authority to determine what is 'real' science. since God created the field, it is safe to say that the secular world has no authority to determine what is real or false.

they have usurped the real authority and have corrupted the field with their ejection of God from His own field. what is sad is that so many 'christians' follow after the secular ideas instead of sticking with God.

one has to ask themselves, 'how much of a relationship can a christian have with God after disobeying Him, calling Him a liar and His word a bunch of lies?'

as they flock to and support a theory whose origins are not of God, even after attempts to marry it with a theistic approach. 'friendship with the world is emnity with God' and believers need to be wary of their relationship with those who mock God and reject His ways and word.

And what is science but the exploration of natural phenomena?

that is NOT what science is but what it has become after the influence and influx of secularists who redesigned the field to meet their unbelief and secular desires.

one cannot limit a field to natural answers only when the supernatural was the origin. secular science is looking in the wrong places and going in the wrong direction.

 

[artybloke]

Now that's funny --- I use the same "fantasy interpretation" with the phone book; and I'll bet you do too.

Do you also use the same interpretation with Grimm's Fairy Tales?

 

[warrior of sacrifice]

Real science? I think you are being biased. For one, there is only science, not real. Those are called theories, educated guesses of ____. Before you even protest, both are theories.

Educated guesses based upon the conclusion of what one thinks science might be point to(Ie: Creationism, or Evolution). We don't reject science, we reject what seems to be an impossible idea that we evolved from apes, not the science rather the theory

 

[archaeologist2]

For one, there is only science, not real

so you are saying that people like dr. mengeles practiced science then? if you cannot distinguish between good and bad science then you are already on the wrong road.

all science is not good science, there is right and wrong even in that field and that field is subject to the rules of morality established by God. to separate that field from that reality shows one thinks science is above God and should be free from all restraint.

such thinking is very dangerous and leads people astray, which is NOT a good thing to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you also use the same interpretation with Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Yes --- knowing the difference between what is literal and what is figurative is part of what constitutes maturity.

 

[Mallon]

i find this funny as it assumes that the secular knows what 'real' science is and has the authority to determine what is 'real' science. since God created the field, it is safe to say that the secular world has no authority to determine what is real or false.

The problem is that simply invoking God's authority doesn't make you right, either. All sorts of mistakes have been made in the name of God.
Regardless, it seems YECs themselves can't even agree whether what they do is science. Ever read Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism text? Despite the title, he makes the point that creation science isn't science at all! So your argument isn't just with me. It's with one of the founding fathers of the modern YEC movement.

they have usurped the real authority and have corrupted the field with their ejection of God from His own field. what is sad is that so many 'christians' follow after the secular ideas instead of sticking with God.

Actually, "secular" science doesn't reject God at all. You benefit from science every day, but you're still free to believe in the Lord as you please, aren't you?
Science is agnostic, not atheistic. It says that regardless of whether God exists or not, we do not have any objective means by which to detect His hand in the workings of nature. That is not a rejection of God. It is an acknowledgment of human limitation.
For clarification, you should check out the video I posted here:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7321538

one has to ask themselves, 'how much of a relationship can a christian have with God after disobeying Him, calling Him a liar and His word a bunch of lies?'

Why don't you tell us from your pedestal?

one cannot limit a field to natural answers only when the supernatural was the origin. secular science is looking in the wrong places and going in the wrong direction.

It sounds like you want a science that hearkens back to the days of astrology, homeopathy, and alchemy. Where objectivity is not an issue and anyone can say whatever they like if they cite the authority of a deity. Good luck getting that to fly in the classroom.
Out of curiosity, are you a professional archaeologist?

 

[archaeologist2]

The problem is that simply invoking God's authority doesn't make you right, either

it isn't about 'invoking God's authority', it is about doing science right, God's way and giving Him the glory.

All sorts of mistakes have been made in the name of God.

which doesn't justify following the world's ways or thinking. if a christian is going to do science then they have to follow God's commands and one such command is not following the secular world. yet too many people think science is science and that is not so.

Regardless, it seems YECs themselves can't even agree whether what they do is science. Ever read Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism text? Despite the title, he makes the point that creation science isn't science at all!

i do not like a lot of what morris says. i have 3 of his books and that may not be one of them. could careless what he says in fact as i have stated, creation doesn't fit the secular scientific molds, it can't for it didn't take place the secular scientific way.

Actually, "secular" science doesn't reject God at all

actually it does, you should read what some secular scientists say as they are very clear about keeping God out of science completely.

You benefit from science every day

i am so tired of hearing this. NO i do not benefit from science at all. i benefit from my belief in God and use products that originated from the intelligent minds God has given to some men. science has nothing to do with it.

the products we find today and throughout history are the result of intelligence granted by God to men who found the ingredients that God made and designed to fit together. science did nothing.

Science is agnostic, not atheistic

wrong again as the bible says 'if ye are not for me then ye are against me' there is no middle ground with God and there is no such thing as 'agnostic' science. one either believes or they don't, one either accepts God or they don't.

It says that regardless of whether God exists or not, we do not have any objective means by which to detect His hand in the workings of nature.

we in the archaeology field learn very quickly that there is no such thing as objectivity and those people who appeal to such an ideal are only fooling themsleves. there is no 'objective' way to say God exists or not and it is pure arrogance to think you can set yourselves up as the authority or determiner to make such a call.

science is NOT the authority of man, the Bible is. science has no authority to determine anything about God, as it is a created field not the creator.

That is not a rejection of God. It is an acknowledgment of human limitation.

you ceretainly like to fool yourself don't you. if you believe that then i will sell you a bridge in new york city at a bargain. anything that sets itself up as the authority to make determinations is rejecting God and placing man as ruler of the world. that is pure rejection of God, His word and rule.

Why don't you tell us from your pedestal?

insults get you nowhere.

It sounds like you want a science that hearkens back to the days of astrology, homeopathy, and alchemy.

more insults. you forget i said there is good and bad science.

Where objectivity is not an issue and anyone can say whatever they like if they cite the authority of a deity. Good luck getting that to fly in the classroom.

people do that already, even in evolutionary science as we have one scientist disagreeing with another and more finding the right peers to review their work.

you place your faith in the wrong things,

 

[Mallon]

it isn't about 'invoking God's authority', it is about doing science right, God's way and giving Him the glory.

So what's "God's way" of doing science?

which doesn't justify following the world's ways or thinking. if a christian is going to do science then they have to follow God's commands and one such command is not following the secular world.

So do you reject all scientific theories that do not invoke God as part of their explanation? Like valency? Surely, for consistency's sake, you must!

actually it does, you should read what some secular scientists say as they are very clear about keeping God out of science completely.

You're sounding silly, archaeologist. Just because a handful of outspoken scientists like Dawkins espouse scientism doesn't mean science is by necessity atheistic. Would you let people like Fred Phelps speak for all of Christianity? If not, when why do you expect fundamentalist atheists speak for all of science?
Again, science is agnostic. And you don't have to take my word for it. Pick up any good text on the philosophy of science. Science is agnostic because it is limited to what is natural -- it does not have access to the supernatural and so it can say nothing authoritative on the matter. This is where faith enters into the picture.

NO i do not benefit from science at all.

... says the guy writing on the Internet.
You've benefited from science, archaeologist. There's no denying it. The products you use every day were created using science. I'm not denying that any of this is from God, but it's downright dishonest to pretend that science has not affected you in any way.

wrong again as the bible says 'if ye are not for me then ye are against me' there is no middle ground with God and there is no such thing as 'agnostic' science. one either believes or they don't, one either accepts God or they don't.

I agree. But believing or disbelieving in the Lord is not an act of science. It's an act of faith. Science, like a hammer, is a tool, not a belief system. And like a hammer, science has nothing to say about the existence or inexistence of God. That doesn't make a hammer "against God", does it? If not, then why does the agnosticism of science make it "against God"?
PEOPLE choose to accept or reject God. Science can be neither for nor against God because it is only a tool.

we in the archaeology field learn very quickly that there is no such thing as objectivity and those people who appeal to such an ideal are only fooling themsleves. there is no 'objective' way to say God exists or not and it is pure arrogance to think you can set yourselves up as the authority or determiner to make such a call.

I agree that there is no objective way to say whether God exists or not. That's why we've been given faith.

science is NOT the authority of man, the Bible is.

Actually, God is.

you ceretainly like to fool yourself don't you. if you believe that then i will sell you a bridge in new york city at a bargain. anything that sets itself up as the authority to make determinations is rejecting God and placing man as ruler of the world. that is pure rejection of God, His word and rule.

You sound like yeshuasavedme, our local geocentrist. She repeats the same chorus you do in arguing that the sun revolves about the earth. I'm sorry to say that I don't find your argument any more convincing than hers. Especially when, as I say, you use a scientific means to chide science. That's hypocrisy.

insults get you nowhere.

Should I not be insulted by your incessant insistence that I "reject God"? I reject your hermeneutic. Not God.

more insults. you forget i said there is good and bad science.

So what's the difference between good and bad science? You seem to think the only good science is that which affirms your preferred interpretation of Scripture. Is that science, though? Only accepting that which lines up with our preconvictions? Please elaborate on the difference between good and bad science. Maybe you could even cite one of your scientific papers here so we can all see how it's done. I would love to read your work.

you place your faith in the wrong things,

I might take you seriously if I thought you had a good grasp of natural theology and science philosophy. For now, I find you about as convincing as our fellow geocentrist since you both use the same arguments and spontaneous appeals to authority.

 

[shernren]

To get back to the OP.

Maybe they're too busy making slick Flash games.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinalia/panda-monium.swf

Teehee.

 

[archaeologist2]

I might take you seriously if I thought you had a good grasp of natural theology and science philosophy. For now, I find you about as convincing as our fellow geocentrist since you both use the same arguments and spontaneous appeals to authori

someone is really full of themselves and very arrogant. i do not care if you take me seriously or not, it is your loss not mine. you are not God and what you say means nothing as you have nothing to offer anyone but lies and deception.

So what's the difference between good and bad science? You seem to think the only good science is that which affirms your preferred interpretation of Scripture

it is clear by these words that you do not care about good or bad science and thatyou are building up in your mind your perception of the topic ignoring and not wanting the truth.

you really think you are something and yet you do not realize you do not have a clue. it isn't about interpretation because God's word says 1 thing not different things to different people like Bultman and the existentialists would want you to believe.

I agree that there is no objective way to say whether God exists or not. That's why we've been given faith.

your faith seems to be in science not God or His words. my faith is in the latter which trumps science.

But believing or disbelieving in the Lord is not an act of science. It's an act of faith. Science, like a hammer, is a tool, not a belief system. And like a hammer, science has nothing to say about the existence or inexistence of God. That doesn't make a hammer "against God", does it? If not, then why does the agnosticism of science make it "against God"?

you certainly try hard to convince yourself of this and you are wrong in your application of all this as your analogy falls very short. a hammer can be used for good or evil, it is not agnostic. there are only two ways to use a hammer. science is NOt agnostic, if it doesn't follow God then it is of the devil, there is no middle ground here.

You've benefited from science, archaeologist. There's no denying it. The products you use every day were created using science. I'm not denying that any of this is from God, but it's downright dishonest to pretend that science has not affected you in any way.

you are wrong as you give credit to science which science did not do. no one needs science to live, just the intelligence God gave them. we lived long and well without science and our lives were far better for it.

life was so much better without t.v.s, computers, cellphones, digital cameras science has done very little to help people but it has done a lot to destroy life on this planet: global warming, guns, tanks, lasers, radiation poisoning and the list can go on. your one sided argument defeats you and shows you are the fool.

You're sounding silly, archaeologist. Just because a handful of outspoken scientists like Dawkins

wrong again. i wasn't even thinking about dawkins, hitchins, or even hawkings but the scientific organizations that clearly speelout intheir charters that God is not allowed in the field.

you are the silly one as you make assumptions then attack your own assumptions as if i actually said what you are attacking.

Again, science is agnostic. And you don't have to take my word for it. Pick up any good text on the philosophy of science.

circular reasoning. secular science says science is agnostic and if you do not believe that pick up a secular science book and they will tell you the same thing. of course they will because they do not believe in God and they are looking in the wrong direction and in the wrong places using the wrong ideas and the wrong tools.

So do you reject all scientific theories that do not invoke God as part of their explanation

again you make asusmptions but i do not believe in ANY scientific theory, i believe in God. there is an old saying, scienctists are taking a long time to get where the theologians already are. (i paraphrased the story down, but you should know it).

scientific theory is just that a theory, a waste of time supported by corrupt, manipulative systems to keep the house of cards from falling down around them.

So what's "God's way" of doing science

ask Him and find out but be prepared to toss evolution out the window because it is NOT of God but a deception from the devil.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for the sermon, archaeologist. I get what you're saying and I've heard it before: I'm a lying, godless heathen because I do not accept your preferred concordist interpretation of the Bible. In fact, it seems you don't even recognize your interpretation for what it is, so you equate a rejection of your position as a reject of God Himself. Forgive me if I think that's a slightly more arrogant take than my own. Suffice it to say, I don't think biblical interpretation is quite as black-and-white as what you would have us believe, and I think the very existence of 40-odd Christian denominations in the world attests to that. Believe it or not, my stance is that it's entirely possible to serve God while practicing good science that in some cases might even contradict the literal context of the Scriptures. This is, after all, a lesson taken from the Galileo Affair, the prosecutors of which used the very same arguments as yourself.
I understand you're not going to agree with everything that I say, but I'm not asking you to. All I ask is that you recognize that you might be wrong yourself, and that a rejection of your interpretation is not the same as rejecting our perfect God. Galileo didn't reject God by reinterpreting Joshua 10:12, and I am in no way doing the same by looking at the Genesis creation account in a different light. My heart goes out to gluadys who seems to be putting up with the same accusations of heresy and godlessness (from a geocentrist, no less) here: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49812586&postcount=244. Her words echo my sentiments exactly.