Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Creationism rests on a sure foundation
Creationism is a dirty word today because so many misunderstand the real nature of science and the great wonder that is the Bible. Creationism is a truth based not on science. That would be a shaky ground indeed. I say that because 'science' has a very poor and chequered history. Each age has its science and this changes with the changing fads and fashions that man clings to. Currently we are desperately clinging to the 'scientific' world view. Things can only be accepted if science gives it the 'all clear'. However creationism is not based on science. It is based on something far more sure and certain. It is based on God's revealed word. We have confidence in the creationist position because we have confidence in God. How do we have confidence in God? We have that because of what the Lord Jesus Christ has done. He alone has demonstrated that God can be trusted. He as the Second person of the Trinity gave up His life for sin and then was ratified in this by His bodily resurrection. He accepted fully the Old Testament revelation. How can God lie? He has told us exactly what we need to know. Why would He lie concerning how we came to be here? On the other hand how on earth can we be made to believe what mere men claim to be the truth? Evolution claims that we originate from absolutely nothing, we have no purpose, and we will end as nothing! Great teaching that! I simply cannot understand why people don't see the utter folly and bankruptcy of evolution and the glory that creation teaches. Christ demonstrated His deity in the miracles He performed because they were closely akin to what God had done in creation. At the word of the Lord in creation things came to be instantaneously and at the word of our Lord Jesus Christ people were healed, some were raised from the dead and the wind and waves obeyed His commands. Creationism rests on the rock solid foundation of God's word. Evolution has a mere list of modern men for its support! Choose wisely!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm sorry, I mean this as gently as I can say it, but I think you are confusing something here. Science is a *methodology* for *discovering* the truth. It isn't a doctrine of truth. Of course it revises itself! :) That's why it's so successful. The clothes you wear, your computer screen, and the tools that made your house are a result of the scientific method. A method that attempts to carefully and laboriously work towards discovering the truth behind the reality we exist within.
ReplyDeleteThe bible is a *book* that claims (at least in some passages, and by many who read it) to be a doctrine of truth. And it can only be referenced as a credible source of truth is you believe the bible to be credible. But if it is, then why hasn't it provided any social progress in the way the *discoveries* of science has (and for that matter, analytic philosophy)??
It's so frustrating to me. I mean.. be a creationist if you want. Fine. But quit equivocating "science" with doctrine - it's a method. Science is about exploring and discovering truths about *nature*. It's a *debate* about truth, and how close we have come to it. It is NEVER an absolute assertion. Why do you think they call everything a "theory"?? We call it a theory because one day it might be falsified by yet a new discovery. Creationists should be excited about it! If they really believe in the creationist doctrine, and if they believe their truth is out there (hopefully in an objective world that takes place outside their own imagination), then the scientific method will be the first to confirm it for them.
The bible, which I've read many times (test me on it if you wish), is so fallacious and full of mistakes it can't even accurately depict the number Pi.
Also, the bible was clearly written by imperfect men, and therefore fallible. Most doctrines of theology clearly demonstrate their fallibility by their apparent inability to communicate a clear message even to their own followers. Ever heard of Paul and the rest of the apostles? Did you know the Pauline texts predate the gospels (the letters of Paul are the oldest texts of the new testament, the Gospels were written 500 years after the crucifixion - Christianity was spread by word of mouth until then)? Ever notice how Paul never talks about Jesus' life and very rarely mentions anything that Jesus said? Well that's because Paul never knew Jesus when he was alive, as he clearly demonstrates in his letters. He was converted two years after the crucifixion, and clearly had a problem with the most of the surviving Apostles (except for Peter). Eh.. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent here.
Lastly, evolution is a confirmed theory, which means it is still an operational theory in science (meaning it allows us to make breakthroughs in medicine, genetics, biology, etc..) and despite countless attempts to falsify it, it HASN'T Been. Please tell me you know that the first goal of science is to produce theory and attempt to falsify it (prove it false)... Science while it cannot assert truth can build theories about the world and in an attempt to test that theory for it's explanatory power, those tests are attempts to prove that theory wrong. When a theory has been tested over many, many years, and has yet to be falsified, science dubs that theory sound.
Cheers
I am afraid I have to disagree on your opening statement. Science is not characterised by its method. The so-called method of science is just what everyone naturally does when they think and see and so on. And to state that science can discover truth is one of the most ridiculous statements that can ever be made! Charles Singer the historian of science said that the science of one age becomes the magic of the next. I think that you have misunderstood the great difference between 'discovery' and 'revelation'. The Bible is God's revealed truth. Its faithfulness rests on the testimony of what it records - the miracles and the resurrection of Christ chiefly, but also on its faith prophetic descriptions. If we are left to 'discovery' as the only option then we are of all people most miserable. Ok so there may be a consensus amongst modern science that evolution is the current theory which men adhere to. But it may not always be the case. I am quite startled that you continue the current fad of believing that theories can be falsified! That position fell by the wayside some time ago. Theories never actually get falsified because people adhere to them with such passion, and so they modify them and add parts to make them more 'fitting'. If you examine what a theory is supposed to be (simple, parsimonious ...) you will find that not many fit that description. Take the Big Bang ideas for example. There have been so many corrections and additions to this it is testament to the stubbornness of man. Even evolution has had a variety of different views all competing for a hearing. I am so convinced that science (I mean the modern view of science) has become the new religion of our day.
ReplyDeleteIn passing your comments on the nature of the gospels and Paul's letters are utter nonsense. I am quite unimpressed by mere assertions with no backing that I dismiss them outright. Did you know in fact that the assertions you make concerning the date of the gospels is actually based merely on some scholars declaring it to be so!
May I conclude by thanking you for your response and appealing to you to think a lot more on what science truly is. Do some reading in the history and philosophy of science. Not many philosophers adhere to Karl Popper's falsificationsim any more!
I guess I don't understand how you rationalize your skepticism of nearly every claim of science, and yet you entertain none of that skepticism towards an old book that someone told you was true.
ReplyDeleteOut of all the infinite amount of possible gods (if such a thing exists), how arrogant is it to assume that YOU have found the correct god, and for that matter, a correct way to worship him/her/it? Isn't it a little lazy, and for that matter suspect, that you think you have found truth?
As far as the history and philosophy of science, I can agree with very little of what you've said. Popper's falsificationism made a huge contribution in today's method of science. All good scientific theories today generate hypotheses formulated to be falsifiable, and those that are not are rejected as (you guessed it) unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
And how is science a religion? It's built on doubt and skepticism. Religion is built on dogma and faith. Every theory of science, every axiom is open for testing, religion is not. Science constantly tells it's students "prove it!" Religion constantly yells "don't question our faith!"
I will tell you! The Bible is the inspired word of God. Science are the mere thoughts of man. Where man's pronouncements coincide with revealed truth then they may be true. Creation is God's and so it is expected that we should see reflected from creation evidence of a Creator. And that we do (even though many suppress this truth).
ReplyDeleteYou call me arrogant. I have to admit that this is one of my many sins. And yet I am not so arrogant to say that I have found God or that I have determined that these things are true. Not a bit of it. Rather God has found me! Wonder of wonders. And I believe that what Christ has done demonstrates the truth of God and His word.
With regard to your view of the philosophy of science I would suggest you consider Thomas Kuhn and Chalmers ("What is This Thing Called Science?") and others who point out that it is impossible to falsify any theory simply because we are never in a position to know 'what is round the corner'!
To conclude. surely you know that science is merely the use of the 'method of intelligence' directed from the scientist's own worldview? Surely you know that science is based on belief? Without certain pre-determined beliefs, no science could ever be done. Indeed it was the ordered nature of the Christian faith and its ordered view of the world that gave the impetus for modern science in the first place. Anyone who demands that you believe what we say without giving reasons is never going to get anywhere. It seems to me that many scientists are doing just that today and have taken the place of the ancient medieval church which also failed in this way. True Christianity is faith based on evidence. My faith is based on revelation! The revelation of Christ Jesus who demonstrated His deity and humanity and who gave Himself up that we might know God. Amazing.
I'm baffled that you've read Thomas Kuhn and Chalmers (who by the way is more of an expert on the philosophy of mind), and still demonstrate such poor knowledge of science. I'm sorry, but when we are talking about paradigm shifts (Kuhn), and the philosophy of mind and the skeptical dilemmas it presents (Chalmers), this is the practice of a field in philosophy called the philosophy of science. It is a debate over the nature of science as a method, and the many propositions it operates on. It shouldn't be confused with scientific practice itself. Personally I'm a huge fan of Hempel, but whatever. And all of those same skeptical arguments don't leave much room for justifying knowledge based on revelation or faith. Kuhn and Chalmers never said science didn't work, they were exploring why and how it works. And yes, while you cannot absolutely falsify or prove anything with absolute certainty (an idea mostly shunned in science), we still use theories that are operational until we discover it is non-operational in another context, which means it is either untrue, or needs revising.
ReplyDeleteHow is that the tyrannical science you claim it to be?
Again, how do you KNOW the bible is inspired by god?? The jews and muslims both claim their book is inspired by god... does that justify their belief claims?
Also, science is a method that has proven itself to WORK. The following video has a rather interesting way of presenting the argument: http://thesentientpuddle.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-do-people-laugh-at-creationists.html
I would like to hear your response to this video.
It seems like your argument ultimately comes down to "I want to believe, thus I believe.. I believe, I believe! Therefore god exists, and the Christian god is the only true god" Science works from the evidence towards the answer. Theism works from "revelation" and tries to fit the evidence into it, rationalizing everything that seems to contradict it with an idea that "you just gotta have faith.."
It is true that science works on "propositions" which are assumptions we operate on for the sake of argument. It's like we imagine something to be true for the sake of argument (Gravity for example), and we attempt to explain how such a phenomenon might work, and we proceed to test hypotheses based on propositions that are still working in our theory. However, all of those propositions are up for revising if something better is discovered. Look at how many times we revised the atom. Or how Aristotelian physics was surpassed by Newtonian mechanics, which was surpassed by relativity, etc.
I am quite simply gobsmacked that you do not get it! Science does not work from the evidence uninterestedly. Every time someone takes evidence they invest their own ideas into that evidence. Christianity is a revelation based faith. The objective nature of this is evidenced by the fact that Christ died and then rose from the dead. The evidence is unassailable. It is shown by the scriptures and it is shown in the lives of those who follow Christ. Do you not know your history of science? What do you make of Charles Singer's statement that the science of one age becomes the magic of the next? Science is rapidly outdated. The scriptures speak clearly to every age! The wisdom of God is far above the pathetic musings of men. Take for example the oft stated claim that evolution 'explains' our origins! It does nothing of the sort. It merely provides a poor description of someone's idea. Only Christ can explain satisfactorily and completely how we came to be. I notice you mention the development of atomic theory. It is one example of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of science. It can never get to the truth! We delve deeper and deeper (or so we think) and then we make newer and newer models but none satisfy because there is always evidence that doesn't fit. Or what of the many aspects of the universe which cannot be explained satisfactorily by big bang ideas? I'm afraid whatever man may say, (at best models of science may be useful and good instruments but they never yield 'truth'), he cannot come up with an answer that reaches the heart of man's need. I have not yet looked at the video clip because it is late and I need to get to bed! I will look at it though.
ReplyDeleteHello, I wanted to continue this debate a little further, but I got sick of attempting to edit what I've pasted in this box to look correctly. So instead, I just gave up and posted my response as a new blog post on my blog (so I can use links and italics and stuff). It deals only with your last response, broken up by relevant sentences:
ReplyDeletehttp://thesentientpuddle.blogspot.com/2011/03/response-to-debate-with-creationism.html
Also, I have properly linked and cited this post to your site, so hopefully you get more traffic because of it. Feel free to defend your position on my blog or yours. ;)