Only slightly clearer than the previous response. But I think I detect your primary confusion between the pattern of differences and the causes of differences. Common descent explains the former, and is never claimed or intended to explain more, though the tree can be useful in coming up with and testing proposed explanations. So out of the two questions I asked, you ignored one and gave an irrelevant response to the other. Par for the course.
Could you differentiate between a scientific formulation and a naturalistic formulation of the ideal gas law, and how either contrasts with faith?
4 Likes
Back to square one, I suppose. @colewd, please see this earlier thread in which we discussed ad nauseum why common descent is not a mechanism, and so none of the things you said are evidence against common descent.
Valid question. Much ink has been spilled on the definitions of those two terms. I wonāt enter into a debate on those, but let me offer this real quick, then move on to an example: I adhere to common definitions of science. As for naturalism: I see it coming in two forms: philosophical and itās subset methodological, which essentially is a commitment to only allow naturalistic processes when creating origin narratives. Supernatural are not allowed.
Moving on from there, what Iām trying to convey is best answered with an example (as brief as I can): The origin of the Solar System.
Two potential narratives to consider: 1) Supernatural biblical creation, 2) Naturalism (no supernatural allowed)
As biblical creationists, we hold to Godās direct statement that He made the Sun and Moon (and implied the Solar system). Setting aside the global flood temporarily, there are NO scientific conflicts to this origin model.
Naturalists have settled on a collapsing nebule model. This on the other hand has scientific challenges to not only the Sun and Moonās origin, but practically every planet and a number of satellites (moons).
Conclusion regarding the origin of the Solar System:
Scientific conflicts with faith (creation)? No
Scientific conflicts with naturalism? Yes
So on this topic Iām not in conflict with science, Iām in conflict with naturalism; and naturalism is the one with scientific conflicts.
BTW is a good example of what I mean by saying that science has become more fulfilling as a YEC. I enjoy studying scientific challenges to the collapsing nebule model.
Fair enough.
I would push back on the total exclusion of supernatural as it relies upon testable theories that are predictive.
As for the Creation model, mechanisms of creation are not defined. Was it simply by instantaneous voice command?
How does this Creation model fit with science (being predictive, testable, etc)?
As for challenges to our current model of our solar system formation, what happens if we learn more and thus the gap is reduced or even eliminated?
1 Like
As have scientists. Collapsing nebula models have been developed from a long process of theory, math, and observation. Accretion discs and their related polar jets are pervasive in nature and found on scales from individual stars to entire galaxies, where the jets would have required tens to hundreds of thousands of years to travel the distance. That is a scientific conflict with the YEC model. The James Webb has now provided images of pre-ignition stars in formation with significant outflows.
NASAās Webb Catches Fiery Hourglass as New Star Forms
Deep diving off the āCosmic Cliffsā: previously hidden outflows in NGC 3324 revealed by JWST
Webb Space Telescope reveals previously shrouded newborn stars
Ironically, not long ago, creationists were advocating that it was the sun that was currently collapsing, and that it was the gravitational release of energy rather than fusion that provided its heat. They embraced this idea because it meant that the sun could not possibly be billions of years old. The so called hyped up scientific conflict was over missing neutrinos, that fewer solar neutrinos were detected than would be expected from fusion. This idea never had real credibility, for one because it could not account for the neutrinos that were detected, but that did nothing to diminish the appeal to YEC. Improved detection methods resolved the problem and the missing neutrinos were accounted for, no thanks to the naysayers of YEC. You will never find a solution if you assume there isnāt one. The odd scientific discovery is serendipitous, but the bulk of scientific discovery comes from focused hard work which assumes there must be a solution to natureās riddles somewhere. Such enterprise, goal, and hope, that is what you relegate to naturalism.
1 Like
All due respect, but that sounded seriously incoherent to me. There are no scientific conflicts with the model āhe made the sun and moonā because itās too vague to be a testable hypothesis. If, for example, he made them by creating a universe 13 billion years ago in which stars and planets happen to form every so often, that would fit the hypothesis. It only conflicts with science if you get specific, like āhe made the universe (sun, moon, stars) in 1 day, 6000 years agoā
Now, as a YEC, you presumably believe that second statement, and yet that one is in serious conflict with science. Now what?
2 Likes
Thatās technically not true. The requirements for science is that proposed explanations have testable predictive content. Whether the postulated causes are thought of as ānaturalā or not is actually completely irrelevant. If you can device a way to predict actual data, and if it is possible that data can be otherwise in principle(that the data can deviate from predictions and hence the explanation can be tested against observation), then it is entirely within the remits of science.
What youāre saying just isnāt true.
What you seem to be insinuating (what you must think by logical entailment) here is, instead, that you think supernatural causes are by definition untestable because they only ever amount to ad-hoc rationalizations. That their mechanisms of operation are intrinsically inscrutable and inaccessible to us. And for that reason we might aswell consider them as having no rhyme or reason to them, no consistent events or processes that can be measured. So it turns out, when it comes down to it, itās actually you who thinks the supernatural canāt be part of science given how you define it. Because you are the one insisting Godās motives and desires and methods of operation are inscrutable, you have made your God scientifically untestable.
And no, we canāt just throw away the requirement that things must be testable. That way madness lies. It would literally destroy all of science.
Thatās because itās not a model. It predicts nothing. It has no explanatory content at all. Nothing can test it because nothing can contradict it when it predicts no actual data.
It just says that three things we already know exist (Sun, Moon, and Earth) exist because God made them by divine fiat. Thatās it.
Well since we already know the Sun, Moon, and Earth exists, how can the divine fiat āmodelā be tested? It doesnāt even say how, so nothing about the attributes of the Sun, Moon, and Earth can in principle contradict the assertion that God wished them into existence. Nothing about the internal operations of any of them. Nothing about geological processes or atomic physics. Nothing about the elements. Nothing. It says nothing. They look old? God could have made them with the appearance of age.
Why all the other planets? Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc? Why their sizes and compositions and distances to the sun? Why all that other stuff in the solar system, like asteroid belts, comets and so on? Nothing. It says nothing about that. And for that reason their existence and none of their attributes can test the assertion that God made them.
Whatever we find out is just rationalized as more that God did but it wasnāt written down. We find lots of ethane on Uranus? Yeah thatās what God wanted. We donāt find lots of ethane on Uranus, but instead none at all? Yeah okay, so thatās what God wanted. Nitrogen content of trans-neptunian cometary ices? No idea and it doesnāt matter, whatever the value itās just what God wanted.
3 Likes
I think you are overlooking rather a lot there. For instance the sky being a solid dome with water above it.
Science has gone with that model - and to the best of my knowledge the origin of the Moon is largely settled. Also, astronomical observations are rather relevant. Not to mention the existence of stars considerably older than the Sun.
It is obvious that you have to be very selective about scripture, and about the science you include to even get to the first conclusion. And I do not accept that unresolved scientific problems constitute a genuine āconflict with naturalismā - even to the extent that they exist. Certainly they are nothing like the issues with the age of the Earth.
1 Like
I think āscientific conflicts with naturalismā is an oxymoron. Methodological naturalism ā which is different from philosophical naturalism ā is a necessary presupposition of scientific inquiry. Otherwise we could never discover anything, because itās impossible to ever fully rule out the supernatural. Thatās not a bug; itās a feature. (āHmm, the plates with penicillin have no bacterial growth ā but could be a miracle.ā)
2 Likes
BIll, you have it backwards, again. We observe the sky is blue, but that doesnāt explain how light refracts in the atmosphere. Itās the other way around - the reason the sky is blue is because light of the way light refracts in the atmosphere.
Likewise, we observe common descent as a result of how life diversifies over time. Common Descent is not an explanation, it is evidence supporting how life has diversified.
@colewd Weāve had this discussion before, maybe twice?
As already noted, itās not in conflict because itās not scientific, nor does anyone seriously suggest that it should be scientific. And by āseriousā I mean that The Global Flood (etc.) is apologetics, not science, and those making claims about Creation Science arenāt even trying to find practical applications. There is no reason to take that sort of thing seriously as science.
7 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic
Greetings DJ (I hope you donāt mind me referring to you as that),
Sorry itās taken a while to respond, this was my first chance to.
I had to read this a few times. Iām not totally sure which way youāre leaning on this, but Iām assuming youāre like me: Seeing no need for total exclusion of supernatural. Correct me if Iām wrong on your stance.
Good question. Many creationists see two options: 1) instantaneous (as you mention, by Godās comman), 2) accelerated process, much like watching a speed-up video of a garden growing. This later is seen in Day 3 of creation when several thousands of years of accelerated activity all occurred in a single day. Two good references are Dr. Danny Faulknerās Dasha Theory (sorry I donāt have a good link off-hand), and the book Creation Unfolding (Creation Unfolding: A New Perspective on Ex Nihilo - Kindle edition by Coulson, Ken. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.). Context is key on distinguishing between these two options.
This later concept can also possibly be applied to a few potential challenges to the solar system such as geological activity on Mars. I didnāt want to include that in my past post about the Solar system, but just wanted to point that out now. It is a potential challenge to our model, but itās actually a philosophical challenge more than a scientific one. Thereās a WHOLE lot more I could say about that.
Another good question. First, in contrast a secular model is 100% committed to naturalistic narratives. These obviously use 100% scientific exploration. Creation researchers also have a committed to naturalism in that they also do their very best to find naturalistic answers to challenges. Iāve found that they avoid simple āGod-did-itā handwaves as much as they can, and when they do, only do so when there is a scriptural reason to apply Godās activity.
So to answer your question: what results is a combination of scriptural study, and scientific research. Itās a fairly simple concept (and Iām surprised at how many people miss this simplicity). A creationists would first read that there was a global flood, then go and look for scientific evidence for it. True, this is a presuppositional approach (see Presuppositional Apologetics | Biblical Science Institute). But understand, presuppositional models do not completely exclude the application of science. Again, to me itās a simple concept.
I hope that answers your question, Iām trying to be brief.
BTW, as creationists, we also examine scientific claims for naturalistic models, looking for viability (explanatory power and internal consistency). So thatās also a part of creationistsā scientific research.
āKnowledge gap reductionā: This is where YEC gets exciting.
First, understand that this sword cuts both ways. Both sides can make these gap reduction potential claims. So stating it doesnāt really advance the dialog much, other than just acknowledging that each side at time declare āYes, thatās a problem. Further research is needed.ā
But what has gotten exciting for me is seeing it happen! As I mentioned, Iāve been following creation research since the 90ās. Back then I would not have made these kind of boastful claims about YEC. Originally it was a little discouraging to be honest. Today however, Iām so glad I āstuck to my gunsā. YEC has now become more intellectually satisfying than any other model. And Iām seeing that same excitement from many others within the YEC community. And I see this momentum continuingā¦
ā¦
NOTE TO OTHERS:
I see that Iāve gotten a number of replies from others as well. Unfortunately I havenāt read them yet. And honestly Iām not sure if & when I will. I generally need to try and focus on dialoging with one person at a time here at PS, and right now will mostly do so with @djkriese . So donāt be surprised if you donāt get a reply (not that you all needed one Iām sure!)
A little bit about me,
I take the following approach: Godās actions are generally āhiddenā unless designated as signs (must be accessed by faith).
Faith also follows Hebrews 11:1-3 (unseen, Godās command) and by the power of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:5) such that finding recorded evidence and research of a theological position is antithetic to Godās purpose
I wholeheartedly reject presuppositional apologetics as both being circular and with poor supporting evidence.
Most here would agree that they are not. They are limiting themselves to that which can be scientifically explored. Divine action theories have not been predictive or testable so far. Some take this lack of scientific application to automatically reject the supernatural, but that is not following or required.
For these two options, my faith journey started in the first. After a lot of learning and growth, I found both of these require too many extra-biblical rescuing devices and an anachronistic view of literalism on Genesis.
As for Creation research, I have spent years on the interwebs (here and other places) as well as reading more papers/articles/data on this than I probably should have. I come back to the Scriptures as by faith, the human authors attest to Godās power and causation of the water cycle and other weather phenomena that are completed also explainable by purely natural causes. As Eddie had pointed out, Ancient Hebrews did not regard nature as separate. I would suggest a hypothetical in that vein as if God showed the progression of the universe from t = 0 till 13.8 billion years, it would be praiseworthy and Godās creative process via evolution/star formation/etc would be seen as part of Creation rather than separate.
As for the current situation. I see all my family in Christ without prejudice to hermeneutics or beliefs about various things from Creation to other parts. One thing that I sincerely wish that Christians did when introducing someone to the faith and relationship with Jesus Christ is being explicit about core Christianity and also humbly discuss denomination add-ons as that which they are. If a Christian group/person sees one aspect such as YEC or even complementarianism as necessary for salvation, I find that that both contradicts Scripture (thief on the crossās theology) and sets up a heavy stumbling block and causes much harm.
3 Likes
Thatās not really the problematic part. Rather, the problems arise from the fact that there is no evidence of a global flood because such a thing never happened. Yet, these āresearchersā to whom you refer continue to insist that the flood happened, and that evidence for it exists.
That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an approach that can be called āscientific.ā
5 Likes
100% Agree. And thankfully I donāt recall ever coming across any other believers who are as youāve described. Although Iām sure there or āthoseā out-there.
I appreciate you sharing your faith journey. For me, my journey to settling on YEC took lots of āGod teach me, change me if Iām wrongā prayers, and lots of study scripture, and scientific arguments on both sides. Whatās been interesting is that within this past year I finally settled on what to me was a big epiphany:
Evaluating the Age of the Earth/Universe very much requires assessing Godās character.
By that I mean asking questions like āDoes it seem reasonable that God would do X?ā And āWould God expect Y from us?ā Especially that later question. That one has become very significant for me.
The answers to these obviously lie in scripture. You mentioned 1 Cor 2:5. I believe the next two verses (6-7) highlight what I mean:
1 Cor 2:6-7: We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare Godās wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
In these we learn that 1) God hides wisdom, and 2) Heās not so interested in the āwisdom of this age.ā Reading these verses help me, again, understand Godās character, and help me navigate origins questions.
BTW:
Iām assuming thatās someone who posted something in this thread?? Iāll be honest, once I started dialoging with you I stopped reading ALL other posts, including ones directly to me, other than yours. Not for lack of interest, more lack of time.
Iāve finally had time read everyone elseās posts to me. Sorry for the single combined reply.
Replying in order:
RonSewell
Indeed they have been. Which doesnāt help your case really. After a tremendous amount of research, naturalists are left choosing between three models, and have had to pick the āleast worstā. To me, itās really not very solid and rather problematic. Also pointing to āa long processes of theory, math, and observationā only speaks of effort, not outcome.
I actually appreciate that you posted that. I figured someone would introduce that category, which is a topic I very much wanted to at least mention in my first post, but didnāt because I was going for brevity.
And my response will also be with extreme brevity: Yes, there are challenges regard apparent long ages. This is the whole āapparent ageā, āfunctionally matureā discussion, which time does not permit me to indulge in. For me, although science is what reveals these challenges, these are more philosophical challenges than scientific. They bring up questions of what God would do, and why, and what are response should be. See my latest response to @djkriese on that above.
ā¦
Rumraket
He was already untestable. I didnāt have to make Him that way.
I have to admit, sometimes I like coming here to PS just for the amusement.
So after a lot of talk about āNothingā (literally), you settled on that statement. Whatās ironic is that thereās actually a bit of truth to what you just said.
ā¦
Paul King
A few things to mention here. First of all that first word āScienceā needs to be replaced with āScientific consensus,ā or better yet āNaturalists.ā An important distinction.
Second, you referred to the Moonās origin as āsettled.ā Itās āsettledā in the sense that theyāve settled on their least worst model, which as Iāve mentioned above is not very solid and rather problematic. Iāve enjoyed studying Moon origin challenges.
I will give you credit in that you were being honest with your statement āto the best of my knowledgeā
misterme987
I actually appreciate your response. I certainly agree with that statement when it comes to operational science such as developing effective penicillin. All creationists would.
I do want to point out that I believe your response is derived from a miss-understanding of my point.
Perhaps itās because of my poorly worded statement.
A better wording would have been something like: āNaturalistic narratives that themselves have scientific conflictsā.
BUT, as Iāve mentioned before, I was going for brevity.
ā¦
Dan_Eastwood
THIS is where things get interesting.
When it comes to the solar system, the Earth (apart from all other planets) has itās own set of truly scientific challenges. This is due to the very important fact that the YEC model specifies that the world was globally flooded and essentially resurfaced 4k years ago. If you want to hit us with scientific challenges, THAT is exactly where to do it. This is where I would disagree with your ānot scienceā statement.
Certainly they are.
As Iāve also mentioned previously, Creation Researchers 1) try to looks for naturalistic answers wherever possible (in other words applying scientific research), and 2) limit themselves to only invoking some form of āGod-did-itā when there is sufficient scriptural reason to. Honestly, thatās a tall order!
And now this is where things get exciting for YECs. They ARE finding scientific support for the Global Flood. Iāve reached a point to where I believe we have a better explanation for the earthās geology. I seriously do. And most within the YEC community have realize that (at least the informed ones). Thatās not a statement I would have made 10 years ago. Or perhaps even 5 years ago.
Well Dan, youāre certainly free to have that opinion. Creationists meanwhile are researching Flood models and are coming up with some exciting results.
ā¦
Faizal_Ali
Wow.
And it got 5 ālikesā
That oneās worth bookmarking.
2 Likes
Could you perhaps cite a few of the publications in which these exciting results appear, or at least tell us what they are?
3 Likes
None of the above is true.
The only question is whether you are deceiving or have been deceived.
4 Likes