Evolution Question

12,485 Views | 175 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by DirtDiver
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 6:05p, 11/26/24
AG
Jabin said:
kurt vonnegut said:
1. Define science.
I have or had a book by Richard Feynman. In it, he quoted one of his profs that it is impossible to define science. He agreed with his prof and, with my much more limited understanding than either of them, think that I agree with both.

Quote:
Quote:
2. What are the assumptions on which science operates? (Or at least list some of them)
Since it is impossible to define science, it would appear to also be impossible to list the assumptions on which it operates.

Further, there are many different so-called "disciplines" that call themselves scientific that all operate under different assumptions.

Why do you ask these questions? They are interesting and perhaps profound but I'm not sure where you're going with them.

How would you answer the questions?

You could give me any word and I could make an argument about how that word is impossible to define. While I recognize a philosophical problem of any exact definition (especially in this case), surely, you mean something when you say 'science'. That said, I could have clarified this when I posted it originally. And knowing why I asked the question would have been good.

The purpose of asking you to define science was to understand what you broadly believe to be within the domain of science, where its boundaries exist, and what its limitations are. And ultimately, to understand where you place the supernatural in relation to those domains and boundaries and limitations.

----

I don't know if this is the 'best' definition of science, but lets start somewhere:

Science is a systematic and evidence-based method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world and the universe through observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning.

And we generally make assumption that include: The universe is understandable, objective reality exists, natural laws are consistent, events are casually linked, knowledge can be derived from observation, stuff like this.

Given a question like 'what is the best flavor of ice cream', we recognize difficulty in using science to answer this question. Science may have something to say about the biology of taste, but the question is inherently a matter of personal preference that science cannot quantify or resolve. "Best", in this case, is subjective rather than being tied to an objective metric.

Now, lets say I ask you to describe the behavior of a ball when it is dropped. If we are to provide a description for the behavior of the ball when it is dropped, we sorta have to first assume that describing the behavior of the ball is possible to begin with. Then, it is useful to assume that the laws of nature of predictable, consistent, and universal. After all, if the law of gravitation changes constantly and randomly, then describing the behavior of the ball becomes impossible. It is also useful to assume that the ball actually exists. And that observations of the ball falling are reliable. These assumptions are part of the foundation for making valid predictions or building models.

So, we can run the experiment, make observations, chart the speed and acceleration, or measure the time it takes to hit the ground. And ultimately, this information may be used to make a hypothesis about the relationship between related to the ball's movements and build a model or mathematical equation to describe the relationships and make predictions. The model is likely never to be perfect, but we can consider its utility in terms of how reliably it provides accurate results in different scenarios.

Ok . . . those are two silly examples.

I'll stop at this point in case there is something above you object to or feel needs modified. If there is a different definition of science we should use or if you object to the assumptions, I would be interested to hear.

-----------

One of the definitions Feynman gave for science was that it was the belief in the ignorance of experts. This is in line with the final definition from the article you posted. I don't think his quote is at all pragmatic. But as a philosophy of science, I do think its great!

But, my (perhaps ill intentioned) reason for restating this quote is that I think that a broad endorsement of Feynman's philosophy about knowledge makes it completely impossible to take serious the authority of the Church, the Bible, the clergy or to take any stock whatsoever in divine revelation. Feynman's philosophy is one of radical skepticism of institutional knowledge, experts, authorities, and of those who claim to know Truth.

One more Feynman quote: I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 12:03p, 11/27/24
AG
I linked the Feynman article FYI. I like his personality and it's fun. I gave it for context. In no way should his words be taken to mean or support the argument that science is undefinable and therefore there is no meaning behind the word or associated methodology.


I think the critical part he mentions and most every definition mentions revolves around experiments and challenging ideas. And while it's not perfect as far as philosophy of science I think Karl popper provides as useful a framework as anyone

Reply Quote
1 edit
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 8:30a, 12/2/24
Good post, as always, Kurt. Sorry for my delay in replying but, you know, Thanksgiving.

As a preliminary matter, I am honestly not trying to be evasive in my reluctance to define science. I would love to be able to do so, but all attempts to do so end up being so amorphous, with so many qualifications, add-ons, and exceptions that they become worthless efforts. And I'm not sure what the point is in trying to define it. Something can be shown to be true, or at least more likely true than not, by all kinds of methodologies and proofs whether or not they are science. For example, we can show that it is certain that George Washington lived and was our first President, but that truth is not based on science. What value is created by labeling something as science?

It strikes me that the insistence on defining science is made primarily by those who adhere to it as a substitute for religion. Some of what is included within the general definition of science is indubitably true, such as measuring the acceleration of an object dropped from a known height with known friction. However, much also that is claimed to be science is not indubitably true for a host of reasons, including the bias and prejudice of scientists, the inability of science reporters to accurately report the science, the confusion of hypotheses with evidence, and many more reasons.

There is an almost endless list of scientific "knowledge" that we lay people "know" to be true that simply isn't true.

Quote:
Science is a systematic and evidence-based method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world and the universe through observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning.
Ideally, that's correct. However, science is done exclusively by humans, and humans are biased and not always logical. There's also an article of faith amongst many that science is "self-correcting" despite the overwhelming evidence that that's not true. So, again, your statement is a partial definition, and an ideal, but unfortunately it is rarely true in practice today.

Quote:
And we generally make assumption that include: The universe is understandable, objective reality exists, natural laws are consistent, events are casually linked, knowledge can be derived from observation, stuff like this.
Based on my limited knowledge, I agree that those assumptions underlie modern science. Interestingly, many, many thinkers and scholars point out that those assumptions only came into existence, and were only possible, with Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity. Those assumptions were explicitly rejected by most (all?) cultures prior to Christianity. Those cultures believed in a random, chaotic universe controlled by random, chaotic Gods.

Quote:
So, we can run the experiment, make observations, chart the speed and acceleration, or measure the time it takes to hit the ground. And ultimately, this information may be used to make a hypothesis about the relationship between related to the ball's movements and build a model or mathematical equation to describe the relationships and make predictions. The model is likely never to be perfect, but we can consider its utility in terms of how reliably it provides accurate results in different scenarios.
I would be silly to disagree with your example. However, science today goes far, far beyond that simple example. We are told that "science" proves that 6' separation between people prevents transmission of Covid, that a massive asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, that the universe is X billion light years across and X+/- Y years old, that a particular rock is Z billion years old, that over the course of billions of years biological critters added unbelievable amounts of complex information to their DNA, and that we can date an archaeological layer in a dig in the Middle East to within a decade or two based solely on the presence (or even absence) of a single pottery shard.

Those claims take much more faith in SCIENCE (as an alternative religion) than do the religious claims that you attempt to poke holes in.

Quote:
One of the definitions Feynman gave for science was that it was the belief in the ignorance of experts. This is in line with the final definition from the article you posted. I don't think his quote is at all pragmatic. But as a philosophy of science, I do think its great!

But, my (perhaps ill intentioned) reason for restating this quote is that I think that a broad endorsement of Feynman's philosophy about knowledge makes it completely impossible to take serious the authority of the Church, the Bible, the clergy or to take any stock whatsoever in divine revelation. Feynman's philosophy is one of radical skepticism of institutional knowledge, experts, authorities, and of those who claim to know Truth.

One more Feynman quote: I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
You seem to know a lot more about Feynman than I do. But yet most of the adherents of Science seem to ignore Feynman's skepticism when it comes to Science. They like it in rejecting the claims of religion, ignore it when unquestioningly believing the claims of Science.

To kind of summarize, I've noticed that the semi-official groups of Skeptics are primarily skeptical of religion only but are not at all skeptical of their own beliefs.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 8:37a, 12/2/24
Also, as an aside, much of what we call the wonders of science was accidentally discovered and made workable by engineers. In the physical realm, the only major development that I can think of that was developed through pure theoretical science was the atom bomb and atomic energy. Many (most?) of the other examples of the wonders of science, such as microwave ovens, were accidental discoveries that engineers made workable.

I know much less of biology, and one might argue that a lot of what is being accomplished now is based on science rather than simply accidental discoveries. That may or may not be true. However, my biologist friends tell me that one major differentiation between biology and physics is that biology has few if any "laws". In other words, little of biology can be reasoned out from universal principles but must be painstakingly discovered through trial and error.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 11:59a, 12/2/24
AG

Quote:
As a preliminary matter, I am honestly not trying to be evasive in my reluctance to define science. I would love to be able to do so, but all attempts to do so end up being so amorphous, with so many qualifications, add-ons, and exceptions that they become worthless efforts. And I'm not sure what the point is in trying to define it. Something can be shown to be true, or at least more likely true than not, by all kinds of methodologies and proofs whether or not they are science. For example, we can show that it is certain that George Washington lived and was our first President, but that truth is not based on science. What value is created by labeling something as science?

It strikes me that the insistence on defining science is made primarily by those who adhere to it as a substitute for religion. Some of what is included within the general definition of science is indubitably true, such as measuring the acceleration of an object dropped from a known height with known friction. However, much also that is claimed to be science is not indubitably true for a host of reasons, including the bias and prejudice of scientists, the inability of science reporters to accurately report the science, the confusion of hypotheses with evidence, and many more reasons.

There is an almost endless list of scientific "knowledge" that we lay people "know" to be true that simply isn't true.


As you've begun to point out, there are different types of knowledge that do not fall under a general definition of science.

We might consider our understanding of thermodynamics to be scientific knowledge and we can describe assumptions and methodologies that were used to develop this knowledge. Understanding where scientific knowledge comes from adds to an understanding of the attributes and limitations of this scientific knowledge.

A question of what it feels like to ride a bike might be described as experiential knowledge or personal knowledge. And we could describe the philosophy behind how and where this knowledge comes from and use that to describe the attributes and limitations of this type of knowledge.

Knowledge related to the nature of God or related to religious or spiritual beliefs might be described as religious or spiritual knowledge. And moral and ethical positions can be described as moral or ethical knowledge. And we can describe the methodologies and proofs on which those types of knowledge are built.

How we acquire knowledge can vary between categories. How we justify / verify knowledge can vary between categories. How knowledge is applied varies between categories. And reliability of knowledge can vary between categories.

A claim about knowledge of the motion of the ball in the previous post's example and a claim about knowledge about the nature of God may both be valid or true. However, we acknowledge that the two claims come through knowledge acquired in different ways. And the justifications for each claim will be different.

So, to the topic at hand. What kind of knowledge is the claim that the Earth was created 6000 years ago based on? Is it purely based on scientific observation and empiricism? Or is this knowledge of a young Earth informed by a religious belief in the reliability of an ancient document? The reason why I think the science 'label' is important is because I think its important that people understand what 'methodologies and proofs' were utilized in generating different types of knowledge.

Claiming the Earth is 6000 years old as scientific knowledge implies a strictly evidence based and empirical justification. Claiming the Earth is 6000 years old as religious knowledge implies something different. I'm not arguing that religious knowledge is lesser or that it cannot be true. I am arguing that it is important to correctly represent knowledge and claims.

The same goes for claims about what evolution can and cannot do. If your position on limitations of evolution are informed by a belief in a religious text, that is fine. And maybe its true. But, you've entered a different domain of knowledge that is not scientific knowledge.

I think all of this is important because I think people generally do a poor job of how they represent claims and knowledge. Myself included, I'm certain.

I don't think that I've expressed an interest in 'gate-keeping' the term science. The term 'science' or 'scientific knowledge' carries a certain weight today in modern times. I do think that many people try to represent different types of knowledge as scientific in an effort (consciously or not) to piggy back on social credit that science has accumulated.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 12:38p, 12/2/24
Quote:
So, to the topic at hand. What kind of knowledge is the claim that the Earth was created 6000 years ago based on? Is it purely based on scientific observation and empiricism? Or is this knowledge of a young Earth informed by a religious belief in the reliability of an ancient document? The reason why I think the science 'label' is important is because I think its important that people understand what 'methodologies and proofs' were utilized in generating different types of knowledge.

Claiming the Earth is 6000 years old as scientific knowledge implies a strictly evidence based and empirical justification. Claiming the Earth is 6000 years old as religious knowledge implies something different. I'm not arguing that religious knowledge is lesser or that it cannot be true. I am arguing that it is important to correctly represent knowledge and claims.
You pose this as two mutually exclusive alternatives. The YEC scientists whom I respect don't see it that way, nor do I. Although we do believe that the Bible is absolutely trustworthy and authoritative on all that it says (what it actually says, in some instances, is debated of course), that does not mean that credible YEC scientists practice a science that is not "strictly evidence based and [with] empirical justification".

In fact, that is what appeals to me about them. Up until my mid to late-40s, like many skeptics on here I believed that most YEC types were untrustworthy and lied about the science. At that time, I first met Kurt Wise and, through him, came to meet many of the other credible YEC scientists who are all doing "good science". One can argue about their conclusions, like one can argue about any scientific conclusion, but I don't think anyone claims that they're not doing "good science", i.e., "strictly evidence based and [with] empirical justification".

Admittedly, like all humans, they have a bias. But so does every other scientist in the world. It's not intellectually acceptable to attack their work or their conclusions because of their bias. Rather, their work should only be criticized if their conclusions are not "strictly evidence based and [lack] empirical justification".

You and others on here seem to think that Christians rely on miracles or magic to explain their view of science. Nothing could be further from the truth, with some exceptions. Two exceptions are the origin of the universe and the origin of life, but of course the non-Christian skeptics have no "scientific" explanation for either, either.

Quote:
The same goes for claims about what evolution can and cannot do. If your position on limitations of evolution are informed by a belief in a religious text, that is fine. And maybe its true. But, you've entered a different domain of knowledge that is not scientific knowledge.
First, we are all "informed" by our world view. That source of information does not make one's science bad or flawed. Atheist scientists are also informed by their world view that everything has to have a materialistic explanation. I suspect that world view causes them to discount or simply miss scientific results that may point to non-materialistic explanations or point to materialist explanations that contradict their assumptions (as an example of that, many scientists believe that the fossil record shows that life did not originate from a universal common ancestor, but that life originated multiple times creating multiple disparate family trees of life).

Second, I do not know of any credible scientist who rejects evolution that does so simply because of a religious text. Rather, they rely exclusively on science to support their skepticism of evolution. I don't know if you've read any of the scientific papers published by scientists associated with the Intelligent Design movement, but you will not find any religious text cited in support of any of their findings or conclusions. In fact, some of the scientists in that movement are not Christians and a few are even atheists.

You seem to imply in all of your posts that people who believe that God created life and the universe somehow reject science in favor of magic or miracles. Nothing could be more wrong. Obviously, there's lots that we cannot explain. Skeptics simply waive their hands and say "something happened" or "we'll figure it out later". Christians say that although we don't know how it happened, there's a possibility that God either did it directly or indirectly.

And there's lots of stuff that science relies on for its assumptions for which we have no scientific explanation. For example, why is the universe rational? Why are there universal laws? Why are people (sometimes) rational and capable of understanding the universe. In a truly arbitrary universe (i.e., a universe created by random, purely materialistic processes), one would expect the opposite.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:36p, 12/2/24
AG

Quote:
Ideally, that's correct. However, science is done exclusively by humans, and humans are biased and not always logical. There's also an article of faith amongst many that science is "self-correcting" despite the overwhelming evidence that that's not true. So, again, your statement is a partial definition, and an ideal, but unfortunately it is rarely true in practice today.

Bias is a 'bug' of any effort to acquire knowledge and of course it applies to science. Self-correction is not immediate. And with enough bias, it may take a long time to self correct. But, we do see science self-correct constantly. I think if you avoid politicized science, you witness human understanding of scientific questions is in constant motion with constant improvement in application and predictive power.


Quote:
Based on my limited knowledge, I agree that those assumptions underlie modern science. Interestingly, many, many thinkers and scholars point out that those assumptions only came into existence, and were only possible, with Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity. Those assumptions were explicitly rejected by most (all?) cultures prior to Christianity. Those cultures believed in a random, chaotic universe controlled by random, chaotic Gods.

There is a level of formalization of the scientific method that occurred in Christian culture. I have zero objections to that. I'm all for giving Christian culture its props. . . . but lets not oversell here and pretend that Christianity invented science.


Quote:
I would be silly to disagree with your example. However, science today goes far, far beyond that simple example. We are told that "science" proves that 6' separation between people prevents transmission of Covid, that a massive asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, that the universe is X billion light years across and X+/- Y years old, that a particular rock is Z billion years old, that over the course of billions of years biological critters added unbelievable amounts of complex information to their DNA, and that we can date an archaeological layer in a dig in the Middle East to within a decade or two based solely on the presence (or even absence) of a single pottery shard.

Those claims take much more faith in SCIENCE (as an alternative religion) than do the religious claims that you attempt to poke holes in.

I don't know of anyone who felt that science proves that 6' separation prevents transmission of Covid. I know people went overboard with Covid procedure, but I don't think that is a remotely fair representation of best scientific understanding. I also don't think there is much opposition to the idea that if you stay far away from someone with a airborne transmittable virus, then you less likely to get the virus. 6' may be arbitrary. . . I don't know where the number came from.

I do not view scientific knowledge or theories about an old Earth or about evolution to be unquestionable and universal TRUTH. They are simply our best scientific understanding. I accept that our understanding is almost certainly flawed and I am willing and open to changing my mind as new information comes in.

In contrast, religious faith offers claims which are presented as unquestionable and universal TRUTH. They are presented as absolutes and we are instructed to believe and treat them as such.

My scientific beliefs include the humility to recognize that our best scientific understanding is certainly imperfect and flawed. Your religious beliefs includes unquestionable 'truth' which is static and invulnerable to any new information. These descriptions of 'faith' are not the same.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 1:50p, 12/2/24
Quote:
My scientific beliefs include the humility to recognize that our best scientific understanding is certainly imperfect and flawed. Your religious beliefs includes unquestionable 'truth' which is static and invulnerable to any new information. These descriptions of 'faith' are not the same.
That statement mischaracterizes my belief system and seems quite vain as to yours. (And I hope that is not offensive.)

My religious beliefs include the humility to recognize that our best religious understanding is certainly imperfect and flawed. I do believe that God created the universe, that his Word is absolutely trustworthy, and that he came/sent his Son to earth as a human as a sacrifice for our imperfections. Beyond that, much if not all is uncertain and open to discussion. But even those beliefs are not arbitrary; I came to them via reason. Rather than being a faith that requires a leap in the dark, imo Christianity is the most reasonable of all world views. Again, the conclusion that I came to is that history, science, personal experience, and probably many other sources of knowledge point to the truth of the claims of Christianity.

On the other hand, your belief in science seems to be absolute as to certain issues - that is, it is the only source of information that you trust on certain issues. When new information comes in that challenges your scientific beliefs that are in the nature of religious beliefs, you discount and ignore them. I submit that abundant scientific evidence exists that challenges your scientific beliefs, but you find or discover reasons to discount that evidence.
Reply Quote
1 edit
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 2:27p, 12/2/24
AG
Jabin said:

You seem to imply in all of your posts that people who believe that God created life and the universe somehow reject science in favor of magic or miracles.
I don't agree. Or at least, that implication has not been my intention.

What I have been saying for 4 pages is that if God created life and the universe through the manipulation and violation of natural law, then the study of these natural law violations are outside of the study of natural law. I don't understand how that is controversial unless you believe that science includes the study of magic and miracles? I've gone out of my way several times to point out that it could be true that God created life and the universe.

If God created life and the universe through miracles, then the study of these events is not science. Its also not art. Nor is it language studies, or kinesiology, or history, or cultural studies, or biology, or medicine, or finance, or economics, or political science.

If God created life and the universe through miracles, then what is the field of study that gives us tools to understand or, at least, study these supernatural events? Philosophy! Religion! Theology! These are our tools.


Quote:
And there's lots of stuff that science relies on for its assumptions for which we have no scientific explanation. For example, why is the universe rational? Why are there universal laws? Why are people (sometimes) rational and capable of understanding the universe. In a truly arbitrary universe (i.e., a universe created by random, purely materialistic processes), one would expect the opposite.

Yes, science makes assumptions that cannot be justified. Again, I think I've openly stated that a bunch of times already.

Questions about WHY the universe is rational or WHY there are universal laws, or WHY there are people that can understand the universe are not scientific questions. They are definitely philosophical.

If you want to ask how the universe came to be or how it became rational or how the universal laws came to be or how people can understand the universe, then those could be scientific questions. And I think they are scientific questions for which we may have zero hope in ever understanding or answering. What we do understand, however, is that we make the assumption that the universe is rational with universal laws and people that can understand them, we can develop a tool which has utility to us. Not utility for explaining 'why' or purposes. And not a utility for providing ultimate TRUTH. Science MUST operate on certain assumptions to be useful. Try running any sort of scientific study without these basic assumptions.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 2:39p, 12/2/24
AG
Jabin said:
Quote:
My scientific beliefs include the humility to recognize that our best scientific understanding is certainly imperfect and flawed. Your religious beliefs includes unquestionable 'truth' which is static and invulnerable to any new information. These descriptions of 'faith' are not the same.
That statement mischaracterizes my belief system and seems quite vain as to yours. (And I hope that is not offensive.)

My religious beliefs include the humility to recognize that our best religious understanding is certainly imperfect and flawed. I do believe that God created the universe, that his Word is absolutely trustworthy, and that he came/sent his Son to earth as a human as a sacrifice for our imperfections. Beyond that, much if not all is uncertain and open to discussion. But even those beliefs are not arbitrary; I came to them via reason. Rather than being a faith that requires a leap in the dark, imo Christianity is the most reasonable of all world views. Again, the conclusion that I came to is that history, science, personal experience, and probably many other sources of knowledge point to the truth of the claims of Christianity.

On the other hand, your belief in science seems to be absolute as to certain issues - that is, it is the only source of information that you trust on certain issues. When new information comes in that challenges your scientific beliefs that are in the nature of religious beliefs, you discount and ignore them. I submit that abundant scientific evidence exists that challenges your scientific beliefs, but you find or discover reasons to discount that evidence.

Fair enough, I should be more careful stating what others believe. And you should consider doing the same as your last paragraph is equally a mischaracterization of what I believe.



Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:59p, 12/2/24
My apologies if what I wrote gave offense. I truly like your e-personality and appreciate your graciousness and willingness to discuss, especially without getting angry. That is a weakness of mine and something I'm working on.

So where are we? Have we run the discussion to ground?
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 4:14p, 12/2/24
I'd like to add this response to your post before your last.

Quote:
What I have been saying for 4 pages is that if God created life and the universe through the manipulation and violation of natural law, then the study of these natural law violations are outside of the study of natural law. I don't understand how that is controversial unless you believe that science includes the study of magic and miracles? I've gone out of my way several times to point out that it could be true that God created life and the universe.

If God created life and the universe through miracles, then the study of these events is not science. Its also not art. Nor is it language studies, or kinesiology, or history, or cultural studies, or biology, or medicine, or finance, or economics, or political science.

If God created life and the universe through miracles, then what is the field of study that gives us tools to understand or, at least, study these supernatural events? Philosophy! Religion! Theology! These are our tools.
Perhaps God did not creat life and the universe through the manipulation and violation of natural law since there was no natural law at that time, particularly with regard to the creation of the universe. The laws of nature were created as part of the creation of the universe.

And, even if one believes that God created both, science can be one of many tools to try to gain greater understanding of what happened and how it happened. That may turn out to be impossible (both from a strictly materialistic perspective and a religious perspective), but we do not yet know that for sure. In other words, science can be a tool in addition to philosophy, religion, and theology in our understanding of those events.

However, turning to science can be a danger for people who do give credence to philosophy and religion as explanatory mechanisms. For example, many Christians grabbed hold of the theory of the Big Bang because it seemed to parallel the Biblical accounts of creation. The danger is twofold: 1. The Big Bang theory also differs significantly from the Biblical accounts, and 2. the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. Many astronomers and astrophysicists that I read are already calling into question its validity and ability to explain the data that we think is available to us.

In other words, science can be determinative (e.g., your example of the dropped ball), but on many other issues it is not at all. It is constantly changing.
Reply Quote
AggieChemist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:34a, 12/3/24
AG
If you think 40 days and 40 nights of rain is a lot, consider the Carnian Pluvial Episode, where it rained for something like a million years.
Reply Quote
4
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:45p, 12/4/24
AG
Jabin said:
My apologies if what I wrote gave offense. I truly like your e-personality and appreciate your graciousness and willingness to discuss, especially without getting angry. That is a weakness of mine and something I'm working on.

So where are we? Have we run the discussion to ground?

Ah, no offense taken. Message board discussions easily lend themselves to miscommunication.

Perhaps the discussion has run its course. In case it hasn't, I had a few things to throw in.

What I objected to in your account of my belief was the manner in which I disregard conflicting evidence or arguments. There are certainly some supernatural arguments for which I give very little credibility to, but, I suspect that this is true for most of us. This doesn't mean that the evidence has not been considered or that the rejection of the evidence isn't justifiable.

As an example, evidence from divine revelation falls into this category for me. Its not that categorically reject the potential value of knowledge obtained in this manner, but I view it as wildly inconsistent and unreliable. I've used this example before - but, if God provided a revelation to every person once they turned 16 with the exact same message, then we would all be forced to recognize the validity of that message in spite of the fact that a divine revelation may not have a scientific explanation. 8 billion identical experiential knowledge accounts of a revelation from God would not need a scientific explanation for me to believe it to be true. But, billions of contradictory accounts of spiritual experiences forces me to either impose bias in which I believe to be true or to conclude that no one really knows.

One of the biggest roadblocks to religion for me has always been the size and scale of the claims compared to the size and scale of the evidence. This is why I have trouble taking divine revelation seriously. If you tell me God revealed some Truth to you, I have no means to verify what you are saying. It becomes an exercise in how much I have faith in you versus how much faith I have in those with different revelations.

Side thought: There is a tv show called The Good Place from several years back. In the show, the protagonists asks an immortal demon posing as an angel which religion was correct. And the response was that 'every religion got it about 5% right'. If there is a God, I am amused by the possibility that Truth is not revealed and we are all just doing our best and each just getting a few percentage points of it right. And, I'm open to being wrong. Maybe when I die, God will explain to me why I'm an idiot.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 2:26p, 12/4/24
AG


Quote:
And, even if one believes that God created both, science can be one of many tools to try to gain greater understanding of what happened and how it happened. That may turn out to be impossible (both from a strictly materialistic perspective and a religious perspective), but we do not yet know that for sure. In other words, science can be a tool in addition to philosophy, religion, and theology in our understanding of those events.

Agreed, but every tool has its limitations. And I acknowledge the problem of 'when you only use a hammer, everything looks like a nail' as it relates to only using science to gain knowledge. Science may be the right tool to determine how fast a ball will be going when it hits the ground, but it may not be the right tool for determining how best to treat someone. Science could be relevant to the discussion of how best to treat someone, but it has its limitations here.

When we talk about Young Earth models being presented, here is my concern: As I understand you, Young Earth Creationists pull from a host of knowledge sources. It can include scientific / geological models that might confirm rapid formation of some feature with empirical and observational backing. And it might also include spiritual knowledge with justification that includes personal experience and revelation by others. And it might include theological knowledge from religious texts given credit via historical examination that the authors were who they said they were and that certain events in the texts can be verified. And you can pull from all of those experiences to create a picture of reality that justifies a belief in a young Earth. All fine.

The problem for me comes when we address something like the age of starlight. Observational and empirical data might suggest that starlight has travelled over billions of years in some cases. But theological knowledge interjects to explain starlight as only 6000 years in opposition to the observational and empirical evidence. Regardless of whether or not starlight is actually 6000 years old or not, the conclusion of young starlight requires something outside of the science toolbox. If we are only utilize the scientific process and evidence through direct observation and empiricism, we would conclude 'old' starlight.

And so, my objection is to the presentation of a belief in a young Earth as a 'scientific' belief. It requires that you place sufficient value on the theological knowledge such that you can modify / disregard purely empirically driven conclusions. In other words, when necessary, you invoke "theology > science" to explain something. Which is fine, but I don't see why we call that science.

I also want to expand on something I said earlier. I think that science requires the assumption of natural explanations, whether that assumption is correct or not. Because anywhere you assume a supernatural explanation, you create a scientific dead end. That is, you create a situation where there is no longer any value or use in natural explanation of a question. If we say that 'God created the sun and stars', then there is no scientific value in studying star formation. If we say that God created life, then there is no point in the scientific study of the origins of life. Every time we say 'God did. . . . ' we fill in a gap of knowledge with God. and maybe God belongs in that gap and maybe He doesn't. The ONLY way to find out if God doesn't belong in that gap is to assume it possible that there is a natural explanation that does not directly require invocation of God. And every time we are successful in showing a natural explanation, we gain scientific knowledge and we expand our scientific toolbox. Science must assume there are no dead ends, even if there are dead ends. The moment we assume a dead end is the moment we stop learning.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
DirtDiver
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 3:56p, 12/5/24

Quote:
I can accept that some amount of laymen believe in an old Earth because that is what they have been taught. The idea that professional scientists across the globe with decades of experience and expertise have been unable to overcome what Mrs. Smith taught in 6th grade, I think, is not giving science any credit. And I would like to point out, again, that even the vast majority of Christian scientists believe in an old Earth.

The practice of attempting to date geological structures, rocks, formations, and fossils is universal within several disciplines of science. The suggestion that all these scientists never been presented with evidence of a young Earth or that they've never studied and researched these questions themselves is not one that I think can be take seriously. Understanding dating methods is a critical element of literally hundreds of thousands of professional scientists. And virtually every one of them agrees we have an old Earth.
You are correct. A majority of scientists agree and I'm highly convinced it's because they have not heavily considered the alternatives or they are not allow to publish their findings if it challenges the status quo. Think about all of the assumptions built into trying to date the earth based upon rock layers and fossils. How many times have you been presented with the evidence by young earth geologists in class?


Quote:
Now, maybe they are all wrong. But, unless I myself am a professional geologist with decades of education and experience, mountains of evidence, and peer reviewed ideas and papers. . . . I would be hesitant to call them all ignorant. These are people that have forgotten more about geology and dating practices than I'll ever learn. Therefore, I expect that you must be an expert in geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, and radiometric dating since you can be so certain that the quarter million professionals in this area are all just ignorant.

In other words, I think one ought to be careful about saying that hundreds of thousands of experts in a field are all ignorant about a topic that you are not an expert in. Right?


If you were to ask all of these scientists the following questions, how do you think they would answer?
1. How many times in school were you presented with evidence from a geologist that rock layers is not a way to determine the age of the earth and that hydrologic sorting is a better explanation of rock layers?
2. How many times in school have you been presented with all of the assumptions built into the dating methods?
3. How many young earth geologists can you name? What papers of theirs have you read?
4. How many other young earth pieces of scientific evidence have you been presented with throughout your education?


Quote:
The Bible claims that God did it. It gives us literally zero information about 'how'. This is exactly one of the reasons why Genesis is not science. Genesis tells us that God magic'ed the stars and moon and sun into existence. Genesis did not explain how the sun was created. It did not give us information about the process of nuclear fission. It did not give us anything beyond an observation that this glowy thing in the sky exists. Which again, is an observation that anyone can make.

I'm not claiming that Genesis is science. The Bible is not an exhaustive book on everything that God has ever done. He did not give us all of the information about the 'hows' or the 'whys'. In addition, He did not leave us without information.

He gave us enough specific information about the creation and within creation to conclude that He did it. The stars, sun, and moon having specific purposes is our reality to determine seasons, days, and years. Think about that for a moment from a purely atheistic perspective. Why is their such a thing as a season, day, or year at all if's it's unguided and undesigned? In addition, to believe that non-life could develop into life and then develop an organized thought or purpose or give objects meaning makes no sense.
Quote:

Are men made of dirt? Are women made of rib bone? Can you provide links to scientific articles that show that men are chemically the same as dirt and that women are chemically the same as rib bones? Either this is just bad science or we explain it away with the supernatural or we recognize that Genesis is not reliable for factual information about the formation of life. And if you explain it away with God's supernatural abilities, thats fine.

The only way to have a definition of supernatural or miracle is to know and understand the natural. The creation account is one of the biggest miracles in Scripture. It's a description of God supernaturally creating and designing the universe with a massive amount of complexity and intent. He created mankind in with a massive amount of complexity and intent. This event was also a singularity.

I do not know how God took the dust of the earth and breathed life into it. I do not expect to find a scientific article explaining how He did that or how He created cows and grass and pollen and bees and spiders.

Quote:
But, supernatural means its outside of science.
This is the root of the problem. When one eliminates the supernatural as a possibility they are not playing with all of the possible information, especially if the supernatural is possible or a reality.

1. We have supernatural evidence detailed in the biblical text.
2. We have supernatural evidence of prophesies and fulfilled prophesies with some of the fulfillments coming outside of the biblical account and recorded in history.
3. An atheistic origin story of Big Bang - chaos > non-life to life, zero intelligence to rational thought, has infinitely more supernatural hurdles than the creation story of Genesis. The ability to do scientific experimentation or having rational thought being a product of randomness would be a miracle as well. How could one trust their own thoughts?
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 6:23p, 12/5/24
AG

Quote:
You are correct. A majority of scientists agree and I'm highly convinced it's because they have not heavily considered the alternatives or they are not allow to publish their findings if it challenges the status quo. Think about all of the assumptions built into trying to date the earth based upon rock layers and fossils. How many times have you been presented with the evidence by young earth geologists in class?

-------

If you were to ask all of these scientists the following questions, how do you think they would answer?
1. How many times in school were you presented with evidence from a geologist that rock layers is not a way to determine the age of the earth and that hydrologic sorting is a better explanation of rock layers?
2. How many times in school have you been presented with all of the assumptions built into the dating methods?
3. How many young earth geologists can you name? What papers of theirs have you read?
4. How many other young earth pieces of scientific evidence have you been presented with throughout your education?

Schools also don't teach that the possibility that the Earth is flat. . . . . should they?

The fact that a young Earth is not taught in schools is not automatically indication that there is a conspiracy against young Earth theories. Consider the possibility that young Earth models are excluded on the basis that they are simply not considered to be 'good' science by the overwhelmingly vast number of the world's geologists. If schools were required to teach the controversy on every scientific question for which 0.1% of the world's scientists disagreed, children in school would learn literally nothing.

To answer your questions:
1. I don't know. But, I'm pretty sure that the geology information I learned in K-12 could fit on a single piece of paper. Kids aren't given in depth geology lessons - its not a priority. I have a 9th grader and a 6th grader. Both of them complain to me that they've been taught the water cycle every single year since 1st grade. . . . because our school science curriculum is mostly a joke.

Also, on what grounds do you say hydrological sorting is a better way of determining age? Is this based on your multiple PhDs in geology and 30 years experience? Or is it based on the 0.1% of geologists who believe this and whom you are drawn toward believing because they confirm your bias? Now, you can rightly point out that I also have zero PhDs in geology nor do I have professional experience. And I have bias. But, I'm not the one making claims about what dating methods are better than others.

2. I don't think I understood anything about scientific assumptions until much later in life than grade school. Passing the geology chapter in public schools amounts to being able to look at a picture of mountain and identify it as such. Its not in depth.

3. Zero. I also can't name a single 'old Earth' geologist.

4. I did go to a Catholic School through middle school. I was aware of the idea. But again, my experience with myself and with my kids is that geology taught in K-12 amounts to about a week here and there in different grades.

I think a relevant question here is: What is the threshold at which competing scientific theories should be taught in K-12?


Quote:
He gave us enough specific information about the creation and within creation to conclude that He did it. The stars, sun, and moon having specific purposes is our reality to determine seasons, days, and years. Think about that for a moment from a purely atheistic perspective. Why is their such a thing as a season, day, or year at all if's it's unguided and undesigned? In addition, to believe that non-life could develop into life and then develop an organized thought or purpose or give objects meaning makes no sense.

I believe that the idea that the sun and moon and stars exist for our use is unjustifiably human-centric. The sun does not exist for you. The moon does not exist to tell you when it is day or night. The stars do not exist to tell you what season it is. The purpose of their existence has nothing to do with how we use them.

I have a coffee mug in my office that I use as a paper weight sometimes. By your logic, the coffee mug was made for the purpose of being a paper weight, right? That humans utilize the stars and moon for a purpose does not mean that the stars and moon exist for that purpose.

We have good theories on why we have seasons and days and years. Every physics based computer model of solar formation model predicts objects with orbits and rotations and tilts.

This reminds me of when BIll O Reilly made statements about the tides. He said: 'Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in." Except of course, we can explain it. We know exactly why the tides behave the way they do. Scientific models predict precisely how they behave. And they also offer good explain for how stars form, how planets and objects form, how moons get captured, why many planets rotate, why many have tilts and seasons, and why the stars appear different to us at different times of the year.

Yes, the idea of non-life turning into life and evolving into conscious beings is absolutely wild. So is the idea of a super being that exists outside of time and space and reality. You have taken perhaps the most profound and extraordinary question humans can consider (origin of life) and answered it with a solution that involves something infinitely more profound and extraordinary as though that creates understanding.


Quote:
The only way to have a definition of supernatural or miracle is to know and understand the natural. The creation account is one of the biggest miracles in Scripture. It's a description of God supernaturally creating and designing the universe with a massive amount of complexity and intent. He created mankind in with a massive amount of complexity and intent. This event was also a singularity.

I do not know how God took the dust of the earth and breathed life into it. I do not expect to find a scientific article explaining how He did that or how He created cows and grass and pollen and bees and spiders.

If there were a scientific article explaining how God created the universe, then that act would no longer be a miracle. . . . it would be science. You've made a fantastic argument for why supernaturalism, miracles, and religious base theories have no place in a science class.


Quote:
This is the root of the problem. When one eliminates the supernatural as a possibility they are not playing with all of the possible information, especially if the supernatural is possible or a reality.
Who says I've eliminated the supernatural as possibility? All I've said is that science lacks the tools to explore the supernatural. This is the realm of philosophy and theology. If I'm open to supernatural explanations, I don't think I'll find them by studying rocks.

Quote:
1. We have supernatural evidence detailed in the biblical text.
2. We have supernatural evidence of prophesies and fulfilled prophesies with some of the fulfillments coming outside of the biblical account and recorded in history.
3. An atheistic origin story of Big Bang - chaos > non-life to life, zero intelligence to rational thought, has infinitely more supernatural hurdles than the creation story of Genesis. The ability to do scientific experimentation or having rational thought being a product of randomness would be a miracle as well. How could one trust their own thoughts?


1. No you don't. The Bible is no more 'evidence' of supernaturalism than Harry Potter is that Hogwarts exists. Something is not true because its written in a book. Nor is something true because other parts of the book can be shown to be true or historically consistent.

2. No, you don't. I had this debate with a coworker 15+ years ago. At his request, I read through a book detailing every prophesy. I then spent a couple weeks writing a response to every single prophesy pointing out why it is not proof of divine revelation or supernaturalism. In this case, I have studied this argument and I don't buy any bit of it.

3. The first two sentences are simply assertions that you cannot remotely begin to prove. But, you are correct that a purely materialistic explanation for the universe and life is missing a million pieces to the puzzle. The difference here is that I'm not claiming to know the answer. This world is full of people who all KNOW the deepest mysteries of existence. How lucky you all are to have access and to know your Truth is THE Truth.

Your solution to question #3 is to invent a being who is, by definition, incomprehensible, and then pass this solution off as though it is a comprehensible solution. None of us have the slightest understanding what being outside of time and space means. None us has the slightest understanding of what being all powerful means. None of us have the slightest idea what it means to create existence or create natural laws or create matter and energy. Any explanation you give for explaining the meaning of an infinite term will inevitably be infinitely inadequate.

I don't use the term magic to be derogatory, but this is what we are talking about. Your solution is 'magic'. No explanation for the magic. No origin for the magic. No causation for the magic. And because this magic has no cause, we invent terms like 'timeless' or 'outside of time'. And 'timeless' has the properties of solving for the causation problem. Which is incredibly circular. But that doesn't matter. And this magic is everywhere and nowhere and exists beyond space. . . . which is a theological theoretical term which has no tie to anything remotely concrete, observable, or empirical. The phase 'outside of space' exists to solve for the problem of where magic exists by offering a phase with zero actual value. And this magic is all-powerful. But we don't know what that means. And it should be obvious to everyone why speculating on the value of these infinity's is pointless.

And this magic created existence because it wants you and I to love It. And it will torture me if I don't love it. . . . cuz I guess that is how love works. But, the vast majority of people to live or who live now don't believe this magic even exists. This magic stays hidden and is only obvious to those who already believe its obvious . . . because of course there is no rational reason for believing this magic is obvious. And this magic cannot be questioned or challenged. We are not permitted to disagree with this magic. We were all created against our will by this magic, inherently wicked, and ordered to follow exactly as this magic commands without any recourse for disagreement or dissent. And this is called free will. And this is called 'good'. Because this magic is good and can only do good. And I can become good to by abdicating everything about me that is unique apart from this magic because everything this magic made me with which is unique from itself is evil.

Compare the FINITE radical complexity and improbability of us existing here today through pure naturalism with the INFINITE possibility of God. If we want to discuss what is a reasonable or rational worldview and we are going to introduce infinite Gods. . . . human reason and rationality are out the window. If God is infinite, there is exactly zero justification for the suggestion that we have the rational faculty to understand any tiny bit of God enough to understand His intents. Because every tiny bit of God is also infinite. And the idea that we have been given enough information to understand what we need to understand of an infinite being strikes me as absolute folly. You cannot break infinite into finite bite size comprehensible pieces.

Look Dirt. . . . . I recognize that the idea of a universe from natural origins and life from chaos and intelligence from non intelligence is freaking bonkers. . . . . If there is a theory out there that offers an explanation that is less bonkers, I'm listening. . . . . but, I'm really not seeing it in religion. Maybe my position is more bonkers, I don't know. . . .

I don't have the answers. And when I think about the most deep existential questions humans can come up with, I don't understand how anyone can honestly think they do. And this is why I lean so hard into the 'I don't knows'.

How can I trust my own thoughts. . . Maybe I can't. But, why should I trust anyone who claims to know the truth about an infinite super-being?

phew. . . . enough for tonight. Sorry for the rant. I worry that the above comes off as dick-ish. I don't mean for it to be, and rewriting it feels hard.

Reply Quote
4
2 edits
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 8:02a, 12/6/24
AG
One more thought -
I've acknowledged that bias exists against young Earth models, but I think that there is something that could easily overcome this bias. And that is human industry and greed. Now, I am proposing something without really knowing which side of the argument it supports. And maybe you'll be able to show me that it supports your side.

If I own a mining company and I wish to make money by finding and harvesting valuable metals or minerals, then I don't care about the philosophical implications of scientific models utilized in finding those deposits. Academia may have a bias against your position, but industry sure as Hell will not. In short, if there is money to be made by using young Earth and global flood - hydrological sorting models, then they will be adopted. Full stop.

In my limited understanding, there are different ways mining companies search for deposits. Some are very trial and error and taking random samples of soil and looking for trace amounts of valuable minerals. Sometimes its trial and error via instrumentation like radiometers that can indicate something under ground.

But, methods also includes searching for geological formations which are linked to mineralization due to scientific understanding of how the formation of these minerals over millions of years occurs corresponds to those geological formations. And it also includes large scale geological 3D modeling which can be used to predict potential locations for deposits based on which locations have (or would have had) the proper conditions for the deposits to form. These strategies assume a link between deep time geological process and mineral depot.

The argument I'm making here is that, in this case, industry and human greed is a more powerful force than philosophical bias. If there is a scientific model that can be utilized to create wealth, then it will be used. This is why pharmaceutical and biotech and agricultural companies all study evolution. Because it is a tool that allows them to make money.

Now, if you could show me that mining and oil & gas companies are throwing grapping hooks through the windows of young Earth geologists to recruit them because their models have objectively better records of predicting 'where to dig' as opposed to models which assume mineral formation through natural process over deep time. . . . then I think this is an argument that we should discuss. And similarly, if there are no industries that utilize young Earth scientific models, then we should ask ourselves why that is.

Again, if a scientific idea is viable, it is almost inevitable that someone will figure out how to make money off of it.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 8:51a, 12/6/24
kurt vonnegut said:
One more thought -
I've acknowledged that bias exists against young Earth models, but I think that there is something that could easily overcome this bias. And that is human industry and greed. Now, I am proposing something without really knowing which side of the argument it supports. And maybe you'll be able to show me that it supports your side.

If I own a mining company and I wish to make money by finding and harvesting valuable metals or minerals, then I don't care about the philosophical implications of scientific models utilized in finding those deposits. Academia may have a bias against your position, but industry sure as Hell will not. In short, if there is money to be made by using young Earth and global flood - hydrological sorting models, then they will be adopted. Full stop.

In my limited understanding, there are different ways mining companies search for deposits. Some are very trial and error and taking random samples of soil and looking for trace amounts of valuable minerals. Sometimes its trial and error via instrumentation like radiometers that can indicate something under ground.

But, methods also includes searching for geological formations which are linked to mineralization due to scientific understanding of how the formation of these minerals over millions of years occurs corresponds to those geological formations. And it also includes large scale geological 3D modeling which can be used to predict potential locations for deposits based on which locations have (or would have had) the proper conditions for the deposits to form. These strategies assume a link between deep time geological process and mineral depot.

The argument I'm making here is that, in this case, industry and human greed is a more powerful force than philosophical bias. If there is a scientific model that can be utilized to create wealth, then it will be used. This is why pharmaceutical and biotech and agricultural companies all study evolution. Because it is a tool that allows them to make money.

Now, if you could show me that mining and oil & gas companies are throwing grapping hooks through the windows of young Earth geologists to recruit them because their models have objectively better records of predicting 'where to dig' as opposed to models which assume mineral formation through natural process over deep time. . . . then I think this is an argument that we should discuss. And similarly, if there are no industries that utilize young Earth scientific models, then we should ask ourselves why that is.

Again, if a scientific idea is viable, it is almost inevitable that someone will figure out how to make money off of it.
You are absolutely correct, Kurt. In fact, you are repeating almost verbatim the words that a very high net worth individual once told me when I took a YEC scientist to him seeking funding. We played around with his/your idea for a while but were not able to get anywhere - not because of the lack of merits of YEC geology, but because of other factors, including:

1. All of the YEC geologists are involved in something approximating "theoretical" geology. None of them are in the business of finding actual deposits of oil, gold, or other minerals. That same distinction exists in the secular world - no college professors of geology would have any idea how to find minerals, unless that happened to be their particular field of specialty.

To do what you're suggesting, a YEC geologist would have to focus exclusively on learning how to find a particular mineral. YEC geology does not automatically create that knowledge, as old earth geology doesn't. And how would that YEC geologist make a living while developing that specialty?

Finally, I suspect that a belief in old earth geology isn't necessary to be mineral or O&G geologist. O&G geologists, gold geologists, etc. have their own disciplines that are unique to their mineral and, while those geologists most likely believe in old earth geology, their discipline has little or nothing to do with the age of the earth and is instead laser-like focused on conditions specific to their mineral. Back when I was chasing your idea around, I called a mining geologist at the Colorado School of Mines to discuss some ideas about gold geology. He was very gracious to take my call and spend time with me, but pointed out that finding gold deposits was much more about identifying certain existing characteristics in rocks, but how those rocks or their characteristics came to be was irrelevant to the existence or lack of existence of gold deposits.

2. As pointed out here innumerable times by the YEC skeptics, there are simply not that many YEC geologists. I would guess that it's something like 10-50. There is an extremely limited talent pool to draw from, and most of those people are pursuing other interests.

3. There's also a different kind of skepticism among even Christian geologists, even those sympathetic to YEC. For example, about 15 years ago I ran your idea by a Christian friend who is a practicing geologist for an O&G company. He was skeptical about the value of the idea, not because of poor science, but because he claimed that O&G geologists already knew where all of the major deposits of O&G existed. He said that all of the work being done was to maximize the known reservoirs, not find big new ones. Of course, the massive Guyana oil fields were discovered by Exxon a few years after that!

P.S. Your last two replies to me raised some profound points that I'm still pondering and will try to respond to later. Not ignoring you.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 11:02a, 12/6/24
AG
My initial reaction here is this:
Geology helps drive multiple trillion dollar world wide industries. I think all of the economic pressure (and then some) exists to drive any viable scientific model, regardless of whether its controversial or unpopular. The idea that industry and their scientists simply "haven't gotten around" (my words) to the practical application of scientific models which could yield improvement or even revolution of some of the world's biggest industry is not consistent with how I understand human beings to work. There is far too much power and wealth at stake for these industries and scientists to not be taking every option seriously.
Reply Quote
4
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 11:27a, 12/6/24
kurt vonnegut said:
My initial reaction here is this:
Geology helps drive multiple trillion dollar world wide industries. I think all of the economic pressure (and then some) exists to drive any viable scientific model, regardless of whether its controversial or unpopular. The idea that industry and their scientists simply "haven't gotten around" (my words) to the practical application of scientific models which could yield improvement or even revolution of some of the world's biggest industry is not consistent with how I understand human beings to work. There is far too much power and wealth at stake for these industries and scientists to not be taking every option seriously.
Kind of true, but there's got to be at least some early indicators that spending a lot of money on a different model would yield profitable results. YEC geological models are a long, long way from being able to do that with regard to minerals and O&G. Why do you assume that a YEC model would lead to a revolution in practical geology? It seems that you are started with your argument and working backward from there.

Also, you are simply ignoring my point that scientific models on the age of the earth or geological formations have little to do with the existence or lack of existence of minerals or O&G. The same processes are in play; the only difference is how long ago those processes occurred and how long they took.

For example, it's my crude understanding that one way gold veins are formed is when superheated water, containing dissolved minerals (Including gold) is forced into cracks and crevices in rock. As the water cools, the minerals will condense out from the water at various temperatures. That process is agnostic as to the age of the rocks or how long ago the superheated water was forced into the rocks.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 11:34a, 12/6/24
And your argument is an argument of silence or lack of evidence. That is, your argument seems to be that since the big O&G and mining companies haven't jumped on YEC, then there must not be anything there.

I've just pointed out some reasons that those companies might not jump on it even if it is true. Undoubtedly, there are hundreds of other reasons of which I am not aware. I suspect that you, also, are not aware of their reasons.

Finally, most geologists are trained and educated with an old earth mindset. They have never been exposed to the YEC arguments and evidence. They just assume that old earth has to be true and that YEC is just a bunch of yahoos without ever looking into it on their own. I know that's true because I have worked with and for such people.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 1:34p, 12/6/24
Finally, my post in reply to yours far above.

Quote:
The problem for me comes when we address something like the age of starlight. Observational and empirical data might suggest that starlight has travelled over billions of years in some cases. But theological knowledge interjects to explain starlight as only 6000 years in opposition to the observational and empirical evidence. Regardless of whether or not starlight is actually 6000 years old or not, the conclusion of young starlight requires something outside of the science toolbox. If we are only utilize the scientific process and evidence through direct observation and empiricism, we would conclude 'old' starlight.
You give way too much credence to modern science, including astronomy, being performed starting with a tabula rasa. It's pretty clear that it starts with the assumption of an ancient universe and all evidence is interpreted within that fairly rigid framework.

I agree with your statement that observational and empirical data might suggest that starlight is billions of years old. Your hesitancy to be adamant is to be applauded! However, there's other evidence that also might suggest radically different conclusions. Given how little we truly know of, or have significant data for, stuff that's billions of light years away and billions of years old, our current astronomical theories about most things can be only tentative at best.

Yes, YEC astronomers do start with different presuppositions than do secular astronomers, but that doesn't make their science, data, or arguments wrong per se.

Quote:
And so, my objection is to the presentation of a belief in a young Earth as a 'scientific' belief. It requires that you place sufficient value on the theological knowledge such that you can modify / disregard purely empirically driven conclusions. In other words, when necessary, you invoke "theology > science" to explain something. Which is fine, but I don't see why we call that science.
You are making it much more of a black and white, either/or, issue than it is in reality. Remember, almost all of the first generation of scientists who were devout Christians who dedicated their science to the glory of God and discovering more about him through his creation. Neither they nor modern YEC scientists see any conflict between their trust in scripture (not theology!) and their science. And they do not disregard empirical evidence (as opposed to conclusions, which are not empirical at all). YEC scientists are some of the most rigorously intellectually honest people I've ever met. For example, I asked Kurt Wise once about an issue where science seems to contradict the Bible and his response was that he had no idea.

In summary, I can think of no concrete example where science overwhelmingly establishes some point, where there's no dispute as to the conclusions reached universally by the scientists, and YEC scientists reject it simply because the Bible contradicts it. (In fact, is there any scientific conclusion as to which scientists universally agreee?)

Quote:
I think that science requires the assumption of natural explanations, whether that assumption is correct or not.

That is a relatively modern corruption of science.

Quote:
Because anywhere you assume a supernatural explanation, you create a scientific dead end.

Not true at all, although that is a common argument of skeptics. See most of the fathers of modern science who had a devout belief in the supernatural. No scientists who are Christians, when they encounter something novel and unexplained, simply say "God did it." Rather, they ask, "I wonder how God did it."

On the other hand, if God did create the universe, at some point as we peel the layers of the onion back in trying to understand his creation, sooner or later we will get to the bottom layer (the turtles holding the world up, if you will). We may have gotten to that bottom layer already, but skeptics are ab initio unwilling to accept the evidence that God was the author of the phenomenon.

Quote:
If we say that 'God created the sun and stars', then there is no scientific value in studying star formation. If we say that God created life, then there is no point in the scientific study of the origins of life.
Nothing could be further from reality. The value is in understanding how God did it and also simultaneously learning more about God and his character. For example, but studying the creation we can know that God loves creativity, loves color, wants people to be able to discover his creation, and many, many other attributes about the character of God. Just like studying a painting or a novel tells us much about a painter or author, so studying God's creation tells us much about him.

Gotta go. I'm late for a meeting.
Reply Quote
heteroscedasticity
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:56p, 12/8/24
Jabin said:


Quote:
I think that science requires the assumption of natural explanations, whether that assumption is correct or not.

That is a relatively modern corruption of science.
I find this fascinating. In what sense is the assumption of "natural explanations", a corruption of science? If by saying "that science requires the assumption of natural explanations" it is meant that the scientific method can only be used to address natural/material phenomena (as opposed to supernatural phenomena) - then this is an improvement of science, not a corruption. Can we agree on that? Science relies on the principle of falsifiability. Supernatural explanations are unfalsifiable and outside the realm of science. Supernatural explanations are within the realm of faith.

This does don't mean that a scientist cannot believe in the supernatural or that a scientist cannot have the glorification of God and his creation as a motivation for doing science, or some such thing. It does mean however that there is no place to insert God into the methods and practices of science or into scientific interpretations.
Reply Quote
5
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heteroscedasticity • 2:20p, 12/8/24
heteroscedasticity said:
Jabin said:


Quote:
I think that science requires the assumption of natural explanations, whether that assumption is correct or not.

That is a relatively modern corruption of science.
I find this fascinating. In what sense is the assumption of "natural explanations", a corruption of science? If by saying "that science requires the assumption of natural explanations" it is meant that the scientific method can only be used to address natural/material phenomena (as opposed to supernatural phenomena) - then this is an improvement of science, not a corruption. Can we agree on that? Science relies on the principle of falsifiability. Supernatural explanations are unfalsifiable and outside the realm of science. Supernatural explanations are within the realm of faith.

This does don't mean that a scientist cannot believe in the supernatural or that a scientist cannot have the glorification of God and his creation as a motivation for doing science, or some such thing. It does mean however that there is no place to insert God into the methods and practices of science or into scientific interpretations.
Great questions and points. I'm shooting from the hip in replying so I reserve the right to be wrong, to be stupid, and to change my mind completely.

You make great points. A scientist would commit great error if they were to immediately assign a supernatural cause to something for which they have no immediate explanation.

However, what if that same scientist were to encounter the truly supernatural? Something that defies any current, future or scientific explanation? If the scientist were to insist on denying the supernatural, would not that scientist be committing error? For example, what if there is no materialistic (or "scientific") explanation for the beginning of the universe or the origin of life? What does science do then? How would one go about distinguishing something with a materialistic cause or origin from something with a supernatural cause or origin?

And isn't science not an end in itself, but merely a tool to try to find truth in the physical realm? If we insist on physical or materialistic explanations for everything, then that's not science but rather forcing our presuppositions upon science.

It seems to me that the tools for making the distinction are there, but the mandate of materialistic causes forces us to either ignore signs of the supernatural or attempt to explain them away. We use tests to distinguish between natural causes and intelligent causes all of the time, but for many reasons abandon them if the tests point to a cause outside of our universe.
Reply Quote
1
heteroscedasticity
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 4:01p, 12/8/24
Jabin said:
heteroscedasticity said:
Jabin said:


Quote:
I think that science requires the assumption of natural explanations, whether that assumption is correct or not.

That is a relatively modern corruption of science.
I find this fascinating. In what sense is the assumption of "natural explanations", a corruption of science? If by saying "that science requires the assumption of natural explanations" it is meant that the scientific method can only be used to address natural/material phenomena (as opposed to supernatural phenomena) - then this is an improvement of science, not a corruption. Can we agree on that? Science relies on the principle of falsifiability. Supernatural explanations are unfalsifiable and outside the realm of science. Supernatural explanations are within the realm of faith.

This does don't mean that a scientist cannot believe in the supernatural or that a scientist cannot have the glorification of God and his creation as a motivation for doing science, or some such thing. It does mean however that there is no place to insert God into the methods and practices of science or into scientific interpretations.
Great questions and points. I'm shooting from the hip in replying so I reserve the right to be wrong, to be stupid, and to change my mind completely.

You make great points. A scientist would commit great error if they were to immediately assign a supernatural cause to something for which they have no immediate explanation.

However, what if that same scientist were to encounter the truly supernatural? Something that defies any current, future or scientific explanation? If the scientist were to insist on denying the supernatural, would not that scientist be committing error? For example, what if there is no materialistic (or "scientific") explanation for the beginning of the universe or the origin of life? What does science do then? How would one go about distinguishing something with a materialistic cause or origin from something with a supernatural cause or origin?

And isn't science not an end in itself, but merely a tool to try to find truth in the physical realm? If we insist on physical or materialistic explanations for everything, then that's not science but rather forcing our presuppositions upon science.

It seems to me that the tools for making the distinction are there, but the mandate of materialistic causes forces us to either ignore signs of the supernatural or attempt to explain them away. We use tests to distinguish between natural causes and intelligent causes all of the time, but for many reasons abandon them if the tests point to a cause outside of our universe.
Thank you for your reply. Those are some very thought-provoking responses. I'm not sure if I have the intellectual capacities to address them adequately or not.

However, what if that same scientist were to encounter the truly supernatural? Something that defies any current, future or scientific explanation?

How could it be possible to distinguish between something that is truly supernatural from something that we might incorrectly perceive as supernatural? I'm not sure what that test would look like. If we cannot currently understand something using the tools of science, the answer is I don't know and it's an area for further investigation. With respect to something that defies any current and future scientific explanation, I see no way that could be demonstrated in advance. That question is an illegal chess move .

If the scientist were to insist on denying the supernatural, would not that scientist be committing error?

I assume that you are talking about a hypothetical scientist who denies the operation of supernatural interventions into the material system he is investigating in his official capacity as a scientist as opposed to the context of how this scientist might form his broader personal views. If my assumption is correct, this just doesn't seem like a fruitful question. The rules of science do not even consider the denial or confirmation of the supernatural. Any consideration of such would be the error.

For example, what if there is no materialistic (or "scientific") explanation for the beginning of the universe or the origin of life? What does science do then? How would one go about distinguishing something with a materialistic cause or origin from something with a supernatural cause or origin?

If the phenomenon under scientific investigation by the scientist is indeed ultimately caused by a "truly super-natural process" then we would have to accept that the phenomenon is not demonstrable by science and must be interpreted by other means outside of science (religion, personal revelation etc.). This division is a very good thing. The problem of course is that we are not privileged to know in advance if an observed phenomena has an ultimate supernatural cause or not. So, what does a scientist do? The only thing to do is to keep doing science, certainly not to stop doing it.

How would one go about distinguishing something with a materialistic cause or origin from something with a supernatural cause or origin?

Exactly.

And isn't science not an end in itself, but merely a tool to try to find truth in the physical realm? If we insist on physical or materialistic explanations for everything, then that's not science but rather forcing our presuppositions upon science.

Nobody is forcing their pre-suppositions on science. It is my view that it precisely those presuppositions that define science, and which makes science useful.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heteroscedasticity • 5:27p, 12/8/24
Quote:
Nobody is forcing their pre-suppositions on science. It is my view that it precisely those presuppositions that define science, and which makes science useful.
Except all of the founders of science were doing wonderful science without those presuppositions. And there are today thousands of Christians who are scientists and who do not necessarily share in those presuppositions. So it's not the presuppositions that makes science useful.

Also, there's lots in science where we do look for indicia for non-materialistic explanations. For example, when archaeologists find flint cherds, they have to determine whether they were caused by purely materialistic means or created by non-materialistic means, i.e., humans. They have developed a test to make that determination (but don't ask me to recite the elements of the test because I have no idea). Concluding that the cherds were created by humans and thus stopping the analysis of how they might be created naturally is not anti-science.

Similarly, the various efforts to listen for intergalactic messages from intelligent sources (SETI) have developed tests to be able to distinguish random noise from non-materialistic intelligent signals. If one of those radio signals ever passed the test, concluding that some extra-terrestrial intelligence had sent it would not be anti-science. (Interestingly, DNA passes all of the tests used by the various SETI groups.)

Bill Dembski has come up with a test which he terms "specified complexity". He explains it as:

"An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not readily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that a merely improbable event is not sufficient to eliminate chanceby flipping a coin long enough, one will witness a highly complex or improbable event."

Intelligent Design - Bill Dembski

An example he provides is Mt. Rushmore. Anyone taking a look at it immediately recognizes that it was created by non-materialistic causes. It is not an abdication of science to do so. Rather, it is recognizing the evidence that something intelligent has interfered with natural processes.

He also provides this further example:

"The important thing about specifications is that they be objectively given and not arbitrarily imposed on events after the fact. For instance, if an archer fires arrows at a wall and then paints bull's-eyes around them, the archer imposes a pattern after the fact. On the other hand, if the targets are set up in advance ("specified"), and then the archer hits them accurately, one legitimately concludes that it was by design."

So to recognize that something super-intelligent has jiggered with the universe and life is not anti-science. To the contrary, it is willingly following the evidence and not being sidetracked by erroneous presuppositions.
Reply Quote
1 edit
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 7:17a, 12/10/24
AG
Jabin said:
Finally, most geologists are trained and educated with an old earth mindset. They have never been exposed to the YEC arguments and evidence. They just assume that old earth has to be true and that YEC is just a bunch of yahoos without ever looking into it on their own. I know that's true because I have worked with and for such people.

Hypothetically, lets say someone were to pay to have 100 of the world's top geologists sit for a month of lectures by the young Earth geologist of your choosing. If after that time, the world's top geologists all still don't believe that the young Earth models are good or accurate or useful, would that matter to you? Would it affect what you believe?

If the answer is 'no', that is fine. I think perhaps you value the authority of the Bible over the authority of scientists. . . in which case, perhaps the discussion about whether or not more geologists could buy into a young Earth model may be somewhat moot.
Reply Quote
2
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 7:51a, 12/10/24
kurt vonnegut said:

If after that time, the world's top geologists all still don't believe that the young Earth models are good or accurate or useful, would that matter to you? Would it affect what you believe?
That's a "gotcha" type question, Kurt, more one Aggrad would ask.

My response is that it's not a battle of experts. I already know that in that battle the overwhelming majority (100,000 to 1?) of geologists believe in an old earth. You also assume that those people in that room are purely objective and are willing to discard decades of their beliefs and careers based on the evidence presented by a handful of YEC scientists. How could you possibly believe that? Look at the history of science - you can find innumerable examples where individual scientists have been rejected by the group but the individual was right and the group was wrong.

It's not a vote that determines science; it's the facts and permissible inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Those same old earth scientists have either ignored or done a pitiful job of rebutting the facts and permissible inferences raised by the YEC scientists.

It's quite interesting that you believe that science is determined by majority vote.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 8:25a, 12/10/24
AG
Also, I know I've skipped some of your posts above. I'm not ignoring them, just worried that we are going in circles. If I've skipped something you wanted me to respond to, let me know.

Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 8:57a, 12/10/24
AG
Jabin said:
kurt vonnegut said:

If after that time, the world's top geologists all still don't believe that the young Earth models are good or accurate or useful, would that matter to you? Would it affect what you believe?
That's a "gotcha" type question, Kurt, more one Aggrad would ask.

My response is that it's not a battle of experts. I already know that in that battle the overwhelming majority (100,000 to 1?) of geologists believe in an old earth. You also assume that those people in that room are purely objective and are willing to discard decades of their beliefs and careers based on the evidence presented by a handful of YEC scientists. How could you possibly believe that? Look at the history of science - you can find innumerable examples where individual scientists have been rejected by the group but the individual was right and the group was wrong.

It's not a vote that determines science; it's the facts and permissible inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Those same old earth scientists have either ignored or done a pitiful job of rebutting the facts and permissible inferences raised by the YEC scientists.

It's quite interesting that you believe that science is determined by majority vote.

Come on. . . . that isn't a serious response. At this point in the discussion, I think you should know me better than this.

The point of the question was to differentiate how you and I value types of knowledge. I will freely admit that I place a high degree of trust in science. Not as a tool for TRUTH or objective truths about the purpose and nature of reality, but as our most reliable and consistent tool for understanding and predicting the natural world. I think its clear, at this point, that I place a higher degree of trust in modern science than you do. At least, this is what I've observed in our discussion and I'm curious to see if you observe the same.

I've never said that science is determined by majority vote and I think you know that.

And when 99.9% of geologists agree that we live on an old Earth, I don't accept that as indisputable and unquestionable truth. I accept it as being the current best explanation offered by science and from experts in the field of geology.

If 99.9% of doctors and relevant professionals all conclude that smoking cigarettes increases your risk of lung cancer, am I justified in believe that this claim represents our current best understanding of how cigarettes affect lung health? I think so. You may disagree, and like I said, thats fine.

I may place a higher value in the consensus of scientists than you. I'm not assigning value one way or the other to that position.

We live in modern world with a lot of specialization. We accept the advice of professionals all the time as simply representative of 'current best understanding'. Failure to be able to do this is something I think may would find to be paralyzing. We accept medical advice from professions and organizations we trust. If you are someone who is handy and does stuff around the house, you accept the advice from equipment experts on how to operate, maintain, or fix components. If you cook, exercise, work with computers, build cars, build furniture, you name it. . . . we look to experts for advise. Not because experts are infallible gods, but because we look to experts for explanations of our 'current best understandings'.

My intentions on this thread have NOT been to convince you that you are wrong about the age of the Earth. I think my intentions have been more in line with trying to differentiate types of knowledge and evidence. And specifically, to distinguish religious or spiritual knowledge from empirical knowledge.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 9:24a, 12/10/24
I agree that religious knowledge is different than empirical. But that does not mean that it's untrustworthy. Empiricism is just one method of gaining trustworthy information.

For example, my belief in the trustworthiness of the Bible is not simply an existential leap of faith. After a lifetime of doubts, I personally have concluded that the Bible's trustworthiness is the most reasonable position to hold.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 10:25a, 12/10/24
AG
Jabin said:
I agree that religious knowledge is different than empirical. But that does not mean that it's untrustworthy. Empiricism is just one method of gaining trustworthy information.

Ok, your knowledge of starlight as being 6,000ish years old and created en route. Is this based on purely empirical data and observation of starlight? Or is this position informed by other types of knowledge.
Reply Quote
4
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 1:00p, 12/10/24
Where did I say that I had knowledge that starlight is 6000 years old? You're probably confusing me with another poster on this thread.

Having said that, how do you know that starlight is billions of years old? What assumptions and presuppositions do scientists make to come to that conclusion?
Reply Quote
1 edit
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 9:03a, 12/11/24
AG
Jabin said:
Where did I say that I had knowledge that starlight is 6000 years old? You're probably confusing me with another poster on this thread.

Having said that, how do you know that starlight is billions of years old? What assumptions and presuppositions do scientists make to come to that conclusion?
Oh, I might have confused you with something Dirt said. However, on the topic of starlight, a few posts up you said "However, there's other evidence that also might suggest radically different conclusions. Given how little we truly know of, or have significant data for, stuff that's billions of light years away and billions of years old, our current astronomical theories about most things can be only tentative at best."

Rather than incorrectly describing your views on starlight, I'll let you describe what you think evidence suggests.

How do I know starlight is billions of years old? Assuming we can disregard epistemological nihilism, here is what I would say we do know:

If we understand how fast light travels and how far away an object is, then we can estimate how long it takes for light to travel from an object to us.

The speed of light is something that can be determined and measured with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. Scientific experiments have existed since the mid-19th century that could measure the speed of light to within about .5% of what we measure it today with current instrumentation. Light is measured to travel at different speeds at different mediums, and so when we define the speed of light, we generally mean 'in a vacuum'. In Earth's atmosphere it travels slightly slower. The speed of light has bee independently verified through dozens of different experiments by thousands of different scientists and physicists. GPS only works if we know the speed of light. Not factoring in the speed of light into navigation equations creates small errors that compound and lead to huge inaccuracies. Radar systems require an accurate speed of light value. Fiber optics, all general and special relativity applications, astronomical clocks, magnetic resonance imaging . . . all of this technology does not function without a working and relatively accurate estimate and understanding of the speed of light.

Next, we need to understand how far away stars are from us. Different distances call for different tools. You wouldn't use a tape measurer to measure the size of a bacteria and you wouldn't use a microscope to measure the height of a mountain. For shorter distances, we can estimate how far a star is by basic geometry and understanding how a star's relative position shifts at different times of the year for the Earth as it moves known distances around the sun. For other stars, relative brightness can be measured in comparison to known objects like supernovae and cepheid variable stars. And for more distance objects, we can observe the red shifting of the light as it stretched by an expanding universe. This is the doppler effect applied to light waves. All of these methods are independently tested and measured by scientists and astronomers around the world.

A train leaving the station in Chicago and travelling at 50mph arrives at Philadelphia, 750 miles away. How long does it take for the train to make the trip. . . . remember these from grade school? If we know the speed and the distance, we can measure the time. Now, this is an over simplified analogy. I have no doubt that calculation of star distances and starlight 'age' is far more nuanced than the train measurement. But the difference between 6 billion and 6,000 is a error factor of a million.

So, how do I KNOW starlight is old? Again, assuming anything is knowable, I feel a high level of confidence is justified in both our understanding of the speed of light and the estimates of distances of objects in space. And I feel reasonable confident that we can calculate the time it takes for something travelling at a known speed to reach a known distance.

Do I hold the fervent belief that Galaxy NGC7603 is exactly 2 billion light years away? No. I hold the belief that our best scientific evidence suggests that this galaxy is on the order of 2 billion light years away . . . until better data comes along.

Is it possible that the speed of light has changed since creation? I don't know. If we are going to make that claim, it seems like we would need some observational and empirical evidence that the laws of nature change over time. Maybe the speed of light has sped up since creation and so maybe the universe isn't billions of years old, but quadrillions of years old. I'm aware of some very much theoretical models that say that constants may have been variable under extremely early parts of an inflationary period. . . . but nothing on the scale of being able to the account for a x1,000,000 difference in our measurements. Not to mention that these are theories are entirely unobserved and unproven.

Is it possible that God created the universe basically as it is now and with light already 'en route'? If we are going to assume an all powerful God that does whatever an all powerful God wants, then anything is possible. Its possible that the universe is 10 minutes old. Or 10 days old. Or that its infinitely old. Or literally anywhere in between. Are there any physical markers within the light that would indicate that they were created 'en route' 6,000 years ago? Or any other age? Not that I'm aware of.

The conclusion that makes the most sense to me, from a purely empirical stand point is that starlight is old. In the range of billions or years old in some cases. As far as I know, the only way to reach the conclusion that starlight is not old is to view the question from a stand point that is not limited to pure empiricism, but also takes into consideration religious knowledge and subjective experiential knowledge. Religious knowledge and subjective experiential knowledge that cannot be tested, independently tested, verified, falsified, or explained in anything like scientific terms.

And again, that doesn't mean that a young Earth MUST be wrong. But, in my mind, it means that every young Earth model that I am aware of requires the introduction of faith based, unobservable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable knowledge. And therefore, they are not scientific theories.

I don't object to 'religious knowledge'. . . I object to the presentation of religious knowledge as 'scientific'.


-------

Edit to add that there are plenty of assumptions that scientists make. The world is rational, natural laws can be observed and understood, natural laws are consistent. . . etc.

However, I don't see any assumptions being made in measuring the age of starlight that isn't consistent with scientific assumptions being made in the design and development of every piece of technology available to you today.

I think we should be consistent in what we consider to be valid assumptions. If you think science makes improper assumptions in the study of 'x', why are those assumptions valid in the study of 'y'. If you object to the assumptions science uses to measure stars, you should have the same objections to the assumptions science uses every where else. Every time you turn on your phone or your computer must appear as a miracle of chance that is the result of engineers blindly guessing at incomprehensible phenomenon using scientific understanding that is based on unjustifiable and erroneous assumptions.

In other words. . . . the scientific method works and is valid or its not. I don't understand those that marvel at the fruits of the scientific method and then decide that the scientific method is based on indefensible assumptions when it arrives at conclusions that you don't like. (Not saying this applies to you).
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.