# Science on Localized Events in Distant Past

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-on-localized-events-in-distant-past/269>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [May 26, 2018, 3:43am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-on-localized-events-in-distant-past/269 "2018-05-26T03:43:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 1:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-on-localized-events-in-distant-past/269/5 "2018-05-26T13:58:22Z")

</div>

> [@The RTB Science-Scripture Integration](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-rtb-science-scripture-integration/256/32):
>
> > Exactly. Turns out science is not good at all at testing intermittent or one time events that are localized and in the distant past.
> 
> Except the Big Bang and the Chicxulub Crater.

Maybe. Stretches the limits of bieng a “local” event though. Regardless, there are always exceptions that prove the rule.

> [@The RTB Science-Scripture Integration](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-rtb-science-scripture-integration/256/32):
>
> > You know, **things like a single de novo creation event** , Jesus turning water to wine, the Virgin Birth. These things, even if they are true, are not expected to leave any physical evidence. The only evidence we might expect is a change in the behaivior or recorded thoughts of those downstream from such events. Now we are moving out the natural sciences into historical study. **Science cannot really adjudicate these claims** , even if they are real and even if they are important to understanding how and why history unfolds the way it did.
> 
> Agree.  
> So why you trying to do that?

In the case of the de novo creation of Adam? For that, I’m not using science to say it happened. Just the opposite. Everyone else has said evolution rules it out, and I am insisting this is not the case. Science is silent, and does not tell us way or another.

The same is regarding God’s “intervention” or “action” in evolution. Some (not all) atheists claim evolution totally explains everything, and that we know God did not intervene. Others (like ID) claim he had to have been involved. One of these two is correct, but science cannot really tell us. It cannot tell us one way or another, for example, if God engineered a mutation or two when my son was born

The same is true regarding the resurrection. There is evidence for the resurrection ([Peace Be With You - #3 by swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/peace-be-with-you/100/3))., but it is certainly not science that adjudicates this in the end.

I’d say a general pattern in my work is more carefully delineating what science does and does not say. I am not using it to adjudicate whether or not God did something. Sometimes this is not clear, because I am talking about theological claims at times. In those cases, however, we are deviating from science per se and just looking at evidence from a logical point of view.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-on-localized-events-in-distant-past/269)._