I've discussed the nature of evidence more than a few times. In a nutshell, evidence is neutral. It's doesn't “tell” us anything and it doesn't endorse any theory. Instead, theories are created to help make sense of the evidence. It's a classic example of circular reasoning when evolutionists invent a theory to explain the evidence then claim the evidence supports their theory but I'm not here to talk about that right now. Rather, I'm going to explain why the evolutionists' demands for “evidence” are nothing more than special pleading.
Since most physical evidence is neutral, whenever an evolutionist asks for “evidence” for creation, he can only be asking for the creationists' explanation of the evidence. After all, I live in the same world as he so I have all the same evidence that he does. But we already know that the evolutionist rejects the creation theory in advance because he has already accepted his own theory as the explanation for the evidence. When he rejects our “evidence,” he is merely restating his preexisting acceptance of the evolutionary explanation of the same evidence. For example, if a creationists suggests that rock layers are evidence for a global flood, the evolutionist rejects this “evidence” because of his own understanding of how the rock layers were formed. In other words, it's yet another example of circular reasoning where the evolutionist says, “These rock layers were not created by Noah's Flood because they were created by gradual processes over millions of years.” He might as well say, “Creation is false because I already know evolution is true.”
Now, there's more going on here than a demand for evidence. Within the evolutionist's demand, there is an assumption that knowledge can be gained only by evidence and observation. This is a philosophical worldview known as empiricism. However, such a worldview is self-refuting. How, for example, can the empiricist prove by his worldview that truth can only be attained via evidence and observation? Such a principle cannot be observed! Thus, when they claim they only consider “scientific evidence” they are contradicting themselves because they have begun with a presupposition that was itself not derived by scientific evidence.
Of course, a clever empiricist might say, “OK. Maybe I'm starting with a philosophical assumption about evidence but even so, you're still required to have evidence for your theory.” At this point, the evolutionists has become arbitrary. He claims on one hand that he is only persuaded by the evidence yet he contradicts himself on the other hand by admitting he has made a philosophical assumption that cannot be supported by the evidence and yet still seeks to place the burden on the creationist to provide “scientific” evidence for creation! Hence I said it is special pleading.
Creationists might be asking at this point if I'm saying we don't need evidence to believe creation. In fact, I do believe there is evidence for creation. Even considering all “scientific” evidence, I believe the strongest evidence for creation is the Bible. If the evolutionist doesn't consider that as evidence, that's his problem. Now he is being arbitrary in how he chooses what will be considered as “evidence.”
Evolutionists are irrational for supposing that knowledge can be only by observation. Even if that were true, they could not really know anything because they cannot observe everything. However, our belief is rational because we have the revelation of the One who does know everything. He told us how He did it. He told us about the creation. He told us about the Fall. He told us about the Flood. To me it makes far more sense to trust in the One who knows everything than to quibble with an irrational person who, by his own reasoning, cannot ever really know anything.
Finally, a very clever evolutionist might be one who claims to believe in God and evolution (a theistic evolutionist). Such a person might state that he believes in an omniscient God but that science has shown that the creation account in Genesis cannot be taken literally. This is still an irrational argument that faces the same dilemma faced by the unbelieving empiricist. The theistic evolutionist is still making the assumption that knowledge ultimately comes from the evidence so he is being inconsistent in his worldview. Perhaps without realizing it, the theistic evolutionist is placing the limited knowledge we gain from observation above the revealed word of the God who, we all agree, knows everything.
We need not be intimidated by irrational arguments. Dr. Jason Lisle gave this analogy: what if an evolutionist said that we had to defend our theory without using words? How silly would we be if we proceeded to act out our argument in charades? Don't limit yourself to the evolutionists' rules. If I may paraphrase Proverbs 26:4-5, don't answer a fool by acting like a fool. Instead, we need to show him how foolish his argument is.
8 comments:
In what is becoming an increasingly rare occurrence, I logged onto my Blogger account, spotted a blog post of yours, and decided to make a few points:
1) If we start with the presupposition that the evidence is neutral then creationism still falls short. A theory must explain all of the facts, which is why evolution is held in high esteem - it manages this beautifully.
You give an excellent example of how creationists avoid addressing this sort of thing. "Rock layers" is ambiguous, which is just how creationists like things. With such ambiguity we can make outrageous claims about what the rocks show, because we are not actually saying anything about the data in the rocks. A hypotheticalexample, numerous layers of rocks might be claimed by the creationist to have been deposited in a single major flood, yet close inspection might show trace fossils in many of the layers, as well as rock types which require very different conditions. Flood geology would fail to explain such a deposit (they do exist, quite commonly) and should be cast aside.
2) Empiricism (I prefer the term "methodological materialism" as it says nothing about our metaphysical positions) is often accepted based on the pragmatism it provides. It continues to make successful predictions and we manage to successfully build on past understanding.
3) Theistic evolutionists often do not reject a literal Genesis based on science alone. Study of ancient culture, of traditional Christian approaches to Scripture, even a study of the rise of YEC, can lead us away from a literal Genesis without ever looking to science. Our default position should be neutral. Science, for many, merely confirms that it is not literal, or swings the pendulum in favour of the non-literal, for the undecided mind. Are we being inconsistent by valuing insight from God's creation? Not at all, for there are many Biblical reasons for trusting science, not least Genesis 1 and its teaching of order and autonomy in creation.
I did not intend for my post to be quite this long.
PB,
I certainly can appreciate the demands the real world places on blogging time. We all have priorities. I appreciate that you took a moment to comment.
You said, “1) If we start with the presupposition that the evidence is neutral then creationism still falls short. A theory must explain all of the facts, which is why evolution is held in high esteem - it manages this beautifully.”
ToE explains “all facts” “beautifully”? I think there are a great many things your theory does not explain. While I understand that ToE limits itself to reproducing organisms, it excuses itself from explaining the origin of the first, self-reproducing organism. Secular science also excuses itself from explaining the origin of matter/energy. And what about the origin of physical laws like gravity? Most scientists assume physical laws are constant and never discuss (and many never consider) where such laws came from.
You said, “You give an excellent example of how creationists avoid addressing this sort of thing. "Rock layers" is ambiguous, which is just how creationists like things.”
My post was not really about rock layers so I didn't spend much time detailing the creation-theory's explanation of rock layer formation. You criticized the example but missed the point: when we offer “evidence” for our theory, it's rejected because of your circular logic. That is, “The creationist explanation is wrong because the evolutionary explanation is correct.”
You said, “2) Empiricism... is often accepted based on the pragmatism it provides. It continues to make successful predictions and we manage to successfully build on past understanding.”
Secular science believes that physical laws just poofed into existence. You have no reason to believe that they will continue to operate as they always have. To suggest that something will continue to work because it has always worked is about as silly as saying I won't die because I've never died before. You have no REASON to have confidence in science. However, the Bible says that the same God who created everything also sustains everything. It is only because of the nature of God that science is possible. Pragmatism has its place but you can't mean that something is correct simple because it works. Your theory only seems to work because my theory is true!!
You said, “3) Theistic evolutionists often do not reject a literal Genesis based on science alone. Study of ancient culture, of traditional Christian approaches to Scripture, even a study of the rise of YEC, can lead us away from a literal Genesis without ever looking to science. Our default position should be neutral.”
There is no such thing as a neutral position – everyone starts with a presupposition through which they interpret evidence. Some presuppose empiricism yet, as I said in my post, the paradigm of empiricism is self defeating.
TE is a special enigma. On the one hand, you claim to believe in a sovereign God. But on the other hand you believe in a brand of science that – at its very core – denies a supernatural role in ANYTHING (methodological naturalism). At the very least you are being arbitrary. At worst you're completely irrational.
You said, “I did not intend for my post to be quite this long.”
No worries. Brevity is not my strength either.
God bless!!
RKBentley
RK:
You said, "ToE explains “all facts” “beautifully”? I think there are a great many things your theory does not explain.. etc."
The ToE is a biological explanation, so it is naturally limited to explaining what occurs with existent life, namely its diversity. The origin of life is irrelevant to the veracity of the theory, but you should know this already. Why do you not criticise germ theory for not explaining the origin of germs? Or cell theory for not explaining the origin of cells?
With regards to assuming natural law, yes, this does occur (except for those scientists attempting to study the origins of natural laws). If we had to explain the origins of natural laws every time we did science we would not get anything done, it would be like having to prove God every time you attempted theology.
You said,"My post was not really about rock layers ... You criticized the example but missed the point...etc."
My example with regards to strata was mildly tangential, in order to highlight that YECs do ignore evidence by looking at it broadly. They can say "we have explained the rock layers using the flood" and go on to ignore data such as trace fossils. In this case the "evolutionary" explanation is correct at the expense of the creationist explanation because the evolutionary explanation is the only one capable of explaining the minutiae.
You said: "Secular science believes that physical laws just poofed into existence. You have no reason to believe that they will continue to operate as they always have. To suggest that something will continue to work because it has always worked is about as silly as saying I won't die because I've never died before. You have no REASON to have confidence in science. However, the Bible says that the same God who created everything also sustains everything. It is only because of the nature of God that science is possible. Pragmatism has its place but you can't mean that something is correct simple because it works. Your theory only seems to work because my theory is true!!"
It is interesting that I stated that I have theistic reasons for believing in an ordered and autonomous creation, allowing for confidence in methodological materialism, yet you go on as though I have no justification. However, the aforementioned pragmatism is bolstered by repeatability. What you seem to be criticising is an absolutist position, but theories and laws in science are better seen as "best fit" models of verisimilitude. You are attacking a straw man.
You said, "There is no such thing as a neutral position – everyone starts with a presupposition through which they interpret evidence. Some presuppose empiricism ...empiricism is self defeating."
The neutral position with regards to Genesis (as Christians) should be that it is a spiritual and theological text . We should not assume that it is literal or symbolic - that should come after much scrutiny.
You said, "TE is a special enigma. On the one hand, you claim to believe in a sovereign God. But on the other hand you believe in a brand of science that – at its very core – denies a supernatural role in ANYTHING (methodological naturalism). At the very least you are being arbitrary. At worst you're completely irrational."
Methodological naturalism is agnostic, it does not comment further than the material. Our metaphysical beliefs come from elsewhere. Genesis gives us reason for accepting this methodology, for God is indeed sovereign and just. The order of creation is a signal of His sovereignty, with the autonomy of creation being a signal of His love. We can trust what creation tells us, which is a position I find to be Biblically justified - this is my basis, which can hardly be called arbitrary. Expecting God to act ostentatiously and to create gaps to poke Himself through is crude and contrary to Scripture.
By the way, I didn't want to edit your words down, but by quoting you I went way over the character limit and didn't want to split the post.
PB,
I too would like to reply to your comments in full but space does not allow it. I will have to break this into two replies but, even then, I have to abbreviate your comments.
You said, “The ToE is a biological explanation, so it is naturally limited to explaining what occurs with existent life, namely its diversity. The origin of life is irrelevant to the veracity of the theory, but you should know this already. Why do you not criticise germ theory for not explaining the origin of germs? Or cell theory for not explaining the origin of cells?”
You had said that a good theory should explain “all facts.” My point was, and still is, that science is rather vague about the origin of most things so every scientific theory is lacking. Biology isn't good at explaining abiogenesis which would include the origin of germs and cells. Science is completely silent on the origin of natural laws yet it relies on them as fundamental.
You said, “With regards to assuming natural law, yes, this does occur (except for those scientists attempting to study the origins of natural laws). If we had to explain the origins of natural laws every time we did science we would not get anything done, it would be like having to prove God every time you attempted theology.”
I'm not asking that you explain it every time but if you could explain it once it might be nice. Of course, this is the point of my post. Scientists are arbitrary in that they claim to be neutral when looking at the evidence but in reality they start with a good number of presuppositions. Among the presuppositions are that physical laws are constant and every phenomenon has a natural explanation.
You said, “It is interesting that I stated that I have theistic reasons for believing in an ordered and autonomous creation, allowing for confidence in methodological materialism, yet you go on as though I have no justification.”
I did say that “secular science” assumes physical laws without explaining their origin (as though they poofed into existence). When I said, “you”, I meant it in the collective sense of all evolutionists. By labeling yourself as a theistic evolutionists, you have the convenient option of crediting God for the origin of natural laws. This is why I've said before that the god of TE is a god-of-the-gaps.
Even so, your starting point is contradictory. How can you credit God for anything while looking for a natural explanation for everything?
You said, “However, the aforementioned pragmatism is bolstered by repeatability.”
I've already addressed that. Repeatability is not a sufficient reason to believe physical laws have remained or will remain constant. It is like saying that I won't die because I've never died before. If physical laws just poofed into existence, there is no reason to expect they've always operated in the same manner nor that they will continue in the same manner. It is a faith position!
You said, “What you seem to be criticising is an absolutist position, but theories and laws in science are better seen as "best fit" models of verisimilitude. You are attacking a straw man.”
It is not a straw man. I'm addressing what YOU have called pragmatism – that is, “it works so we go with it.” It only seems to work if scientists make faith based assumptions that are contradictory to their professed worldview. The assumptions are more consistent with my theory which is why I said your theory only seems to work because my theory is true!
continued
Part II
You said, “The neutral position with regards to Genesis (as Christians) should be that it is a spiritual and theological text . We should not assume that it is literal or symbolic - that should come after much scrutiny.”
The “neutral” position is that we shouldn't look at the plain meaning of the words of Genesis? I beg to differ. I think the starting assumption should be that the words mean what they say and that we look for another meaning only if the context of Scripture demands it. You still seem to be of the opinion that evidence is greater than Scripture; that is, we can study ancient cultures, science, the writings of the patriarchs, etc, and then we can determine what the Scriptures mean.
You said, “Methodological naturalism is agnostic, it does not comment further than the material.”
I think you are at odds with your evolutionary cohorts. Scientific American Magazine said, “A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” So you see, it's not merely that “it does not comment further than the material.” Instead, it limits every explanation to the natural. You might look up the meaning of the term “naturalism.” While you're at it, look up the meaning of the word, “tenet.” ;)
God bless!!
RKBentley
Greetings Mr. Bentley,
I'll spare you any reiteration of your conversation with Paleobabbler and instead pose some questions from a psychological and philosophical standpoint.
First, the behavior that you accredit to evolutionists; rejecting the bible automatically because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs, is called "confirmation bias". However, it should be pointed out that this behavior is carried out by all humans all over the planet, including creationists. The creationists also discount ToE because it's not in the Bible and therefore they don't agree with it.
I'll be the first to admit that ToE does have some holes in it and that scientists don't have all of the answers. But that's not the same thing as saying that they're wrong. You say that a book, written by men about God is "more than sufficient proof" for the existence of creation, but you discount books written by men about tangible things that can be found in our environment. Just as ToE has holes, so too does ToC. Tell me please, which chapter in the Bible refernces the dinosaurs? Are you going to deny that they existed because the bible doesn't say so?
You discredit ToE because it can sometiems be contradictory. So too is the Bible. One part says "love thy neighbor" and "turn they other cheek", and then there are other parts that say "smote him down with a sword in one hand". Well, which is it?
Part of the problem with the Bible, the theory of creation and the theory of evolution is, as you say, interpretation. You are correct, to a point, in saying that we come up with ideas to fit the evidence that is presented before us. However, religion is not innocent of this as well. Consider "Holy Text Syndrome". Have the pastor read a passage to his congregation. Without waiting for the pastor to explain what it means, ask the congreation what they think that it means. I guarantee that you'll get 15-20 different answers even though all of them heard exactly the same words (I know because I've done this experiment as part of my psychology degree). How is that any different than scientists looking at bones and coming up with ideas? Just because their answer may not be correct doesn't mean that creation is right by default either. There's a huge difference between "not guilty" and "innocent", so too does that parallel hold true here.
Johnathan Clayborn,
Thank you so much for visiting. Your comments are very interesting and I'd like to get to all of them as time and space permits. As is always the case, though, I have to be brief due to character limits on Blogger.
You said, “First, the behavior that you accredit to evolutionists; rejecting the bible automatically because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs, is called "confirmation bias". However, it should be pointed out that this behavior is carried out by all humans all over the planet, including creationists.”
I'm very aware that everyone (including creationists) has a paradigm through which he interprets new information. My paradigm is the that there is a God and that the Bible is His revealed word. Knowing that to be true, I can make sense of the world. The point that I've often made is that the philosophical worldviews behind atheism and secular science are irrational. They not only cannot make sense of the world, they also contradict themselves.
You said, “The creationists also discount ToE because it's not in the Bible and therefore they don't agree with it.”
I don't reject things on the grounds that they are not in the Bible. Computers are not found in the Bible yet I use them. I reject evolution and the Big Bang cosmology because the Bible has given the correct account of our origins and the Biblical account is not compatible with these false theories.
You said, “You say that a book, written by men about God is "more than sufficient proof" for the existence of creation, but you discount books written by men about tangible things that can be found in our environment.”
The Bible was written by God through men (2 Tim 3:16). It is His perfect revelation. Perhaps I “discount” books written by men but I don't reject them. I take them for what they are: the opinions of flawed men. When I compare the opinions of flawed men to the revealed word of an all-knowing God, God wins every time.
You said, “Just as ToE has holes, so too does ToC. Tell me please, which chapter in the Bible refernces the dinosaurs? Are you going to deny that they existed because the bible doesn't say so?”
Again, I don't reject anything on the flimsy grounds that it might not be mentioned in the Bible. That's insane. Neither does the Bible mention giraffes yet I know they exist.
You said, “Part of the problem with the Bible, the theory of creation and the theory of evolution is, as you say, interpretation.”
Interpretation is not a “problem” with the Bible – it's a problem with people. One joy of the Bible is that it's profound. A simple sentence can speak a lot of truths. However, we don't have trouble understanding the words. When the Bible says, for example, that Jesus rose in three days, what does that “mean”? Could it mean He rose after 3 billion years? Could it mean He didn't really rise? Does anyone ask, “I wonder what a 'day' is”? These are the questions people ask about Genesis. Why is it that people who can understand other parts of the Bible suddenly can't read when it comes to Genesis?
Thanks again for your comment here. I'll be getting to your other comments as well.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment