A frequent complaint or charge made by atheists (etc.) against creation (or any use of creation in science) is that a belief in creation (i.e. God did it) puts and end to scientific progress. I reject such a charge, as I don't think it holds water. The fact a person thinks God was responsible for creating something doesn't tell him how He did it, and it's the desire to understand the 'mechanics' involved that drives the creationist scientist.
What I do think hampers discovery is the oft repeated tendency of scientists to say 'x is a fact.' This is a big red light (or stop sign) that tells people nothing is left to do and that they should look elsewhere to make discoveries.
Let's start with a seemingly banal example. e.g. "It's a fact that the vitamin C made in factories is the same as the vitamin C found in oranges.'' Well; that's the end of investigation isn't it? If it's a fact we don't need to look into it any further, we don't need to think about it any more. The matter has been settled. End of story.
Does the experience of eating an orange not matter? Does the experience of growing an orange tree not matter? Does the sight and feel and smell of an orange not matter? Does peeling an orange not matter? (Scientists often seem to forget that life is more than a matter of chemistry.) How do we know that these factors don't have an affect on the body and even on how the body responds to vitamin C?
Scientists seem to love saying "X is a fact." e.g. We often hear the claim that evolution is a fact. Well; if it's a fact, that's the end of the story; and no other explanation needs to be sought. In my opinion it's this lust for facts that is the real impediment to investigation and thought. When people claim they know x is a fact they give to themselves an omnipotence of thought no one possesses. There are some questions human beings are simply incapable of answering. (Why should it be otherwise?)
Our human experience in this infinitely connected universe is far too
complicated for us to be able to discern many facts... if we can discern
any at all. In my view (apart from the most banal matters) it's better
to pursue the truth than to arrive at a fact. (As they say, it's better
to travel than to arrive.)
- Michael Johnson
Monday, April 30, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
YE vs OE creation; the battle of beginnings
If you don't like humor, or aren't willing to look at the YE/OE debate in a humorous way (for at least a minute) don't bother to read the following.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'There is an East Prussian story about a teacher who discussed Matthew 5:39: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” during a religious instruction class.
One farmer was rather indignant when his son told him this, and when he met the teacher in a meadow he put this command to the test. He asked the teacher whether he practiced that which he taught the children. The reply was, “But of course, it stands in the Bible.” The farmer then lashed out and struck the teacher down with a powerful blow to his face. When he struggled to his feet, the farmer quoted, “Turn to him the other also,” and dealt him another heavy blow on his left cheek. Being a Bible student, the teacher countered with, “With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more” (Mark 4:24), and in his turn struck the farmer. This resulted in an exchange of blows where every blow was accompanied by a biblical quotation.
At that moment, the landowner traveled past and saw the fight. He stopped and sent his servant to investigate. The servant ran to the combatants, watched them for a while, and then walked back at a leisurely pace. He reported that nothing much was the matter, they were only explaining Holy Scriptures to each other. [1.]
- Almost sounds like YE and OE creationists going at it doesn't it? (I've had a look at those blacksmith arms on John Lennox, and I'm not sure whether I'm up for thrashing out some scripture passages with him.)
Notes;
1. In the beginning was information/ch. 14. - Werner Gitt
Quotes and comments;
1. 'There is an East Prussian story about a teacher who discussed Matthew 5:39: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” during a religious instruction class.
One farmer was rather indignant when his son told him this, and when he met the teacher in a meadow he put this command to the test. He asked the teacher whether he practiced that which he taught the children. The reply was, “But of course, it stands in the Bible.” The farmer then lashed out and struck the teacher down with a powerful blow to his face. When he struggled to his feet, the farmer quoted, “Turn to him the other also,” and dealt him another heavy blow on his left cheek. Being a Bible student, the teacher countered with, “With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more” (Mark 4:24), and in his turn struck the farmer. This resulted in an exchange of blows where every blow was accompanied by a biblical quotation.
At that moment, the landowner traveled past and saw the fight. He stopped and sent his servant to investigate. The servant ran to the combatants, watched them for a while, and then walked back at a leisurely pace. He reported that nothing much was the matter, they were only explaining Holy Scriptures to each other. [1.]
- Almost sounds like YE and OE creationists going at it doesn't it? (I've had a look at those blacksmith arms on John Lennox, and I'm not sure whether I'm up for thrashing out some scripture passages with him.)
Notes;
1. In the beginning was information/ch. 14. - Werner Gitt
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Naturalism vs science
In this post I'll offer a response and critique to the lecture 'Intelligent design' by Steven Goldberg. [1.] Goldberg discusses ID but gets things badly wrong; he either doesn't understand the ID position or he has misrepresented it. (It's hard to say how informed he is on the subject as he only makes reference to a single book; Darwin's black box by Michael Behe.)
Quotes and comments;
1. Goldman says ID violates the basic principle of 'science' (first formulated by Adelard he claims) that natural science must only explain things in terms of natural phenomenon. [2.] I don't find this legitimate or even possible. e.g. how would he explain his own thinking (e.g. his definition of science) in terms of 'natural' phenomenon? It also assumes there is such a thing as 'natural' phenomenon. Did Adelard think the universe was created or uncreated? If he created, how could things be 'natural'? He has to ignore himself for one thing! This seems extremely odd. But how would he explain a plow? Is it the product of natural forces?
Isn't he equivocating when he uses 'natural' and compares it to what Adelard meant by natural?
2. Adelard claimed that nature 'must' be treated as a closed system. Must? where does this must come from? Must (i.e. a moral absolute) isn't a natural phenomenon! This makes his whole claim absurd. If all is matter in motion there are no moral or ethical requirements or standards. This is the Achilles heel of the Naturalist myth. This ethical (moral?) absolute has been interjected into the proceedings by an intelligent and moral agent.... who then goes on to tell us we 'must' treat 'nature' as a closed system. i.e. this moral claim is coming from outside the system!
Adelard even uses the example of the rainbow in his dialogue. e.g. ''why is there a rainbow?" he asks his nephew. "Because God put it there for a reminder.''
"No, no; I want an explanation of how it occurs....'' says A.
We see here how people confuse levels of explanation... and go horribly wrong when they insist there is only one explanation for things. e.g. a rainbow. Explanation happens on several levels.
3. G. claims ID is simply an argument from ignorance... but this is completely wrong. i.e. the idea isn't that evolution (materialism) can't explain x so this means God did it. The argument is, rather, 'we know how complex systems arise, and it's as the product of design by intelligent agents.'
4. G. tells us that we see evidence of 'self-organization' in technology... and uses the example of the automobile. This is a pointless exercise in equivocation. You can't jump from 'self-organization' of inert matter to some analogy of 'organization' within a human community of inventors. This is meaningless. i.e. he's comparing the 'self-organization' of the free market to the self-organization of inert matter, and this amounts to treating sand and human beings as the same kinds of things. He seems to miss the obvious point that human beings can invent things while matter cannot.
5. His theme song is "ID might even be right but it has nothing to do with science." Why? A. It isn't helpful. He of course fails to give the ID side where they offer evidence ID is helpful. e.g. the claim of junk DNA was suspect because it violated what we would expect from design.
Summary;
We can ask a key question at this point, 'does Naturalism work for things created by intelligent agents?' (e.g. human beings) and the obvious answer is no. This means that Naturalism is not a complete method for doing science.
I see little acknowledgment on his part that in dealing with living organisms (and their design) we are dealing with something unique... or with the possibility this may require a new approach to study and to understanding. e.g. we can't apply the same method of study we do to a rock that we do to a poem.
What we need at this stage of biological study is not so much critique of ID but some constructive ideas. People like G. (and he's far from the worst) want to stomp all over ID while it's barely gotten out of the egg stage and begun to walk. I don't see ID as an explanation for all things, but as adding another level of explanation. I believe it can make positive contributions to our thinking, and that one way it does this is to provide a counter to the reductionism that seems to have taken over the sciences in our day. While the materialist reduces all things, the ID proponent looks at things from the other direction, as if they were engineered and designed. To ban ID is to forfeit the benefits of conversation and debate (and to engage in monologue).
Why might we think X was intelligently designed? a. if it is better (more efficient) than human design in this area. b. if it shows evidence of information. c. if x has features we find in highly sophisticated human technology. e.g. error checking programs, redundancy, maintenance programs, etc.
The materialist looks at the data and says, ''let's assume nothing was designed by an intelligent being'' while the ID proponent says, ''let's assume X did in fact have an intelligent designer.'' (I'm putting this in as simple a form as possible; as people like Dembski advocate using a filter of sorts before assuming, for the sake of research, x was designed.) We live in a society where most things were designed by intelligent agents, so it's not a matter of asking if anything was designed, but of how many things were designed. (As an aside I find it comical that people living in huge cities, sitting on the thirtieth floor, surrounded by technology, can be against the very idea of design.) ID in this light is a kind of 'natural' counterpart to materialism.
Whether the materialist (or the evolutionist) likes it or not, the universe has a huge amount of intelligent design in it; the question is only whether or not all of it came from human beings. i.e. intelligent design is a metaphysical reality. The materialist must tell us how it came to be that electrons and quarks have given birth (as it were) to intelligent design. i.e. there is nothing in a particle that would lead anyone to think it is capable of foresight, intelligence, creativity, will or purpose... but yet we see all of this in music, art, and technology.
I thought this lecture was the poorest of the series, but having said that, the series is very interesting and helpful. Highly recommended.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. TTC The science wars - Steven Goldman/lecture 23. Intelligent design and the scope of science
2. Adelard of Bath (Latin: Adelardus Bathensis) (c. 1080 – c. 1152) was a 12th century English natural philosopher. (Not to be confused with Abelard
'Adelard also displays original thought of a scientific bent, raising the question of the shape of the Earth (he believed it round) and the question of how it remains stationary in space, and also the interesting question of how far a rock would fall if a hole were drilled through the earth and a rock dropped through it...' - Wiki
- why should we all be forced to obey rules for 'science' invented 900 years ago?
3. - he says no theory can have the status of a fact... which is interesting. 'It is a category error to say any scientific theory can be a fact; Not e. theory, not general relativity and not quantum theory.' That's quite an interesting comment.
- I agree; but I didn't expect him to say so.
4. - if 'scientific truth' is changing as fast as it is... why should anyone believe a word of it? - it's vital to note that while theories are challenged... the underlying Naturalism never is.
5. Since Behe is a colleague of his at LeHigh it might have been more interesting to have him come in for a conversation than give this one sided lecture.
Quotes and comments;
1. Goldman says ID violates the basic principle of 'science' (first formulated by Adelard he claims) that natural science must only explain things in terms of natural phenomenon. [2.] I don't find this legitimate or even possible. e.g. how would he explain his own thinking (e.g. his definition of science) in terms of 'natural' phenomenon? It also assumes there is such a thing as 'natural' phenomenon. Did Adelard think the universe was created or uncreated? If he created, how could things be 'natural'? He has to ignore himself for one thing! This seems extremely odd. But how would he explain a plow? Is it the product of natural forces?
Isn't he equivocating when he uses 'natural' and compares it to what Adelard meant by natural?
2. Adelard claimed that nature 'must' be treated as a closed system. Must? where does this must come from? Must (i.e. a moral absolute) isn't a natural phenomenon! This makes his whole claim absurd. If all is matter in motion there are no moral or ethical requirements or standards. This is the Achilles heel of the Naturalist myth. This ethical (moral?) absolute has been interjected into the proceedings by an intelligent and moral agent.... who then goes on to tell us we 'must' treat 'nature' as a closed system. i.e. this moral claim is coming from outside the system!
Adelard even uses the example of the rainbow in his dialogue. e.g. ''why is there a rainbow?" he asks his nephew. "Because God put it there for a reminder.''
"No, no; I want an explanation of how it occurs....'' says A.
We see here how people confuse levels of explanation... and go horribly wrong when they insist there is only one explanation for things. e.g. a rainbow. Explanation happens on several levels.
3. G. claims ID is simply an argument from ignorance... but this is completely wrong. i.e. the idea isn't that evolution (materialism) can't explain x so this means God did it. The argument is, rather, 'we know how complex systems arise, and it's as the product of design by intelligent agents.'
4. G. tells us that we see evidence of 'self-organization' in technology... and uses the example of the automobile. This is a pointless exercise in equivocation. You can't jump from 'self-organization' of inert matter to some analogy of 'organization' within a human community of inventors. This is meaningless. i.e. he's comparing the 'self-organization' of the free market to the self-organization of inert matter, and this amounts to treating sand and human beings as the same kinds of things. He seems to miss the obvious point that human beings can invent things while matter cannot.
5. His theme song is "ID might even be right but it has nothing to do with science." Why? A. It isn't helpful. He of course fails to give the ID side where they offer evidence ID is helpful. e.g. the claim of junk DNA was suspect because it violated what we would expect from design.
Summary;
We can ask a key question at this point, 'does Naturalism work for things created by intelligent agents?' (e.g. human beings) and the obvious answer is no. This means that Naturalism is not a complete method for doing science.
I see little acknowledgment on his part that in dealing with living organisms (and their design) we are dealing with something unique... or with the possibility this may require a new approach to study and to understanding. e.g. we can't apply the same method of study we do to a rock that we do to a poem.
What we need at this stage of biological study is not so much critique of ID but some constructive ideas. People like G. (and he's far from the worst) want to stomp all over ID while it's barely gotten out of the egg stage and begun to walk. I don't see ID as an explanation for all things, but as adding another level of explanation. I believe it can make positive contributions to our thinking, and that one way it does this is to provide a counter to the reductionism that seems to have taken over the sciences in our day. While the materialist reduces all things, the ID proponent looks at things from the other direction, as if they were engineered and designed. To ban ID is to forfeit the benefits of conversation and debate (and to engage in monologue).
Why might we think X was intelligently designed? a. if it is better (more efficient) than human design in this area. b. if it shows evidence of information. c. if x has features we find in highly sophisticated human technology. e.g. error checking programs, redundancy, maintenance programs, etc.
The materialist looks at the data and says, ''let's assume nothing was designed by an intelligent being'' while the ID proponent says, ''let's assume X did in fact have an intelligent designer.'' (I'm putting this in as simple a form as possible; as people like Dembski advocate using a filter of sorts before assuming, for the sake of research, x was designed.) We live in a society where most things were designed by intelligent agents, so it's not a matter of asking if anything was designed, but of how many things were designed. (As an aside I find it comical that people living in huge cities, sitting on the thirtieth floor, surrounded by technology, can be against the very idea of design.) ID in this light is a kind of 'natural' counterpart to materialism.
Whether the materialist (or the evolutionist) likes it or not, the universe has a huge amount of intelligent design in it; the question is only whether or not all of it came from human beings. i.e. intelligent design is a metaphysical reality. The materialist must tell us how it came to be that electrons and quarks have given birth (as it were) to intelligent design. i.e. there is nothing in a particle that would lead anyone to think it is capable of foresight, intelligence, creativity, will or purpose... but yet we see all of this in music, art, and technology.
I thought this lecture was the poorest of the series, but having said that, the series is very interesting and helpful. Highly recommended.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. TTC The science wars - Steven Goldman/lecture 23. Intelligent design and the scope of science
2. Adelard of Bath (Latin: Adelardus Bathensis) (c. 1080 – c. 1152) was a 12th century English natural philosopher. (Not to be confused with Abelard
'Adelard also displays original thought of a scientific bent, raising the question of the shape of the Earth (he believed it round) and the question of how it remains stationary in space, and also the interesting question of how far a rock would fall if a hole were drilled through the earth and a rock dropped through it...' - Wiki
- why should we all be forced to obey rules for 'science' invented 900 years ago?
3. - he says no theory can have the status of a fact... which is interesting. 'It is a category error to say any scientific theory can be a fact; Not e. theory, not general relativity and not quantum theory.' That's quite an interesting comment.
- I agree; but I didn't expect him to say so.
4. - if 'scientific truth' is changing as fast as it is... why should anyone believe a word of it? - it's vital to note that while theories are challenged... the underlying Naturalism never is.
5. Since Behe is a colleague of his at LeHigh it might have been more interesting to have him come in for a conversation than give this one sided lecture.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
But I don't need God
One of the major myths of our time is the idea that now that we have 'science' we don't need God. Few things could be further from the truth.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Professor Francisco Ayala explained in detail why Darwinism ruled out theism, namely that it negated the need for an intelligent creator because “Darwin’s greatest contribution to science” is that he led the way to prove that natural law can create all that is real, and no need exists for an intelligent creator because “organisms could now be explained . . . as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer” [1.]
- What natural law? There is no 'natural law' that can write genetic code. This is an empty boast, a dry cloud drifting in a clear sky. What we call natural laws do Not create codes; to do this requires an intelligent mind.
Darwin came up with a story about how creatures might (having magically come into being) change from one species to another, but this story doesn't in any way affect reality. i.e. it need not have anything to do with reality. e.g. a certain advance in the stock market can be explained in any almost infinite number of ways. The idea that we don't need a Creator because Charlie dreamt up a story is comical but not convincing. The fact he knew little or nothing about genetics allowed him to speculate freely, with no restraint from reality.
"But I don't need God,'' a fisherman once told me during a conversation about Christianity. At the time I told him, ''it's not about whether you think you need God but whether God exists.'' Today I'd tell him; yes, you do need God. Without God you would not would exist. It's sad that many people in our day seem to prefer an impossible story to the reality of a creator God.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism - Jerry Bergman
(Ayala 2007, p. 8567).
2. Liberal theologians like to say ''we don't need God all we need is the idea of god.'' If all we had was an idea of God we wouldn't be here.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Professor Francisco Ayala explained in detail why Darwinism ruled out theism, namely that it negated the need for an intelligent creator because “Darwin’s greatest contribution to science” is that he led the way to prove that natural law can create all that is real, and no need exists for an intelligent creator because “organisms could now be explained . . . as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer” [1.]
- What natural law? There is no 'natural law' that can write genetic code. This is an empty boast, a dry cloud drifting in a clear sky. What we call natural laws do Not create codes; to do this requires an intelligent mind.
Darwin came up with a story about how creatures might (having magically come into being) change from one species to another, but this story doesn't in any way affect reality. i.e. it need not have anything to do with reality. e.g. a certain advance in the stock market can be explained in any almost infinite number of ways. The idea that we don't need a Creator because Charlie dreamt up a story is comical but not convincing. The fact he knew little or nothing about genetics allowed him to speculate freely, with no restraint from reality.
"But I don't need God,'' a fisherman once told me during a conversation about Christianity. At the time I told him, ''it's not about whether you think you need God but whether God exists.'' Today I'd tell him; yes, you do need God. Without God you would not would exist. It's sad that many people in our day seem to prefer an impossible story to the reality of a creator God.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism - Jerry Bergman
(Ayala 2007, p. 8567).
2. Liberal theologians like to say ''we don't need God all we need is the idea of god.'' If all we had was an idea of God we wouldn't be here.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Reality vs magic
Richard Dawkins talks about the 'magic of reality' and I think that's a good way to characterize the materialist view of the universe, as reality from that perspective can only be a kind of magic trick, a kind of illusion perpetrated by the powerful on the masses.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. (Cobb and Coyne) [1.]
- The good professors (assuming there is such a thing) tell us that 'religions' shouldn't make claims about reality, but many philosophers of science say that 'science' shouldn't make claims about reality. Has this escaped their notice? From Kant and onward, the consensus in philosophy is that science deals with experience, not reality. People like Coyne just ignore this and claim 'science' can tell us about reality. This puts them in the position of being anti-philosophical or anti-rational.
For a materialist to speak of reality is comical, as there is no warrant in this worldview for talk about reality. What would this reality be? Whose reality would it be? Who gets to decide? If all of us are merely animals which animal's view of things should be taken as the real one?
On which level does reality exist? On the micro (nano) level or on the macro level?
Is there only one reality or many realities?
Only Christianity can offer a grounded view of reality; as reality is what the Creator wants it to be and what He proclaims it is. It's the providential governance of the universe by the One intelligent enough to have created it, and the One powerful enough to control it. There is no reality apart from this.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism - Jerry Bergman
Full quote;
" science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution (Cobb and Coyne 2008, p. 1049,
- That 'need' to be addressed? Really? Did they forget that the universe is merely matter in motion? There is then no moral or intellectual need for anything.
It's worthy of note that atheists can never seem to speak in terms that are consistent with their worldview. They need to ask themselves why this is.
The idea Christianity can be studied scientifically is simple nonsense, a product a materialist reductionism. What would such a farce entail? Weighing Christ before and after the crucifixion? Counting the words in genesis? Human beings aren't things to be measured, as if they were asteroids or cucumbers.
2. They sadly mischaracterize 'religion', as Christians (their main focus of attack) do not think that awe and reverence are a 'clue' to understanding the universe. As the authors well know; orthodox Christians believe that special revelation is the key to understanding human experience and ultimate reality. It's unfortunate they can't get such a basic as this straight, and we have to wonder at their ability to get other things correct.
3. Perhaps what we need more than a 'scientific' study of religion is a scientific study of atheism. (We might begin by counting the hairs on heads of the new atheists, and then dividing by four. That should make it properly scientific.)
- Over and over we see people making the mistake of confusing science with Materialism. This works quite well with things, but people aren't things.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. (Cobb and Coyne) [1.]
- The good professors (assuming there is such a thing) tell us that 'religions' shouldn't make claims about reality, but many philosophers of science say that 'science' shouldn't make claims about reality. Has this escaped their notice? From Kant and onward, the consensus in philosophy is that science deals with experience, not reality. People like Coyne just ignore this and claim 'science' can tell us about reality. This puts them in the position of being anti-philosophical or anti-rational.
For a materialist to speak of reality is comical, as there is no warrant in this worldview for talk about reality. What would this reality be? Whose reality would it be? Who gets to decide? If all of us are merely animals which animal's view of things should be taken as the real one?
On which level does reality exist? On the micro (nano) level or on the macro level?
Is there only one reality or many realities?
Only Christianity can offer a grounded view of reality; as reality is what the Creator wants it to be and what He proclaims it is. It's the providential governance of the universe by the One intelligent enough to have created it, and the One powerful enough to control it. There is no reality apart from this.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism - Jerry Bergman
Full quote;
" science is about finding material explanations of the world . . . Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe . . . There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution (Cobb and Coyne 2008, p. 1049,
- That 'need' to be addressed? Really? Did they forget that the universe is merely matter in motion? There is then no moral or intellectual need for anything.
It's worthy of note that atheists can never seem to speak in terms that are consistent with their worldview. They need to ask themselves why this is.
The idea Christianity can be studied scientifically is simple nonsense, a product a materialist reductionism. What would such a farce entail? Weighing Christ before and after the crucifixion? Counting the words in genesis? Human beings aren't things to be measured, as if they were asteroids or cucumbers.
2. They sadly mischaracterize 'religion', as Christians (their main focus of attack) do not think that awe and reverence are a 'clue' to understanding the universe. As the authors well know; orthodox Christians believe that special revelation is the key to understanding human experience and ultimate reality. It's unfortunate they can't get such a basic as this straight, and we have to wonder at their ability to get other things correct.
3. Perhaps what we need more than a 'scientific' study of religion is a scientific study of atheism. (We might begin by counting the hairs on heads of the new atheists, and then dividing by four. That should make it properly scientific.)
- Over and over we see people making the mistake of confusing science with Materialism. This works quite well with things, but people aren't things.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Seven Days that divide the world
In this post I want to take a look at another chapter in the book 'Seven Days' by John Lennox (Appendix A. A brief background to Genesis)
Quotes and comments;
119. 'Young [Edward J.] also points out that Genesis 1. has certain features that would be unusual in straight [narrative] prose.' [1.]
- I would guess that the prose has 'unusual' features because the event/s are unusual. (People seem to forget this rather obvious point.)
120. C. John Collins tells us the prose in unusual 'because of the highly patterened way of telling it all.'
- This claims seems to ignore the actual events; i.e. perhaps the events were highly patterned. (We might expect this if mathematics is the language of God or the language of creation.) The bible tells us that Jehovah is the God of order, not disorder. (Commentators seem to forget that this was a perfect world being created; i.e. a perfect world being created by a perfect God.)
120. 'The Genesis text come to us from the ancient Near East, and so any attempt to understand it will be enriched by a knowledge of the literature and culture of the time.
- Is that true? Does the text come from the Near East? Lennox here is following the higher critics approach. I agree with those scholars who believe the text predates the Flood of Noah's day, and that it may well go back to Adam. Lennox doesn't even mention such an idea, let alone consider it.
If he's wrong about when and where the text originated his turning to post flood culture to interpret it is going to lead him into nothing but error. (Here's a case where turning to 'science' to interpret scripture can lead people astray, and not be helpful at all.)
Reformed theology stresses the necessity and importance of letting scripture interpret scripture.... but the 'higher' critics have abandoned that approach for what they call science.
120. Of the writing of Genesis Lennox tells us 'this would mean that it dates from around the fifteenth to the thirteenth centuries B.C.
- That seems pretty strange to me. Are we to believe that a man (Noah) who lived over six hundred years didn't manage to find time to write down a creation account? You might think that someone who lived in the pre-flood world, survived the Flood, and then went on to live in the post flood world might have thought his story worth preserving :=}
OECs claim to take the Bible as authoritative (and I have no doubt they believe they do) but in reality they treat people like Noah (Adam, etc.) as mythical figures. e.g. are we really to believe that people who lived over nine hundred years never bothered to invent any kind of script? A picture script such as ancient Chinese could have been invented by any 'ordinary' human being, let alone superior ones. (I don't believe there ever was a human generation without writing.) Are we supposed to believe that men who could build a 450 foot long ship couldn't sketch out a stick man figure or the 'picture' (ideogram) of a boat? I find such an idea comical.
The fact we haven't discovered this writing doesn't mean it didn't exist; i.e. an argument from science shouldn't be confused with an argument from science. It's my opinion that most OECs have absorbed too much Darwinian thinking. (i.e. ancient man wasn't some kind of brute evolving into the 'superior' human of modern times; he was at least as intelligent as us if not more intelligent.
More than a few OECs tell us that Genesis came after creation stories such as the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh, and liberals tell us it was a written at the time of the exile. (ie. 600 b.c.) Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that God's people should only have become interested in creation after their pagan neighbors? I find such claims utterly nonsensical. eg. Genesis tells us God spoke to Adam. Why wouldn't he have written this down? Are we to believe God told Adam nothing about the creation? Are we to believe he wouldn't have written an account of Eve's creation down? If God spoke to you wouldn't you write it down? We're told God spoke to Noah. Wouldn't we expect him to write an account of this?
Lennox seems to accept the 'critical' account of Genesis, rather than the Reformed view. (I suppose he would say he's following the 'evangelical' view.)
124. Lennox seems to lean toward seeing Genesis 1. (etc.) as a response to pagan culture. e.g. the sun is presented simply as a light as opposed to a god. I disagree with this approach, and see pagan cultures (e.g. Egypt) as the reactionary ones. I see their ideas (e.g. polytheism) as a reaction against the monotheism of Noah or an Abraham. We know from the story of Babel that it didn't take men long to begin rebelling against God.
Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Seven Days that divide the world - John Lennox
Quotes and comments;
119. 'Young [Edward J.] also points out that Genesis 1. has certain features that would be unusual in straight [narrative] prose.' [1.]
- I would guess that the prose has 'unusual' features because the event/s are unusual. (People seem to forget this rather obvious point.)
120. C. John Collins tells us the prose in unusual 'because of the highly patterened way of telling it all.'
- This claims seems to ignore the actual events; i.e. perhaps the events were highly patterned. (We might expect this if mathematics is the language of God or the language of creation.) The bible tells us that Jehovah is the God of order, not disorder. (Commentators seem to forget that this was a perfect world being created; i.e. a perfect world being created by a perfect God.)
120. 'The Genesis text come to us from the ancient Near East, and so any attempt to understand it will be enriched by a knowledge of the literature and culture of the time.
- Is that true? Does the text come from the Near East? Lennox here is following the higher critics approach. I agree with those scholars who believe the text predates the Flood of Noah's day, and that it may well go back to Adam. Lennox doesn't even mention such an idea, let alone consider it.
If he's wrong about when and where the text originated his turning to post flood culture to interpret it is going to lead him into nothing but error. (Here's a case where turning to 'science' to interpret scripture can lead people astray, and not be helpful at all.)
Reformed theology stresses the necessity and importance of letting scripture interpret scripture.... but the 'higher' critics have abandoned that approach for what they call science.
120. Of the writing of Genesis Lennox tells us 'this would mean that it dates from around the fifteenth to the thirteenth centuries B.C.
- That seems pretty strange to me. Are we to believe that a man (Noah) who lived over six hundred years didn't manage to find time to write down a creation account? You might think that someone who lived in the pre-flood world, survived the Flood, and then went on to live in the post flood world might have thought his story worth preserving :=}
OECs claim to take the Bible as authoritative (and I have no doubt they believe they do) but in reality they treat people like Noah (Adam, etc.) as mythical figures. e.g. are we really to believe that people who lived over nine hundred years never bothered to invent any kind of script? A picture script such as ancient Chinese could have been invented by any 'ordinary' human being, let alone superior ones. (I don't believe there ever was a human generation without writing.) Are we supposed to believe that men who could build a 450 foot long ship couldn't sketch out a stick man figure or the 'picture' (ideogram) of a boat? I find such an idea comical.
The fact we haven't discovered this writing doesn't mean it didn't exist; i.e. an argument from science shouldn't be confused with an argument from science. It's my opinion that most OECs have absorbed too much Darwinian thinking. (i.e. ancient man wasn't some kind of brute evolving into the 'superior' human of modern times; he was at least as intelligent as us if not more intelligent.
More than a few OECs tell us that Genesis came after creation stories such as the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh, and liberals tell us it was a written at the time of the exile. (ie. 600 b.c.) Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that God's people should only have become interested in creation after their pagan neighbors? I find such claims utterly nonsensical. eg. Genesis tells us God spoke to Adam. Why wouldn't he have written this down? Are we to believe God told Adam nothing about the creation? Are we to believe he wouldn't have written an account of Eve's creation down? If God spoke to you wouldn't you write it down? We're told God spoke to Noah. Wouldn't we expect him to write an account of this?
Lennox seems to accept the 'critical' account of Genesis, rather than the Reformed view. (I suppose he would say he's following the 'evangelical' view.)
124. Lennox seems to lean toward seeing Genesis 1. (etc.) as a response to pagan culture. e.g. the sun is presented simply as a light as opposed to a god. I disagree with this approach, and see pagan cultures (e.g. Egypt) as the reactionary ones. I see their ideas (e.g. polytheism) as a reaction against the monotheism of Noah or an Abraham. We know from the story of Babel that it didn't take men long to begin rebelling against God.
Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Seven Days that divide the world - John Lennox
Monday, April 9, 2012
Review of Who Made God?
One of the better books I've read recently is 'Who Made God?' by Edgar Andrews. He is 'Emeritus professor of Materials at the university of London, and an international expert on the science of large molecules' among other things. He's long been involved in the debate over Origins and once famously (with A. E. Wilder-Smith) debated Richard Dawins at Oxford.
Quotes and comments;
1. He begins the book by quoting the SF writer Iain Banks as saying ''I'm an evangelical atheist; religions are cultural artifacts. We make God, not the other way around... Religion is one way to explain the universe, but eventually science comes along and explains it...'' [1.]
- Banks usually writes better than this, but we'll presume he did in fact say this. There's so much that's wrong with these statements one hardly knows where to begin. It's hard to know why he would see atheist as good news to exclaim to people; that's certainly not how Bertrand Russell saw it, as the basic message is one of nihilism.
I would agree with him that most religions are cultural artifacts, but so are all worldviews and philosophies. While c. is a revealed religion, it of course is to a significant extent a cultural product... but this doesn't nullify the truth of it.
Banks says ''we make God'' but this is only partly correct; men do in fact create gods but they haven't created Jehovah (the I AM of the bible) and the very idea is absurd. When men find out about the true and living God they don't like Him at all and invent substitutes for Him. This claim is really a boast in that it makes man superior to God; i.e. how great can god be if he's only a creation of man?
Banks tells us "eventually science comes along and explains it....'' Eventually? I guess he thinks it's simply a matter of time. He's personified science here; as 'science' doesn't explain anything, people do.... or at least they attempt to. What scientists do, in the main, isn't to explain things, but to describe things, to describe how they work. The idea 'science' can explain all things is scientism and as a claim it's patently false. e.g. scientists can't tell us why, in terms of materialism, bits of matter we call human beings should care about Origins at all, why some of these bits should think atheism to be good news, or why creationists should lose their jobs.
2. Although Andrews denies the book was written as response to 'The God Delusion' it would seem to be so, at least in motivation. In that book (and elsewhere) Dawkins claims to be interested in the question who made God; whether he is or not I can't say, but his perplexity is founded on the failure to acknowledge the creator/creature distinction that is vital to orthodox Christianity. Man and God don't exist on the same (metaphysical) level; God is a transcendent being. i.e. He created the universe (of time and space) and He transcends it.
As Andrews points out, the 'who made god question' arises when people fail to define God correctly. i.e. God is defined (in the bible) as an uncreated and eternal being, and as such it makes no sense to ask who made him. e.g. who created an uncreated being is logically nonsensical. Since it must be the greater that defines the lesser, the only one who can define God is God. God tells Moses "I AM that I AM'' which theologians believe means God is beyond definition; he is eternal and self-existent. It is God who defines things, not man who defines God.
Any god that could be defined by man would not be the creator God of the bible. Dawkins simply refuses to deal with the God who is and so his question is meaningless. (His question might make sense if he asked it of Dagon; i.e. god of the Philistines)
It's the essence of scientism to claim that no question is beyond man's ability to answer; but this arrogant spirit is decidedly unbiblical. The bible teaches that some things are forever beyond man's ability to discern or comprehend, and that is especially the case when it comes to many things about God. e.g. we cannot comprehend an eternal being; we can't comprehend a personal being without a body; creation out of nothing; special creation (esp. the creation of mankind) Mystery is an integral part of our lives whether we like it or not.
Dawkins claims that Christianity makes no sense as it can't answer his questions; but he can't answer ours either. e.g. where did matter come from? is matter eternal? how can that be? how did living organisms 'emerge' from inert matter? etc. He's a materialist by faith (or so he claims) while I'm a creationist by faith.
Dawkins admits that the likelihood of a living organism 'emerging' from inert matter is very minute, but he claims that as long as there is any chance of this happening at all, that this 'miracle' will, given enough time, one day happen. i.e. he claims that any mathematical possibility is enough to allow the materialist to do away with the God Hypothesis. Andrews effectively refutes this line of argument. (On p. 157. he deals with a claim by Dawkins that a marble statue could theoretically wave its arm... and he also deals with a claim by Dawkins that a cow could, theoretically, jump over the moon.)
I don't know how Dawkins comes up with these 'illustrations' but they seem to be founded on his belief that given enough time Anything is possible. The claim isn't scientific but philosophical, and as Andrews points out it doesn't take reality into effect... as it's a purely mathematical construct. (I don't know how Dawkins can object to miracles if he believes anything is possible.)
3. I found his chapters on Information theory and mutations (ch. 12 and 15.) especially helpful. Andrews has a real knack for making difficult subjects understandable to the non-expert. Chapter 14. is a critique of neo-Darwinism.
Summary; This brief review doesn't do justice to the book. My wish is that some of the flock that read Dawkins would read this response to him, as I think he has effectively answered all of the objections and claims Dawkins makes.
Michael Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The God Hypothesis - Edgar Andrews 2009
- He has written several other books on the creation/evolution debate. I've read and can recommend two earlier books, 'From Nothing to Nature' and 'Christ and the cosmos'
2. If we take God as our hypothesis (and reject materialism) we see that all the information (and design) we see in living organisms had to have come from the mind of God. Take some time to meditate on that; try to imagine what incredible intelligence and creativity must necessarily be implied. A Being who could create such a myriad of awesome creatures and place them within a self-sustaining system can surely (as scripture tells us) do anything. What could not such a God do? We're talking about intelligence so far beyond ours that it's impossible to really grasp.
- We see in this Creator a Being who has the power to make good on all the promises revealed to us in scripture; staggering though they may be. Since He made man from the dust, is there some reason he can't bring all people back and give them eternal life? If I look at the design we find in living creatures I see no limit on what the Creator can do. The Bible tells us He created the heavens and the earth (and all that are in them) and it tells us he will one day create a new heaven and earth. The wisdom and power we see displayed in the creation give us reason to believe this possible.
Quotes and comments;
1. He begins the book by quoting the SF writer Iain Banks as saying ''I'm an evangelical atheist; religions are cultural artifacts. We make God, not the other way around... Religion is one way to explain the universe, but eventually science comes along and explains it...'' [1.]
- Banks usually writes better than this, but we'll presume he did in fact say this. There's so much that's wrong with these statements one hardly knows where to begin. It's hard to know why he would see atheist as good news to exclaim to people; that's certainly not how Bertrand Russell saw it, as the basic message is one of nihilism.
I would agree with him that most religions are cultural artifacts, but so are all worldviews and philosophies. While c. is a revealed religion, it of course is to a significant extent a cultural product... but this doesn't nullify the truth of it.
Banks says ''we make God'' but this is only partly correct; men do in fact create gods but they haven't created Jehovah (the I AM of the bible) and the very idea is absurd. When men find out about the true and living God they don't like Him at all and invent substitutes for Him. This claim is really a boast in that it makes man superior to God; i.e. how great can god be if he's only a creation of man?
Banks tells us "eventually science comes along and explains it....'' Eventually? I guess he thinks it's simply a matter of time. He's personified science here; as 'science' doesn't explain anything, people do.... or at least they attempt to. What scientists do, in the main, isn't to explain things, but to describe things, to describe how they work. The idea 'science' can explain all things is scientism and as a claim it's patently false. e.g. scientists can't tell us why, in terms of materialism, bits of matter we call human beings should care about Origins at all, why some of these bits should think atheism to be good news, or why creationists should lose their jobs.
2. Although Andrews denies the book was written as response to 'The God Delusion' it would seem to be so, at least in motivation. In that book (and elsewhere) Dawkins claims to be interested in the question who made God; whether he is or not I can't say, but his perplexity is founded on the failure to acknowledge the creator/creature distinction that is vital to orthodox Christianity. Man and God don't exist on the same (metaphysical) level; God is a transcendent being. i.e. He created the universe (of time and space) and He transcends it.
As Andrews points out, the 'who made god question' arises when people fail to define God correctly. i.e. God is defined (in the bible) as an uncreated and eternal being, and as such it makes no sense to ask who made him. e.g. who created an uncreated being is logically nonsensical. Since it must be the greater that defines the lesser, the only one who can define God is God. God tells Moses "I AM that I AM'' which theologians believe means God is beyond definition; he is eternal and self-existent. It is God who defines things, not man who defines God.
Any god that could be defined by man would not be the creator God of the bible. Dawkins simply refuses to deal with the God who is and so his question is meaningless. (His question might make sense if he asked it of Dagon; i.e. god of the Philistines)
It's the essence of scientism to claim that no question is beyond man's ability to answer; but this arrogant spirit is decidedly unbiblical. The bible teaches that some things are forever beyond man's ability to discern or comprehend, and that is especially the case when it comes to many things about God. e.g. we cannot comprehend an eternal being; we can't comprehend a personal being without a body; creation out of nothing; special creation (esp. the creation of mankind) Mystery is an integral part of our lives whether we like it or not.
Dawkins claims that Christianity makes no sense as it can't answer his questions; but he can't answer ours either. e.g. where did matter come from? is matter eternal? how can that be? how did living organisms 'emerge' from inert matter? etc. He's a materialist by faith (or so he claims) while I'm a creationist by faith.
Dawkins admits that the likelihood of a living organism 'emerging' from inert matter is very minute, but he claims that as long as there is any chance of this happening at all, that this 'miracle' will, given enough time, one day happen. i.e. he claims that any mathematical possibility is enough to allow the materialist to do away with the God Hypothesis. Andrews effectively refutes this line of argument. (On p. 157. he deals with a claim by Dawkins that a marble statue could theoretically wave its arm... and he also deals with a claim by Dawkins that a cow could, theoretically, jump over the moon.)
I don't know how Dawkins comes up with these 'illustrations' but they seem to be founded on his belief that given enough time Anything is possible. The claim isn't scientific but philosophical, and as Andrews points out it doesn't take reality into effect... as it's a purely mathematical construct. (I don't know how Dawkins can object to miracles if he believes anything is possible.)
3. I found his chapters on Information theory and mutations (ch. 12 and 15.) especially helpful. Andrews has a real knack for making difficult subjects understandable to the non-expert. Chapter 14. is a critique of neo-Darwinism.
Summary; This brief review doesn't do justice to the book. My wish is that some of the flock that read Dawkins would read this response to him, as I think he has effectively answered all of the objections and claims Dawkins makes.
Michael Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]
Notes;
1. The God Hypothesis - Edgar Andrews 2009
- He has written several other books on the creation/evolution debate. I've read and can recommend two earlier books, 'From Nothing to Nature' and 'Christ and the cosmos'
2. If we take God as our hypothesis (and reject materialism) we see that all the information (and design) we see in living organisms had to have come from the mind of God. Take some time to meditate on that; try to imagine what incredible intelligence and creativity must necessarily be implied. A Being who could create such a myriad of awesome creatures and place them within a self-sustaining system can surely (as scripture tells us) do anything. What could not such a God do? We're talking about intelligence so far beyond ours that it's impossible to really grasp.
- We see in this Creator a Being who has the power to make good on all the promises revealed to us in scripture; staggering though they may be. Since He made man from the dust, is there some reason he can't bring all people back and give them eternal life? If I look at the design we find in living creatures I see no limit on what the Creator can do. The Bible tells us He created the heavens and the earth (and all that are in them) and it tells us he will one day create a new heaven and earth. The wisdom and power we see displayed in the creation give us reason to believe this possible.
Monday, April 2, 2012
On the age of the earth
I've done quite a lot of study recently on the 'age problem' that divides the church and come to the following conclusions.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'For the Aristotelian and Platonic mind, the Bible is a crude book. For the biblically governed mind the Greek philosophers are airy bubbleheads living in the clouds of their foolish minds. Each to the other appears ridiculous, but the important question is not one of appearance but of truth. If the God of the bible is denied, there is nothing. [1.]
A. the bible clearly seems to speak (indirectly) of a young earth and a young universe.
B. Consensus science speaks of an old earth and an old universe.
C. I agree with those who say there is no way to determine (autonomously) an absolute age for the earth or universe.
D. I believe the young earth [YE] position is better scripturally, theologically and logically.
E. Old earth creationists [OECs] claim to take the scripture as authoritatively as YECs but I don't find that to be the case; I find that they in fact take consensus science as their ultimate authority.
F. It's my view that OECs are far too naive in their acceptance of consensus science, especially in this regard.
G. I find OECs are not nearly sceptical and critical enough when it comes to consensus science.
H. I find that OECs (for the most part) don't critically examine long ages for the earth, and that they don't understand the philosophical basis for these constructs.
- to accommodate long ages OECs have to ignore the global testimony of a world wide flood, and prefer instead a 'theory' invented by men who wanted to destroy Genesis.
I. I find that OECs are not critical of radiometric dating (or other dating techniques).
J. I find that OECs are far too accepting of Uniformitarianism.
K. I find that OECs confuse Naturalism with science.
L. I find that OECs accept the myth of neutrality in science.
- they want common ground with unbelievers and imagine they have found it in science; whereas the only true common ground men have is creation.
M. We should insist that commentators be honest in their treatment of scripture. eg. if OECs can't reconcile consensus science and scripture they should admit this rather than engage in fanciful 'interpretation'.
N. I would ask that OECs give up the 'argument' that if the earth is not old God must be deceiving us. This is a bad argument, that is really only rhetoric and not an argument at all. It is a claim that comes close to blasphemy, is arrogant and full of hubris. The claim isn't really one made against YECs but against God. ie. ''if the earth isn't old then you (God) are deceiving me.'' The implication is that it's impossible for the OEC to be wrong. This is a foolish thing for any man to say, let alone a Christian.
- we can see how silly the 'deceit' argument is by looking at some examples from ordinary life. eg. Is God deceiving us when it appears the sun orbits the earth? Is God deceiving us when we think color exists in things themselves? Is God deceiving us when stars appear like points of silver light? We should never confuse (or conflate) appearance with deception. We live in a vastly complex (complicated) environment, and almost daily discoveries of complexity in biology are perhaps indicators that the 'physical' universe might be a lot (a very lot) more complicated than consensus science at this time imagines (i.e. what if the physical constitution of the universe is as complex as the biological realm?)
O. OECs are far too interested in finding favor with secular scientists, and far too fearful of contradicting or questioning them.
P. More humility is needed on all sides, especially on the part of OECs. We shouldn't pretend to know things that can't be known. e.g. from a philosophical standpoint there is no way we can know for certain the age of the earth or universe. This seems obvious to me, but I don't recall an OEC ever saying so. (OECs in general seem to agree with secular scientists that philosophy has no relevance in the modern world; and I find this an unfortunate stance to take.)
Q. I see little evidence OECs understand how long ages came into being or why.
R. I see little evidence OECs are familiar with the YE critique of old ages. (They're not only unfamiliar with it, they're unwilling to look at it. i.e. they just don't wan to know, don't want to be bothered.)
S. I see little evidence most OECs are willing to engage in serious discussion on this issue; esp. face to face discussion.
T. I see a lot of bullying by OECs, a lot of mockery and insult. I see people saying ''since I have a better degree than you, you must accept what I say.'' (I see the authority being shifted from scripture to educational certificate.)
U. I think it's wrong to try and settle this conflict by insisting everyone just accept whatever consensus science says. I think we should be interested in the truth not in merely getting along.
V. I think people should be allowed to follow their conscience on this matter and not be bullied into adopting some position merely because some leader insists on it.
X. Whatever the truth is, my study has taught me that the subject is far more complex than most people think. Students are taught that this is a simple issue, and that 'science' has absolute answers for age questions... when this is not the case.
Y. In a syncretistic age (as ours surely is) it is painful to go against consensus; and we must make allowances for this... not expecting more from others than we expect from ourselves.
Z. An examination of the future should caution us to avoid absolute statements, and to be sceptical of claims of absolute truth. Most such claims ever made have long ago bitten the dust. We need to remember that any age for the earth is a philosophical construct not a reading from a clock.
Addendum;
1. I think Christians (creationists) should caution secular scientists against making absolute claims about the age of the earth, and to call them back to a more humble approach to science.
2. I think creationist should try to encourage a more humble approach to science; one that is content with theory instead of lusting after fact.
3. Under the influence of materialism scientists have become the most arrogant of people when in fact they should be the most humble. Christians need to do more to point out the weakness of the materialist position.
4. The fact most OECs accept man's 'evolution' from some kind of ape-like creature [eg. Polkinghorne] shows how prone they are to uncritically accepting Naturalist science, and the fact they can accept such an anti-biblical concept makes it no surprise that they can accept long ages. (One wonders what they couldn't accept.) Where is the critical spirit they like to turn against Orthodox Christianity? When it comes to Naturalist science it seems to depart them utterly. (One has to work hard to find a critical study by an OEC of anything in consensus science.)
5. What I want more than anything else is for people to be honest. Let's stop pretending. (eg. that it was really snow that covered the mountains in Gen. 7. What was the ark? a
skidoo :=} If we can't understand, we can't understand, and we should admit it. (e.g. if we can't understand how the earth can be young in a universe so big, let's admit it.)
6. No one reads the text of the bible perfectly, and no one ever will. (Only in heaven can anyone hope to acquire a perfect understanding of it. e.g. it would be nice to sit down with some author and ask him just exactly what he intended.
7. If the debate provokes people to serious study and reflection then maybe it's all for the good; but if it just prompts people to dismiss the other 'side' then I think the fallout is mostly negative. ie. debate can be very helpful while scorn and contempt never is.
- the church as a whole has little experience with the issue of a purported long age for the earth and the seeming discrepancy of this with scripture, and so is currently floundering as people try to deal with this 'new' subject. I personally don't think any OEC has offered any plausible solution to the problem, or any helpful way of dealing with it. (I think it's vain to find a naturalistic answer to the problem, as Naturalism is the problem.)
* - Long ages are a conclusion based on Uniformitarian thinking, and as such are as true or false as U. itself is. (Since we know U. isn't absolutely true, we can conclude that no age of the earth it 'offers' can be absolutely true.)
8. OECs tend to hold a naive view of man's fallen nature, and actually seem to believe that man is basically good. They seem to forget (or even deny) that man is in active rebellion against God and His word. They seem to reject any notion that man's fallen nature can affect the way he does science.
9. We end up having different views on the age of the earth for two basic reasons; a. where we come from (our family origin and our life history) and b. the grace God has given to us. We will thus never all have the same views on things (not this side of heaven at least).
10. OECs seem more concerned with apologetic success than declaring the word of God. They seem to ignore that the bible tells us the natural man will be offended by the word of God... ie. apart from grace. (They will say, ''yes, the natural man will be offended by the gospel, but we're not talking about the gospel here but about mythical history that somehow found its way into scripture." Mythical? On whose authority?)
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Institutes of Biblical law, vol. 3 - R. J. Rushdoony p/54
2. 'In reality, the debate about the age of the universe is a conflict of worldviews—a conflict between the evolutionary, naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of some of the scientific data, on the one hand, and on the other hand the exegetically strong and historically orthodox young-earth creationist understanding of Scripture and the interpretations of the same data and more data based on biblical assumptions. - T Mortenson/response to Dembski
3. 'Dembski sees and comments on philosophical naturalism’s control of biology, (Dembski 1999, pp. 97–121; 2005, chapters 2, 4, 5, and 13),13 but he seems to overlook or be indifferent to that same philosophical domination of geology and astronomy, which has resulted in the claim about millions of years. - TM
- why is it wrong for Naturalism to dominate biology but okay for it to dominate geology and cosmology?
Quotes and comments;
1. 'For the Aristotelian and Platonic mind, the Bible is a crude book. For the biblically governed mind the Greek philosophers are airy bubbleheads living in the clouds of their foolish minds. Each to the other appears ridiculous, but the important question is not one of appearance but of truth. If the God of the bible is denied, there is nothing. [1.]
A. the bible clearly seems to speak (indirectly) of a young earth and a young universe.
B. Consensus science speaks of an old earth and an old universe.
C. I agree with those who say there is no way to determine (autonomously) an absolute age for the earth or universe.
D. I believe the young earth [YE] position is better scripturally, theologically and logically.
E. Old earth creationists [OECs] claim to take the scripture as authoritatively as YECs but I don't find that to be the case; I find that they in fact take consensus science as their ultimate authority.
F. It's my view that OECs are far too naive in their acceptance of consensus science, especially in this regard.
G. I find OECs are not nearly sceptical and critical enough when it comes to consensus science.
H. I find that OECs (for the most part) don't critically examine long ages for the earth, and that they don't understand the philosophical basis for these constructs.
- to accommodate long ages OECs have to ignore the global testimony of a world wide flood, and prefer instead a 'theory' invented by men who wanted to destroy Genesis.
I. I find that OECs are not critical of radiometric dating (or other dating techniques).
J. I find that OECs are far too accepting of Uniformitarianism.
K. I find that OECs confuse Naturalism with science.
L. I find that OECs accept the myth of neutrality in science.
- they want common ground with unbelievers and imagine they have found it in science; whereas the only true common ground men have is creation.
M. We should insist that commentators be honest in their treatment of scripture. eg. if OECs can't reconcile consensus science and scripture they should admit this rather than engage in fanciful 'interpretation'.
N. I would ask that OECs give up the 'argument' that if the earth is not old God must be deceiving us. This is a bad argument, that is really only rhetoric and not an argument at all. It is a claim that comes close to blasphemy, is arrogant and full of hubris. The claim isn't really one made against YECs but against God. ie. ''if the earth isn't old then you (God) are deceiving me.'' The implication is that it's impossible for the OEC to be wrong. This is a foolish thing for any man to say, let alone a Christian.
- we can see how silly the 'deceit' argument is by looking at some examples from ordinary life. eg. Is God deceiving us when it appears the sun orbits the earth? Is God deceiving us when we think color exists in things themselves? Is God deceiving us when stars appear like points of silver light? We should never confuse (or conflate) appearance with deception. We live in a vastly complex (complicated) environment, and almost daily discoveries of complexity in biology are perhaps indicators that the 'physical' universe might be a lot (a very lot) more complicated than consensus science at this time imagines (i.e. what if the physical constitution of the universe is as complex as the biological realm?)
O. OECs are far too interested in finding favor with secular scientists, and far too fearful of contradicting or questioning them.
P. More humility is needed on all sides, especially on the part of OECs. We shouldn't pretend to know things that can't be known. e.g. from a philosophical standpoint there is no way we can know for certain the age of the earth or universe. This seems obvious to me, but I don't recall an OEC ever saying so. (OECs in general seem to agree with secular scientists that philosophy has no relevance in the modern world; and I find this an unfortunate stance to take.)
Q. I see little evidence OECs understand how long ages came into being or why.
R. I see little evidence OECs are familiar with the YE critique of old ages. (They're not only unfamiliar with it, they're unwilling to look at it. i.e. they just don't wan to know, don't want to be bothered.)
S. I see little evidence most OECs are willing to engage in serious discussion on this issue; esp. face to face discussion.
T. I see a lot of bullying by OECs, a lot of mockery and insult. I see people saying ''since I have a better degree than you, you must accept what I say.'' (I see the authority being shifted from scripture to educational certificate.)
U. I think it's wrong to try and settle this conflict by insisting everyone just accept whatever consensus science says. I think we should be interested in the truth not in merely getting along.
V. I think people should be allowed to follow their conscience on this matter and not be bullied into adopting some position merely because some leader insists on it.
X. Whatever the truth is, my study has taught me that the subject is far more complex than most people think. Students are taught that this is a simple issue, and that 'science' has absolute answers for age questions... when this is not the case.
Y. In a syncretistic age (as ours surely is) it is painful to go against consensus; and we must make allowances for this... not expecting more from others than we expect from ourselves.
Z. An examination of the future should caution us to avoid absolute statements, and to be sceptical of claims of absolute truth. Most such claims ever made have long ago bitten the dust. We need to remember that any age for the earth is a philosophical construct not a reading from a clock.
Addendum;
1. I think Christians (creationists) should caution secular scientists against making absolute claims about the age of the earth, and to call them back to a more humble approach to science.
2. I think creationist should try to encourage a more humble approach to science; one that is content with theory instead of lusting after fact.
3. Under the influence of materialism scientists have become the most arrogant of people when in fact they should be the most humble. Christians need to do more to point out the weakness of the materialist position.
4. The fact most OECs accept man's 'evolution' from some kind of ape-like creature [eg. Polkinghorne] shows how prone they are to uncritically accepting Naturalist science, and the fact they can accept such an anti-biblical concept makes it no surprise that they can accept long ages. (One wonders what they couldn't accept.) Where is the critical spirit they like to turn against Orthodox Christianity? When it comes to Naturalist science it seems to depart them utterly. (One has to work hard to find a critical study by an OEC of anything in consensus science.)
5. What I want more than anything else is for people to be honest. Let's stop pretending. (eg. that it was really snow that covered the mountains in Gen. 7. What was the ark? a
skidoo :=} If we can't understand, we can't understand, and we should admit it. (e.g. if we can't understand how the earth can be young in a universe so big, let's admit it.)
6. No one reads the text of the bible perfectly, and no one ever will. (Only in heaven can anyone hope to acquire a perfect understanding of it. e.g. it would be nice to sit down with some author and ask him just exactly what he intended.
7. If the debate provokes people to serious study and reflection then maybe it's all for the good; but if it just prompts people to dismiss the other 'side' then I think the fallout is mostly negative. ie. debate can be very helpful while scorn and contempt never is.
- the church as a whole has little experience with the issue of a purported long age for the earth and the seeming discrepancy of this with scripture, and so is currently floundering as people try to deal with this 'new' subject. I personally don't think any OEC has offered any plausible solution to the problem, or any helpful way of dealing with it. (I think it's vain to find a naturalistic answer to the problem, as Naturalism is the problem.)
* - Long ages are a conclusion based on Uniformitarian thinking, and as such are as true or false as U. itself is. (Since we know U. isn't absolutely true, we can conclude that no age of the earth it 'offers' can be absolutely true.)
8. OECs tend to hold a naive view of man's fallen nature, and actually seem to believe that man is basically good. They seem to forget (or even deny) that man is in active rebellion against God and His word. They seem to reject any notion that man's fallen nature can affect the way he does science.
9. We end up having different views on the age of the earth for two basic reasons; a. where we come from (our family origin and our life history) and b. the grace God has given to us. We will thus never all have the same views on things (not this side of heaven at least).
10. OECs seem more concerned with apologetic success than declaring the word of God. They seem to ignore that the bible tells us the natural man will be offended by the word of God... ie. apart from grace. (They will say, ''yes, the natural man will be offended by the gospel, but we're not talking about the gospel here but about mythical history that somehow found its way into scripture." Mythical? On whose authority?)
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Institutes of Biblical law, vol. 3 - R. J. Rushdoony p/54
2. 'In reality, the debate about the age of the universe is a conflict of worldviews—a conflict between the evolutionary, naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of some of the scientific data, on the one hand, and on the other hand the exegetically strong and historically orthodox young-earth creationist understanding of Scripture and the interpretations of the same data and more data based on biblical assumptions. - T Mortenson/response to Dembski
3. 'Dembski sees and comments on philosophical naturalism’s control of biology, (Dembski 1999, pp. 97–121; 2005, chapters 2, 4, 5, and 13),13 but he seems to overlook or be indifferent to that same philosophical domination of geology and astronomy, which has resulted in the claim about millions of years. - TM
- why is it wrong for Naturalism to dominate biology but okay for it to dominate geology and cosmology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)