I've written a few posts lately dealing with some of the presuppositions behind science. Before making the last two posts on this subject, I tried my arguments out on some militant evolutionists (“evos”) on another site. I really wanted to know how they might answer my points. Perhaps I was a little optimistic because most of the answers I received were the usual insults, red herrings, and obfuscations.
One response though, is worthy of more discussion. It was made by a person who posts under the name of “Hispid.” Unlike many of his fellow evos, Hispid is a decent fellow. His posts are usually civil – even cordial. We disagree on many things, of course, but he can discuss them with minimal drivel. His response on this matter was not so much a rebuttal to my point but rather is an opportunity to discuss some other irrational arguments used by evos.
Hispid introduced his comment with the following sentence:
… There's nothing wrong with a purely faith based belief in young earth creationism on two provisos
Considering how evolutionists seem so interested in evidence, I would like to ask Hispid if he has any evidence for this statement. It sounds like a bald assertion. He has absolutely no grounds for this statement beyond his own opinion.
Notice too that there's another question raised by Hispid in this comment. Did you catch how he said, “There's nothing wrong...”? Doesn't that presuppose that there is some standard of what is right and wrong. OK. What is this standard? Show me scientifically where it exists. It is observable and testable?
I've always heard that science is amoral. Indeed, if evolution is true, then there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. However, scientists are arbitrary because they live their lives as though such absolutes exist.
Continuing on, though, let's look at Hispid's provisos:
1. Don't pretend that the evidence which may contradict this faith is wrong or flawed for no other reason than it contradicts your faith. That is dishonest.
Dishonesty is forbidden in the Bible so I certainly don't want to be dishonest. However, if evolution is true, then dishonesty would be OK if it conveyed some survival value. What is the evolutionary standard for claiming dishonesty is wrong? In other words, show me the scientific evidence that it is wrong to lie.
The problem is that dishonesty is only absolutely wrong if there is some absolute standard of right and wrong. Such an absolute only exists in the Christian worldview. Therefore, an evolutionist can call me wrong only by presupposing that my worldview is true!
By the way, in his comment about evidence, Hispid demonstrates that he's unfamiliar with the purpose of a theory. Theories explain the data. Theories never accuse the evidence of being “wrong or flawed.” That's like saying a fossil is “wrong”; it doesn't make any sense. What we object to is the interpretation of the evidence offered by evolutionists. We have competing theories about how fossils were formed, for example. The evos are wrong. The fossils themselves are neutral.
2. Don't pretend that a purely faith based belief in young earth creationism is in any way backed by sentific [sic] evidence. That is simply wrong.
There's that “wrong” word again. Now tell me again where is the scientific evidence that something can be wrong? If evolution is true, then my responses are not transcendent or super-mundane. They are only the result of chemical actions taking place in my brain. To say that I'm wrong is like saying that an apple falling from a tree is wrong.
Notice too what he is claiming is “wrong”; namely that creationists pretend their “faith based belief” system is backed by scientific evidence. Yet in the same breath he makes a faith based statement – without scientific evidence – that something can be wrong. It's truly incredible!
I'm often accused of denying reality. If you ask me, it's evos who are divorced from reality. They act like their brand of science is noble and pure but it is riddled with logical inconsistencies. To believe their views on the physical have no bearing on the immaterial or philosophical is to deny reality. Hopefully I've shown you why the two (material and immaterial) are irrevocably connected.
4 comments:
I don't understand, though, why many creationists or intelligent design adherents tend to reject all science that refutes their positions, while at the same time accepting and promoting those ideas that tend to support them. Science is a method, hopefully applied in the same critical manner to all areas of research and scholarship. A creationist, when ill, I should think would accept and be thankful for cutting edge medical science (unless, say, a Christian Scientist). Also, the same person will have no problem crossing a bridge, driving a car, flying in a plane, heating their homes, etc, all products of the application of the scientific method. But then this person will totally reject science performed in a similar critical manner -- by geologists, astronomers, anthropologists, and on and on -- when these generally accepted scientific theories refute creationist beliefs. The creationist will claim these theories to be inaccurate, totally false, or some kind of secular conspiracy against God. If one accepts the efficacy of the scientific method in one field, then one should at least be willing to remain open-minded about it in other fields. I don't see this kind of rational thinking coming from creationists and biblical literalists.
J,
Thanks for visiting my blog. You didn't directly address the point of my post but your comments are still welcome.
I'm not aware of any creationist that rejects all science that refutes his position. In fact, I'm not sure how “science” can refute anything. Science is neutral. You seem to understand that science is simply a tool which we use to study nature. No creationist that I know has a problem with science at all. Indeed, I believe it is only because the Bible is true that science is even possible. You might read my post titled, The Cool Thing About Christianity: http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/05/cool-thing-about-christianity.html
Now, scientists make conclusions and create theories which attempt to explain the evidence. Creationists simply disagree with those conclusions which we believe are wrong. Don't you do the same? I don't believe it's due to a vast conspiracy; rather, I believe it's because of an admitted bias by secular scientists toward naturalism. The universe was either created naturally or super-naturally. There are no other options. If you refuse to consider one option, you're stuck with the other. Many scientists have rejected a super-natural explanation for our origins so they must cling stubbornly to the other no matter how absurd it might seem at times.
I invite you to take some time and read some of my recent posts about the presuppositions and logical inconsistencies made by scientists. I'd really like to hear your responses to them. Thanks again for visiting.
God bless!!
RKBentley
RK,
I didn't necessarily address the points in this particular post only because when I am new to a blog, I tend to make my first comment at the most recent blog post since many blog editors don't go back and review even new comments on old posts. I will for sure go back and read deeper into the blog. I may have done a poor job making my point, though, because I do indeed also disagree with many generally accepted theories about human kind, the nature of our existence, and the universe in general. I go in the other direction, however, with regards to the age of the Earth as well as civilized man. I believe Earth is VERY old, many millions of years old, a theory that is debated by but generally accepted by much current science. I break with accepted theories, however, in my belief that man, and civilization, is MUCH older than current figures. I am of the opinion that an ancient model of the universe does not preclude the existence of "God". I do not dismiss a possible supernatural origin for our universe, I just don't adhere to a Judeo/Christian concept of what "God" or that origin might actually be. But we are on the same page (just not in the Bible!) about some things. In the same way that secular science will sometimes label creationists "crackpots", many of the scholars and scientists exploring the notion of an older birth of civilization have also been marginalized by the mainstream. I'm sure you are familiar with the controversy surrounding Boston University geologist Robert Schoch and his theories about the age of the Sphinx on the Giza plateau in Egypt. Here is an eminent scientist in his field, following the evidence to what he thought was the an inevitable conclusion. But Egyptologists (NEVER a precise field of scholarship in the first place) scoffed at his theory that the Sphinx MUST be significantly older than generally accepted, given the type of weathering and erosion Schoch was observing in the Sphinx's limestone. An open-minded geologist could come to no other conclusion, but because the theory flew in the face of previously accepted science, the theory has been largely dimissed. Some sectors of the scientific community are being swayed, but still... So, yes, you are absolutely right. There is science, there is the evidence, but it is the task of admitedly imperfect people to interpret that evidence. On that note, I take my leave. I am looking forward to exploring the blog here, if only to better understand the "other side of the argument." I am not the kind of person who insults those who think differently than I do and I always look forward to intelligent debate. Take care!
J,
Thanks again for visiting and for your comments. I must admit I was a little concerned about posting your first comment. When I visited your blog, it seemed a little "dark" and I wasn't sure if I wanted to link to it. After reading your comments though, you seem a decent enough fellow.
You're certainly welcome to check my archives. You'll find that I don't talk only about about creation but also other Biblical subjects, news & politics, and even dabble a little in Greek.
Since I moderate my comments, I see any new comment left no matter how old the original post so feel free to comment on anything that interests you.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment