I accept scientific ideas about intelligent design for various reasons but primarily because I'm convinced that these claims best align with reality. I see intelligence in the way we are communicating and I see design in creation and our very own bodies and in life. I do not have enough faith to believe that intelligence is a product of chance (and if it was, how could I trust it?)Quote:
I think that you accept scientific ideas about intelligent design and a young Earth because they confirm a religious belief. Because you do not have a deep enough scientific understanding of these items, your acceptance of ID and YEC is mostly going to be informed by religious experience and knowledge. And I wonder if your motivation is more about promoting of a religious views via science rather than just promoting good science.
I spent years running from God, being angry at God, and doubting His existence and goodness when I was burnt by Christians and a science major at A&M. I started asking questions because I did not see why so many smart professors rejected God and held to the evolutionist view. I was never presented with evidence that supported the Biblical claims, and then I was...
I see scientific corroboration with the Biblical claims (flood, reproduction, eclipse on the date of the crucifixion, water cycle, stars with purpose, etc) Note: not corroboration with every theory of science (common ancestry). Same for History and Archaeology.
When I press the other theories and religious claims that hard they do not stand up to scrutiny.
"Good science" in my opinion is discovering this complex world that God has made and using our brains to be creative like he is with inventions and help others with medicine. It's testing and using the physical and natural laws He but in place to do good.
I'm not opposed to the common ancestry being taught in schools but "good science" is not doing this unchecked. Education vs indoctrination.
*An interesting topic I'm just scratching the surface of is soft tissue decay. We can measure these decomposition rates and yet there are about 100 articles of soft tissue found in every level of the column.
Quote:
Borrowing from an earlier example in the thread, lets say there is a question about whether or not a geological feature is made over millions of years or months. Is your resentment about the exclusion of the shorter time period ideas because you have a concern about human beings doing 'good science'? Or is your resentment about the exclusion of young Earth ideas because of the philosophical implications of what a young Earth would mean?
If your motivations for promoting ID and YEC ideas is to promote a supernatural conclusion as science, then here lies a problem.
I think that's a great experiment all geologist should wrestle with.
Are rock layers a time scale or evidence of hydrologic sorting from a submerged point in time?
"Good science" would be doing looking at both as an option.
You can do this without the religious views of common ancestry or ID. Once the evidence is examined one could ask, how did the animals die and the rocks get into layers with no erosion in between?
As a parent I want my child to understand the claims of both the evolutionist and the creationist. A lack of ID education will indoctrinate her towards atheism. A lack of evolution education will not allow her to think critically about what she will hear in the classroom and college.
Quote:
Now, you might, rightly, point out that I am also not an expert and also do not have a deep enough scientific understanding in order to justify many of my positions. But instead of turning to religious knowledge and faith, I place a level of trust in scientific consensus. And the level of trust I place in science varies from topic to topic. As I've aged, I have become less and less trustworthy of nutrition science and I think that most of what you read today about nutrition was funded by someone who, coincidentally (wink), stands to make money off of the conclusions of that nutrition study. The same can be true with pharmaceuticals, climate science, and probably for a host of other fields. So, there are motivations for some scientists to do sketchy science and motivations for science reporters to misrepresent good science.
Thanks for sharing the personal story! I do not think expert scientific knowledge is required to make conclusions about reality or understand history. In the same way you have become less trustworthy over the years about nutrition science I've become completely untrusting of the scientific dating methods and origin stories. To me, these are religious or origin stories that people have turned to and branded as 'science".
When we have a world of religious options to choose from, Christianity, Hindu, Common Ancestry, I'm convinced that the biblical account best aligns with reality. It's based upon much of the circumstantial evidence we've been discussing.
Quote:
No one stands to gain anything or any money off of promoting intentionally bad science or misrepresented scientific ideas about geology, do they? Why would a government be interested in hiding evidence of a young Earth. Why would a mining company be interested in using less accurate models?
I think most of the bad science is unintentional. These scientists are so indoctrinated that and have not been exposed to other options. Hard to believe or do experimentation when the option is not a thought.
I also think theirs a spiritual element in which theirs a suppression of truth. In my mind if I can explain away the existence of God, I can make my own rules and justify my own behavior.
Governments over time become highly opposed to religious thought and practice as a standard of morality exposes sinful choices.
Quote:
The idea that hundreds of thousands of trained scientists and all the world governments and all the world surveying and mining and drilling and ground resource based industries are following 'bad science' seems to me to be lacking an explanation. The idea that geologists haven't been exposed to the idea I think is weak. How could you even call a geologist that isn't reasonably aware of the history and competing ideas around their field that is their life's work an expert?
There's the science of how to drill through rock and find oil/resources' (very practical) and then the philosophies of age and origin that add no value to their work.
Quote:
So, here is what I would say to you post above - Those determining the standards being all evolutionists is only a problem if its 'bad science' or if ID is better science. If ID and YEC want seats at the table, they have to be earned. Earned by using science that can be tested and verified and then be used to make predictions and show utility. Outside of maybe a few examples, every scientific field offers utility. And if the scientific community still rejects ID and YEC because of a bias, consider it a blessing. It is a blessing because it means that as soon as those ID and YEC scientists develop there models and theories to the points where they can show real world application and engineering potential, then they may be some of the most wealthy and powerful people.
I think being able to be creative and engineer solutions is what puts money in pockets and this is a result of doing good science no matter if one is believes in the creation account or the common ancestry account.
The benefits of believing in God are going to transcend wealth and power.
You are not an accident.
You are not a result of mutations over time.
You were intentionally designed to love and receive love.
Your fellow humans are valuable and should be treated with love and respect.
God has made a bunch of rules not as a kill joy but so that you can live life to it's fullest.
If there is no God, there is no purpose for the sun and the moon. The purposes in which God ascribes these bodies match our reality and the reality of humans who have never read the Genesis account.Quote:
This is just basic observation which has been assigned purpose by humans. Humans have done this for thousands of years and I don't see how this is different.
I don't know how to differentiate the claim that the purpose of the stars to tell us when its night and the claim that the purpose of lightning is for Zeus to demonstrate his authority over the skies.
It's a piece of an entire body of Biblical evidence that when all combined paint a picture.
Babel definition - a confused noise made by a number of voices. - 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth.
Sodomy definition - Biblical events and city of sodom.
Quote:
I see you've classified common ancestry and unguided evolution as religious ideas. As has been discussed on this board in the past, you can classify any idea as religious and any belief as 'religious' if you use a liberal enough definition of religion.
Assuming you do believe in a difference between a 'religious view' and a 'scientific view', then how do you differentiate? What is a 'scientific view' and what are its properties - such that it excludes things like common ancestry?
First a biblical view (religious) can be a scientific view. Historical account of a global flood > evidence of a global flood and mass death and burial of animals. Looking at the stars via software to see the eclipse on the date of the crucifixion, reproduction after kinds.
The creation story in Genesis is no more of a religious claim than an unguided Big Bang.
The creation story of Genesis is no more religious than molecules to man evolution or life from non-life.
Likewise the claim of molecules to man evolution is not scientific. It's an idea.
Pen illustration. In this specific illustration, yes, science cannot not explain this specific miracle. This is different from the biblical creation miracles as there is corresponding evidence in creation and a corresponding historical record. The pens appearance did not have an impact on the earth's landscapeQuote:
We can consider a global flood. That the idea came from the Bible is irrelevant. What is relevant is the proposed mechanism. If there is evidence of a flood, then there is evidence of a flood. If we cannot find a natural explanation, then to assign this to God is simply a God of the Gaps problem.
Example: If God claimed to create a 1 mile stretch of jelly beans 50 meters deep under the earths crust and we dig all across the surface of the earth and find a 1 mile stretch of Jelly beans we are good.
The biblical record records that God catastrophically broke the earth, water covered the highest mountains for over 150 days and killed all land animals on the surface.
We test this by:
Are their dead animals buried in sedimentary rock all over the surface of the earth? Yes
Are their rocks in layers? Yes
Is their sea life fossilized on mountains? yes
Is there erosion between the layers? No
Are there folds in the layers that prove they were soft sediment together vs slowly deposited over time? Yes
Correct, see evidence of a flood and make up a god as a cause would be foolish. History is a branch of knowledge. To go along with the flood we have a historical document that details the flood and the purpose of it. When studying this historical document it's corroborated with another branch of knowledge called archaeology. When the archaeology and science correspond to the historical record we have a very strong case about what happened and why.Quote:
We can consider a global flood. That the idea came from the Bible is irrelevant. What is relevant is the proposed mechanism. If there is evidence of a flood, then there is evidence of a flood. If we cannot find a natural explanation, then to assign this to God is simply a God of the Gaps problem.
Quote:
Consider the possibility of understanding '1' part of an infinite God. What is the mathematical limit of 1 over x as x approaches infinity? Zero!
My concern is not to do with 100% understanding of God. My concern is that there may not exist a small enough fraction an infinite being that would be comprehensible to a finite being.
Imagine an infinite number of grains of sand. Give me a fraction of infinity that is not also infinity. Any tiny little bit of an infinite God must also be infinite, right?
The math is correct but not the understanding of the God we are talking about. God has given his creation a mind and information in the creation and direct revelation. He's revealed what He wants us to know at this time and given us the ability to comprehend Him to that extent.
Example: He wants us to know this...
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Knowledge is not the issue, believing the knowledge is.