Science Again (Who's Surprised?)
go4tli
to discuss over breakfast comprehensively or carefully. A thoughtful
consideration of these points should show *why* we didn't.
* "The layers of the geologic column could have been deposited by a
global flood."
Sorry, but no. Neither the strata nor the fossils within them are
consistent with *any kind* of hydrologically sorted layers. And there
are artifacts that cannot have been deposited by floodwaters. This
isn't an explanation that matches the available facts. (I can be more
specific if you like. And as far as *that* goes, feel free to ask for
citations on any claims like this that I make. The space needed to
explain what we see and where we've seen it and why we understand it a
certain way takes way more space than breakfast allows, but if you
want it, I'd like it to be somewhere where we can both refer to it and
discuss its implications.)
This is but one of literally *thousands* of arguments that illustrate
what I mean when I say that creationism is inconsistent with science.
Sure, "layers can be deposited by a flood" *sounds* reasonable
(because certain kinds can be and are), but creationists don't go the
extra step to demonstrate that the layers we see are exactly
consistent with *anything* we'd expect to see if they *were* deposited
by a flood. The line may *sound* consistent with science, but it
depends on the adherent limiting science to "common sense" alone. As
it happens, science also encompasses *evidence* (hence the emphasis on
experimentation), and that's where these creationist arguments tend to
fall apart.
To refer this back to something we mentioned, geology and paleontology
can explain exactly why we see what we see in the geologic column, and
not anything else. It's so good at it that it can predict for you
where the fossil fuels are before looking directly -- *exactly* where,
as in which layers and in which parts of the world. (It can also tell
you where to find the transitional forms, with remarkable accuracy.
Many transitional forms have been found this way. But that's another
discussion.)
By contrast, creationism has no similar predictive ability. As
pointed out, the layers and fossils *do not correspond to predictions
that ANY kind of hydrologic sorting would generate*. In other words,
it predicts stuff wrong. That means that science rejects it. (It
would be much more powerful if creationism could make these
predictions as well as geology or palentology, or -- even better -- if
it made some predictions correctly that conventional science does
not.)
I might point out that this isn't just my opinion; many geologists in
the early-to-mid-19th century was occupied with attempting to
demonstrate that "flood geology" had some merit, and failed terribly
and repeatedly. This is but one of *hundreds* of examples where
science generates a useful prediction (which is, after all, pretty
much the whole *point* of science) and creationism fails. Again, I
can be much more specific if you like.
Of course, if you want to insist that creationism isn't science, then
that changes the game. For example, prediction is not a goal of faith
as it is of science. But claiming that accepting creationism is based
on faith is not what the prominent, vocal creationists are saying.
* "The ages scientists cite are guesses."
Sorry, but no. Ages are found with confidence intervals (a
statistical metric that corresponds to the sense that our findings
reflect reality), and are corroborated across multiple lines of
inquiry that are independent of one another. Ages cannot be
considered accurate *unless* they are thus corroborated. An excellent
place to start reading about what science understands and to what
degree of confidence the results are held can be found in Roger Wiens'
"Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/
resources/wiens.html).
In the meantime, please refrain stating the opinion that these ages
are "guesses" -- it shows up rather starkly exactly how little about
the matter you really know or understand. The nature and *sheer
staggering volume* of these findings removes them about as far from
mere guesswork as it's possible to get; the corroboration and
consilience of the available evidence is better than just about any
other assertion made by science. If you need me to elaborate more on
this point, I can do so.
* "All you're doing in debating origins is tearing down fellow
Christians."
Fallacious reasoning is doing even *more* to turn people *away* from
Christianity *altogether*. Please refer to the Pew poll I cited some
time ago in which *one in four* young people who turned away from
Christianity did so because they see it as incompatible with science.
Besides, shouldn't we be encouraging one another to be the best people
we can be -- even if that includes educating one another (Hebrews
3:13,10:24)?
(Also, here's the guy I mentioned who abandoned faith completely
because his Christianity gave him "no fallback position", a sentiment
which I can directly relate to and that almost caused *me* to lose
*my* faith forever: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/11/11/what-convinced-me-and-you/.
As I read other people who have a passion for deciphering creation, I
find this pattern far from uncommon.)
If we're interested in discussing truth, why should we limit ourselves
only to the truth that is encouraging -- especially when we see that
error in this regard is causing damage?
And if being encouraged to be the best people we can be in *all*
aspects of our character while following Christ in this life is
pointless, what are we *doing* here?
* "All that matters is faith."
With respect, that seems hopelessly naive. Of the cardinal virtues
Paul listed in 1 Corinthians 13 -- faith, hope, and love -- the object
and the direction is important in each case. That's because each of
these qualities influence behavior, but in a manner consistent with
the object and the direction of the quality(1) -- *and behavior
matters*. One can't simply assert, for example, that the virtue of
love is what's important and the object and direction are irrelevant,
so love of money is justified. And this leads me to the next point:
* "You can't prove either one is correct."
Not in the sense that one can prove a mathematical theorem, no, of
course not. We live in a continuous universe, after all. But the
available evidence is rather clear on the matter, and that has to mean
something to a reasonable person(2).
In the same vein, you can't "prove" that a particular instance of love
of money is bad behavior. You can point to places where God's Word
says otherwise, but you can't "prove" to a denier that the author was
talking about *that particular instance*. You can point to historical
instances where love of money has led to undesirable consequences or
bad character, but you can't "prove" to a denier that it always will
or that it usually does.
This is the place science finds itself in when creationists claim that
*their* conjectures are consistent with science. The creatonist can
always come up with a "Yeah, but" and move the goalposts to try to
explain why their conjectures still fit the facts. (If you posit an
omnipotent God, then all explanations are techncially *possible*, if
increasingly convoluted.) But there comes a point where any
reasonable person would conclude that the contortions required for a
particular explanation to fit the evidence are too great, and a
different explanation is required. This should be especially true
when the thing being discussed is not a matter of evidence or of plain
and unarguable language(3), but of a preferred interpretation of
ancient writing (even if that writing was divinely inspired).
Frankly, the whole thing smacks of a particular dysfunction in
American Christianity that galls me: The assumption that the belief is
the Most Important Thing, and that all that matters is sincerity and
passion with respect to that belief. Scripture is pretty clear that
belief is not an end in itself, but serves as a means to an end (e.g.,
Ephesians 2:10); if a demonstrably false rhetoric leads to people
being content with *not doing* the very things that Christ saved us
*so we could do them*, in what sense can we say that it doesn't
matter? If it even prevents us from *doing good* (as pointed out,
countless industries that care for people depend on an accurate
geological and paleological understanding -- I can return to the list
if you like), how can we insist that it doesn't matter?
To temper this somewhat, I will fully agree that it is not of primary
importance -- far from it. But it is also quite far from being of
*no* importance; again, I point out that it is an element of things
that have led some to reject our Savior. We cannot be content to wait
until the hereafter to do the good that God has placed in our power to
do. (The Kingdom of God, it is often said, is both now and not yet.
American Christianity *loves* to emphasize the "not yet" and ignore
the "now". As well as verses urging us to consider how important
working is to our salvation, e.g., Philippians 2:12, or Matthew
21:28-32.)
All this said, if people would rather that debates on this topic
cease, I can put it to bed on my end. Let me know.
----------
(1) Consider the countless politicians arguing that anti-
environmentalism is a valid stance because they reject paleoclimatic
evidence out of hand. Or the people who support them. Creationism is
being used to excuse not caring for God's creation in the name of
slaking our greed and materialism; even if it weren't making patently
false claims, wouldn't that *alone* be a reason to address it?
(Not that people behaving badly is not a reason in and of itself to
consider a certain explanation false. But it *is* a reason to examine
the explanation, and if we still find it accurate, to make sure that
people know how to behave properly with respect to it.)
----------
(2) Just as, for example, one must eventually reject the geocentric
model of the Solar System. You can't *prove* that the heliocentric
model is true (nor can you *prove* that the geocentric model is false)
to someone with a sufficiently high standard of evidence, especially
if that someone keeps moving the goalposts -- but the evidence on the
matter is fairly clear and voluminous, and ought to convince any
reasonable person. The idea that you can accept or reject whatever
you please because you can't "prove" a particular conjecture true or
false to the point of removing all doubt is specious reasoning, and
isn't how we approach *any* information in the real world (which also
makes this defense of creationism seem like special pleading).
----------
(3) The very fact that we can have a debate *at all* about this should
show that the language is not "plain and unarguable". Researching the
historical Christian faith is invaluable in this regard.
go4tli
On Dec 7, 11:00 am, go4tli <go4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Not that people behaving badly is not a reason in and of itself to
> consider a certain explanation false.
That's supposed to be "(NOTE that people behaving badly is not a
reason...". =sigh=
Anyway, while I'm addressing points, here's another:
* "All these outlooks require faith."
That's trivially true. It's impossible to conclude anything without
*some* starting assumptions.
However, only one of these outlooks is going out and performing tests
to see if its understanding is accurate. Only one of these outlooks
is making predictions based on its understanding and then attempting
to see if those predictions pan out. Only one of these outlooks is
falsifiable (we've seen that positing an omnipotent God permits *any*
explanation, no matter how convoluted or how at odds with available
evidence it happens to be, to be asserted), and stands in spite of
that falsifiability. Only one of them starts with the assumption that
it *doesn't* understand, and looks at the available facts and evidence
to see what they might suggest.
Is it really possible to be so sure of one's own teachers, one's own
understanding, and one's own interpretation of a single, vaguely-
worded section of a single book (the meaning of which Jews and
Christians have disagreed about for millennia!) to believe that one's
ideas on it are correct, especially if embracing those particular
ideas requires rejecting volumes of *testable* evidence in the real
world?
Furthermore, if we can expect that God performs miracles and then
leaves evidence to make it look exactly as if what *really* happened
was not what happened at all, why should we have faith that *any* of
God's miracles are real?
go4tli
analogy when it comes to creationism versus mainstream science:
geocentrism versus heliocentrism.
I like appealing to this one because the philosophies involved contain
various structural similarities to the more recent debate. One side
is holding its knowledge to be unshakable because of its reading and
understanding of Scripture. The other is holding its ideas to be more
relevant because direct observation, experiment, and discovery show
that the religiously-based ideas do not correspond to reality. (Note
that this says nothing about the religion or about Scripture itself --
only what the adherents are *claiming about* the religion or about
Scripture itself.) In both sets of debates, we can look at
similarities to illustrate where different kinds of understanding come
from and what their strengths and weaknesses are.
Now, if this were all there was to it -- if debates like this
consisted of nothing but the structure of the debate itself -- then
the point that the debate is only so much trivial internecine
squabbling would be quite correct. But philosophies have consequences
in the societies where they exist. To illustrate my point, I'm going
to use the analogous debate I usually appeal to in order to
demonstrate the *structure* of the ideas involved and posit a parallel
Earth -- Earth-Two, if I may borrow DC's nomenclature -- that I can
appeal to in order to demonstrate the *impact* of the ideas involved.
On Earth-Two, the societal impact of the geocentric/heliocentric
debate is equivalent to the societal impact of the creationism/
conventional science debate here. So let me set the stage:
(a) Suppose that, instead of its current level of support on Earth,
it is accurate to say without exaggeration that heliocentrism on Earth-
Two enjoys more observational and experimental support than just about
any other theory in human history.
(b) Suppose that instead of the Scriptures geocentrism has used to
support itself here on Earth, on Earth-Two, geocentrism is based on a
murky passage in a single book. How murky? Murky enough that
geocentrism in its current form has only been a part of mainstream
teaching in Christianity for fifty or so years out of its two-thousand-
plus year history. (In spite of this, geocentrism's teachers often
assert that geocentrism is the historical understanding of the passage
in question.)
(c) Suppose that there were large numbers of people dedicated to
having geocentrism taught alongside heliocentrism in science classes
across the nation, and that some of the more influential of those
people had published documents outlining a strategy for supplanting
heliocentrism entirely -- all while claiming that they want to teach
some kind of nonexistent "controversy".
(d) Suppose that there were geocentric institutions pulling in vastly
larger funds than any scientific institution -- funds that were almost
exclusively spent on spreading information about geocentrism, with
absolutely *none* spent on testing the understanding of geocentrism.
Suppose further that these organizations were not above communicating
half-truths, omissions, distortions, and outright falsehoods in the
name of our God and Savior. (While lying is not unique to
geocentrists, it should come as a shock that the geocentrists do so in
the name of communicating the truth of God.)
(e) Suppose that geocentrism's claims were such that they had all
been refuted by direct observation for decades, but that geocentrists
continued to use those claims to assert its truth.
(f) Suppose that literally dozens of industries with ties to the well-
being of countless people's needs -- even those as basic as their food
and their health -- depended on an accurate understanding of
heliocentrism. That making intelligent decisions about these
industries that impact the lives and well-being of millions depended
on that accurate understanding.
(g) Suppose that vast callousness, carelessness, and greed were being
advocated by politicians and businesses and justified to the faithful
in part by geocentrists who claimed that the heliocentrists had no leg
to stand on and only came to their conclusions based on a different
set of starting assumptions.
(h) Suppose that there are more young people leaving Evangelical
Christian churches on Earth-Two than in any period in the *entire
history* of Evangelical Christianity. When asked, a *very significant
percentage* of young people cite irreconcilable differences between
Christianity and science as a large reason they left. Moreover, a
good number of people cite the lack of commitment to the truth in (d)
to be a solid indication that Christianity has no commitment to the
truth to speak of, and can thus be rejected out of hand as invalid in
any of its truth claims.
Let suppose a Christian who has spent most of his adult life as a
geocentrist, and who even grew up hoping to be an influential
geocentrist one day, but has been powerfully swayed by the mountains
of evidence supporting heliocentrism's claims and refuting
geocentrism's (once he finally gathered the courage to stop listening
to claims and start looking at the evidence itself).
Considering the souls at stake, would it not be the compassionate
thing to do to refute (politely but firmly) the claims of the
geocentrists that are shown plainly false by direct observation (per
point e)?
Considering his ardent desire to see the name of his Savior glorified,
and the effect that lying about His creation is having in society and
in the perception of his Savior and his faith, would it not be the
honorable thing to do to refute (politely but firmly) the claims of
the geocentrists that are shown plainly false by direct observation?
Now, the analogy I have made here is paper-thin, so I trust you can
see the point I'm getting at. I would have been silent on this issue
long ago if I thought the argument that discussing the issue does
nothing but destroy Christian unity had any merit. It is not my
desire to destroy unity -- how could it be? -- but it *is* my desire
to follow the Great Commission as well as do what I can to make it
easier for *others* to follow the Great Commission; it is also my
desire to see Jesus' name, in the idiom of Scripture, "lifted up"
rather than besmirched by falsehoods that have been obvious for
decades to those who take the time to look.
So I think the issue is more important than simply trying to win a
philosophical point. It's not one of the most important ideas in the
Christian church, but neither is it an idea with no impact at all.
It is *really* not my desire to create festering chasms between
people, though. Which is why I *also* think it's important to stop
harping on this if people want me to stop. (And why I'm going to have
to depend on you guys to be honest about that.) In the meantime,
though, I trust you can see why it's important to me not to be quiet
about it by default.