1

Well Joe...it must be a really slow week at the FRC for you to dredge up the NON EXISTANT creation/evolution "contraversy"...or have you somehow managed to forget that you get shot down EVERY SINGLE TIME you plaster this nonsense over the net? Ah but there is a difference this time aint there...now you have a disclaimer which states that this "article" is actually meant for those people who like you reject every known concept of science for the figments of their demented imagination...so i guess this time you really cant lose anyway,being as you are no longer trying to make rational arguments anymore,right? well we ll just have to see when the players gets assembled on this one,...looking forward to the bloodbath...ta ta...

2

Unfortunately for your position in this post, it was Bible-believing Christians who invented methodological naturalism in the first place. They invented the idea from the 1600s-1800s, and it was literally an evangelical at Wheaton who coined the actual term (and supported the idea) in the 1980s.

See:

Ronald L. Numbers, 2003. “Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs.” In: When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, pp. 265-285.

Summarized:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/on_the_origins.html

3

Nick (Matzke)

No it was not...come on dude...dont you know that he was just "posing" as a christian to lure "good christians" away from God...his real boss was Satan...likewise with every so called christians who have ever done anything wrong on earth...they weren't really christians...what were you thinking...its like the world see?...since everything was created by God, everything is proof of God's design...real scientists like the good people of the discovery institute know all about it but you can only see that if you equip your patented Poof-Magic God detector and even then you need the latest version of the software and a bios upgrade (but not the 6.66 version...i hear its got more bugs then a second rate mexican brothel)...for pete's sake Nick...everyone knows that.

4

Joe, you might want to call it Ontological (or Metaphysical as described in the link posted by Nick) Naturalism. That will get rid of some confusion. Methodological Naturalism means science looks for natural causes but does not rule out the supernatural. Ontological Naturalism rules out any supernatural possibilities and says there is no God.

5

Hi Joe, have you been reading Stanley Jaki perchance? His masterwork "Science and Creation" traces the historical importance of faith in the Creator, which provided the necessary coherent philosophical foundation for the mighty achievements of Western science.

6

I’ve been trying to follow your arguments on this issue for a couple years now. As near as I can get it from this post, you seem to be arguing that methodological naturalism, because it does not consider supernatural explanations, is contradictory to the Bible’s claim that we can see evidence of God.

But methodological naturalism isn’t some kind of smuggled in atheism. It’s simply a method, the best method we’ve found, for studying the evidence. Newton was a Christian who saw more of God’s glory as he discovered certain underlying rules by which the universe worked. But he’s gone down in history as a great scientist because anyone in the world, regardless of their religion or ideology, could sit down with his equations, work them out, and verify that they matched up with what we observe in the universe.

Now, as a Christian, I look at the marvel that is the natural world and am in awe of what God created and how it works. I can perceive God’s handiwork in the cosmos because I know Him. It seems obvious to me that all of the natural world is the work of our creator, but I also recognize that I can’t prove that to someone who doesn’t believe in God. If you don’t believe God exists, you’re not going to have any reason to believe that He created the universe, but you can still agree on how the universe works and on the physical evidence that all people can perceive.

My main problem with ID, aside from the fact that I first believe they are simply wrong on the facts, is that they seem to argue that if you can’t physically prove the existence of God in a science experiment, then atheism is your only alternative, so we have to solve the God equation or our religion is in shambles. I’d expect a hardcore atheist to make that argument, but fail to see why Christians should accept it. Yes, God is real, and all reality is His work, but that doesn’t mean we have to find miraculous violations of the natural order to prove it.

Anyhow, I’m rambling now. I just don’t see why methodological naturalism as a means of studying the natural world is a threat to the Christian faith rather than an affirmation of God’s power to the believer.

7

Thanks for the link, and yes, I have thick skin. You don't even come close to being offensive. I know we disagree substantially on this issue, but I'm not sure after reading just where you're placing me.

I am certainly not an ontological naturalist. I believe that every event in the universe down to the motion of the smallest subatomic particle happens "because God." At the same time I absolutely do embrace methodological naturalism.

But methodological naturalism does not imply that one cannot learn about God from nature. One explores nature via the scientific method. When one then extrapolates from that to God, one is not pursuing science, one is pursuing theology, and both the methods and the nature of the results are quite different.

My point about "wrinkles" is that we see God in all creation, not in places where God has intervened over time. My problem with ID is not "design," which I accept as a Christian, but rather with the detection of design.

Part of my problem there is theological and not scientific. The idea that God's design should be more manifested in one place in nature than another grates on me. That God should have to regularly intervene in the normal processes of nature suggests to me an inept creator.

8

Darrel, except for an extremely small minority of Christians, I don't think any Christian thinks it is wrong to use methodological naturalism to study nature. I think the problem is that the term has changed to mean that there is no God and nature is all there is. You can't believe that something supernatural happened at some point. Somehow if you believe in the virgin birth, you can't possibly be a scientist because you believe in something that science says is impossible. That is why I mentioned above that Joe shouldn't call it methodological naturalism because it really isn't.

9

The funniest part of all this is that the argument is completely false. methodological naturalism has never meant "there is no God" nor was it ever intended to...science cannot comment on the existance of the supernatural and never does. so scientists would not say that virgin births are impossible...only that under normal circumstances, human conception requires both a male and a female but even an actual "human virgin birth" would not constitute evidence of the supernatural because there are animals on earth who conceive life without the help of a sexual mate. I personally have no problem with having some supernatural entity filling the role of "first cause". The problem arises when some christian wackjobs obviously distort the evidence available to make it fit the bable and say dumb stuff like "the existance of death in the world is evidence that this is a fallen,groaning creation, bla bla bla" or "we must be saved from being human beings and we fall short of god's design and he's p!ssed at us for it...but he really loves us" brainless garbage...not only is that not science...thats not even philosophical or rational...thats just nihilistic self loathing and it is insane.

10

Joe: I think you're spot on. That was one of the clearest explanations I've seen of the problem with methodological naturalism. Thank you.

11

Chris

I think the problem is that the term has changed to mean that there is no God and nature is all there is. You can't believe that something supernatural happened at some point. Somehow if you believe in the virgin birth, you can't possibly be a scientist because you believe in something that science says is impossible.

Science is not about belief but about how to collect and evaluate evidence. There is no belief about a virgin birth 2000 years ago since all such evidence has long since been lost. If tomorrow some woman claiming to be a virgin gives birth then perhaps science may be able to collect evidence and present an evaluation (even today, though, I think science would have to try to collect evidence before birth). As far as a single birth 2,000+ years ago all science can say is what it knows about births as it has observed to date.

Think about it, what makes you call a virgin birth supernatural? If you had no idea what natural was you wouldn't be able to label something supernatural.

Which kind of gets to the crux of this line of questioning. If one thing is natural then you can label another thing supernatural by arguing A is different from 'Not A'. But these labels are somewhat arbitrary.

To use an example from when I first came to this blog....ancient Greeks thought the sea was run by some ancient god given to temper tantrums. Was this supernatural? Suppose there really is a manic-depressive creature who lives in the ocean whose trantrums kick up rough seas? That would be 'natural' and perhaps humans would employ the sciences of psychology to ensure good seas (such as "let's placate him with soothing words and supportive assertions like 'you're a good god!'"). Where exactly does natural beging and supernatural end for God Joe? Did God say "Ok, those hydrogren atoms are natural but these are soul atoms and I'll make them superntural"?

The natural-supernatural distinction doesn't really exist in reality. IN reality things are or are not. Either there is a sea-god under the ocean or there isn't but if there is then it is 'natural' that there is a sea-god there or if there isn't then it is 'natural' that the sea doesn't have a sea-god under it.

Joe
Neufeld argues that there is "a full scale assault going on against free inquiry, something that is essential to the integrity and continued progress of science." I wanted to cheer when I read that until I realized he wasn’t talking about the constant suppression of Intelligent Design by the scientific community but of anti-ID scientists by creationists.

This is tiring. We have tossed hundreds, probably thousands of posts about creationism/ID back and forth here and over and over again it is the ID side that fails. Fails to respond honestly to questions. Fails to address holes in their logic. Fails to come to the table in good faith. They have no qualms about sending their opponents on wild goose chases demanding explanations willy nilly from diverse fields, never bothering to actually listen when people go thru the trouble of finding the answers for them.

There has been no suppression. The ID advocates have failed to present a case and have squandered their credibility far too often. They are owed no apology if they have pushed some people so far that at this point they simply brush them off as cranks not worth the time of day....(sort of like JOe recently did with Ron Paul supporters and libertarians/Ayn Randists).

12

My case is built on the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans (1:18-21).

Which happens to reveal more about the mind of the writer than anything to do with the supernatural.

Paul is crystal clear on this point: When men fail to acknowledge God as revealed in nature they become "foolish" and "futile in their thinking" (reasoning).

Which is nothing but a fancy use of an ad hominem attack, and nothing but a rank demonstration of pride on the part of the writer.

It is the writer of Romans himself who has demonstrated bad faith and narrow-mindedness; he shows simply that he must denigrate all those who are not religiously correct to him.

That you say it's "Scripture" "the Revealed Word of God," and other such things is your problem.

But in the mean time, it is in fact rank dishonesty to bang a pair of scissors on a table and insist that it's Beethoven's 9th's 2nd movement, and that's why it's rank dishonesty to attempt to make science religiously correct.

13

It seems to all boil down to this: if the evidence says one thing and the Bible says another, Henry says "Go with the evidence" and Joe says "Go with the Bible."

Ideally, Christians and other believers can find agreement between reality and their holy book(s). Often, however, the evidence plainly indicates something very different from the holy text. Given enough time and some creative license, theologians can usually find a way to re-interpret scripture to fit the new evidence (see Galileo, germ theory or Big Bang). With even more time, they can prove that the Bible actually predicted the scientific discovery.

With regards to evolution, most liberal, mainstream and Catholic Christians have been able to reconcile the facts with their faith. Most conservative Christians simply cannot bend the Bible that far, so they must choose between facts and faith. I have to say that I admire conservatives for recognizing that the Bible and evolution ultimately cannot be reconciled. You must pick one or the other. On this at least, we agree.

14

ex,

Why can't the Bible and evolution be reconciled? Enlighten me.

15

“I have to say that I admire conservatives for recognizing that the Bible and evolution ultimately cannot be reconciled. You must pick one or the other. On this at least, we agree.”

Which just goes to illustrate my point that the creationists and ID folks are actually conceding arguments to their opponents, and letting them dictate the terms of debate.

16

Oclarki,

I think a common sense reading of Genesis 1-3 will answer your question. If that doesn't do it, I suggest you contact Ken Hamm. Are you aware that this has been a matter of some discussion ever since the publication in 1859 of Darwin's "One the Origin of Species"? There's quite a bit of literature out there on this topic.

17

"Why can't the Bible and evolution be reconciled? Enlighten me."

Simple...the theory of evolution requires billions of years to be feasible and the bable allows only for a universal history of roughly 6000 years...the the bable is true and the ToE must be false...or at the very least grossly incorrect...but since virtually all available evidence points to a world (and to an even greater degree a universe) that is immensly more ancient than 6000 years, the only rational scientific position position that can be taken is that the literal narration of the bable is directly contradicted by the ToE.

18

Ludwig, ex,

Sorry, I'm unconvinced. You'll need to present where exactly the Bible contradicts the theory of evolution.

Ludwig, could you point me to where in the Bible it states the age of the universe as 6000 yrs?

ex, I don't see how the creation story in Genesis written by a member of the Egyptian Royal court with an ancient Egyptian understanding of cosmology and biology can be expected to answer questions it wasn't attempting to address.

19

"Ludwig, could you point me to where in the Bible it states the age of the universe as 6000 yrs?"

the 6000 years figure was reached by compiling all the ages of the biblical patriarch from the birth of Jesus all the way up to Adam who according to biblical narrative was created on the 6th day of creation. so the bible allows only for a universal history of 6000 years...demonstrate that the universe is older than that and you have just contradicted the bible DIRECTLY.

20

Ludwig,

Oh really? Are there gaps or omissions in the biblical geneology? Why do you assume that creation occurred in six literal days?

Also what was the purpose of the creation story in Genesis for its intended audience?

21

"Oh really? Are there gaps or omissions in the biblical geneology? Why do you assume that creation occurred in six literal days?

Also what was the purpose of the creation story in Genesis for its intended audience? "

What if tomorrow is actually yesterday? What if i m actually my own grand father? what if none of us are actually having this conversation but we re just dreaming we re having it? What if none of us are here and were all plugged to a giant machine that keeps us asleep and dreaming in an artificial reality called the Matrix while we serve as energy source for sentient machines? Dude you asked a specific question i can give you a specific answer...but when your thinking degenerates into hyperbolic hypotheticals then the answer can be whatever you want it to be...isent the supernatural grand? you can make it into whatever your imagination conjures up at any given moment and reality basicaly ceases to exist...but thats in your head....here on earth,the PHYSICAL book called the bible makes a PHYSICAL claim that is contradicted by the PHYSICAL evidence available...anything beyond that is yours to do with as you please.

22

Ludwig,

All you had to do was admit you didn't know. I guess in order to save face you can't even muster that. For someone so critical, you have a surpising lack of knowledge about what you are criticizing. Keep trying. If you really want to tear down the Bible, you might want to actually, you know, read it.

23

I agree entirely that Christians must reject philosophical naturalism, which is why I think there is a serious logical flaw in the argument of the original post.

If we reject philosophical naturalism as a worldview, we are saying that there is more to "reality" and "truth" than can be empirically established. We are rejecting modernism in that sense. We are insisting, and loudly, that the supernatural does exist, it is real, it is true. All well and good so far.

But, the supernatural, but its very definition is NOT natural. While it can be perceived by humans on a higher level, and in a very real way (thus Romans and Psalms), it can not be analyzed and tested and determined by the very limited method of natural inquiry.

So, to then say that Christians must believe that God is empirically provable and knowable, while making the very valid statement above makes no sense. Empirical evidence is, by definition, NATURAL evidence. This does not mean, by any means, it is the only source of inquiry, but science itself is self-limiting to that which is natural.

This is a matter of category mistake. We all, as Christians, agree that philosophical naturalism (the belief that ONLY the natural exists) is wrong. And, we are all in agreement that God IS knowable. But to insist that God is knowable and provable in natural, empirical terms is to buy INTO philosophical naturalism! It is to agree with the naturalistic principal that "all that is true is empirically and naturally provable". You have conceded the naturalistic point before even getting started!

No, that is not right at all. God is SUPERnatural and can be perceived by humans (and, yes, perceived THROUGH the natural), but not by natural means or evidences.

Now, here is where there is another category mistake in the original post, and another concession to naturalism and modernism. What is science and how should it be done? We all agree that there is more to what is real than what is natural. The question is whether science should be the "ultimate study for truth and reality" or simply "the study of how natural things work naturally". What philosophical naturalism does is combine the two since it believes that the latter encompasses the former. What the original post has done is buy into the final conclusion that science should be the ultimate study for truth and reality, and then insist that it broaden its scope to all areas of evidence and ways of knowing.

That is an unnecessary concession to naturalism, and an workable proposition to boot. Science is merely the study of the natural, and how it works naturally. Period. What we have to say, instead, is that science is limited in its scope and its ability to tell us the WHOLE truth about reality. All it can do is provide us with ONE source of evidence, one set of factors that we use in our overall search for truth. It tells us how nature works naturally.

What the OP does is swallow the modernistic, naturalistic elevation of science to the "arbiter of all truth". Let's put science back in its place, rather than allow it pride of place, then try to change it's scope in inquiry. Science SHOULD only use methodological naturalism, since that is what works to discover how things work naturally. However, we always have to keep in mind that what it discovers as the most likely propositions may or may not be the WHOLE story. And that is OK. We can work with that. Making science into some kind of clearinghouse for all areas of inquiry just doesn't make sense and won't work, and really just accepts naturalism as the answer. Ironic, really.

24

Henry Neufeld:
My point about "wrinkles" is that we see God in all creation, not in places where God has intervened over time. My problem with ID is not "design," which I accept as a Christian, but rather with the detection of design

Sounds about right to me, although I'd distinguish design from creation. Humans are designers. God is something much, much more: the Creator.

As far as I can tell, detecting design ultimately relies on comparison to human design, the only form of design that we all agree on. ID claims that grasshoppers, for instance, have certain distinctive features that are shared by the products of human design but not by undesigned objects like pebbles. The problem is that pebbles are just as much God's creation as grasshoppers. If "design" is to be understood as a synonym of "creation, if God is the Great Designer, then pebbles and grasshoppers and everything else are designed. There is then, nothing that is undesigned.

You can have a 'scientific ID' where the designer is some finite inhabitant of the universe -- I happen to think it's scientifically incorrect and incompatible with Christianity, but it is theoretically compatible with methodological naturalism. Or, you can have 'theological ID' where everything is created by God and design is simply a synonym for creation (and a theological rather than scientific concept). Theological ID is also compatible with the use of methodological naturalism in the sciences

25

What the OP does is swallow the modernistic, naturalistic elevation of science to the "arbiter of all truth".

Since I'm certain that you don't mean Joe's post by OP, you must mean mine, and I have to ask you where you get the idea that I make science the arbiter of all truth.

26

"All you had to do was admit you didn't know. I guess in order to save face you can't even muster that. For someone so critical, you have a surpising lack of knowledge about what you are criticizing. Keep trying. If you really want to tear down the Bible, you might want to actually, you know, read it."

Ok i ll play along then...

-1:Are there gaps or omissions in the biblical geneology?

i dont know...but i dont know that there are and i have yet to encounter anyone who can demonstrate that the genealogy is incomplete is such a way that it would change the 6000 years figure...can you? can anyone? maybe there are invisible pages in the bible that i cant see...maybe they can only be seen by people who equip their patented Poof Magic God scanner glasses...since i dont have any such glasses i have to rely on those who have them to tell me...but as of yet they seem to agree with me that there are no missing patriarch in the genealogy. maybe you personally know of some...can you name them? it would certainly help the conversation move along...

-2:Why do you assume that creation occurred in six literal days?

I dont know...why do you assume that creation literally means creation or 6 literally means 6? or that literal literally means literal? I have a good idea where this argument is going? "what if days to God means millions of years" right?...well, here the counter argument you never hear from christians...what if days actually means one tenth of a billionth of a nano second? or what if different days means different things?...first day 3 billions years...second day 2 second...third day blue...4 day patrick...fifth day a weekend at burma...6th day 24 hours...and then are these literal hours? and lets tie that one with your third question...

-3:what was the purpose of the creation story in Genesis for its intended audience?

who is the intended audience...humans? christians?...fundamentalist evengelicals? athiests? Pagans? who?

Of course i dont know the answers to your questions...i dont even know if YOU know the answer to your questions...i dont even know if YOU know the meaning of the questions themselves...why?...because you delve into hypothetical hyperboles and you are the only one who can answer those kinds of question for yourself

27

No, I am talking about the post above, the first one on this page, entitled: Clearly Perceived in Creation:
Why Christians Must Reject Naturalism.

I have not read your post he links to entitled Why the Creation-Evolution Debate is Important.

28

To follow up, what I am saying is that the author above, without intending it, actually buys into the atheistic, naturalistic elevation is science as a field of inquiry. Very, very ironic, but very true.

29

Paul is crystal clear on this point: When men fail to acknowledge God as revealed in nature they become "foolish" and "futile in their thinking" (reasoning).

The problem here is that this is not what IDers, creationists, and people like Joe do. They, and I'm not sure they are aware of this, set up a dichotomy between stuff that doesn't reveal God and stuff that does. For example, they argue that life could not have begun through chemistry on the early earth therefore God did it and that is God revealed in nature.

But what Paul is saying is that God is revealed in nature...not outside of nature. In otherwords, God is revealed in the most boring, most mundane chemistry 101 reaction. God is revealed in, say, the creation of table salt. Where Joe goes with this, though, is just the opposite. God is in the first DNA strand but not in a grain of salt forming. If 'just chemistry' can explain the orgin of life then it becomes just like table salt. What eludes Joe and many on this list is that Paul is actually saying something very deep. It isn't 'just table salt' or 'just chemistry'.

Now for the hard part for evangelicals. There is nothing obvious about a statement like this. You either see it or you don't. It's like saying something like "a child's laughter reflects all that's good in the world". YOu either see that or brush it off as over the top wannabe poetry.

Vance
But, the supernatural, but its very definition is NOT natural. While it can be perceived by humans on a higher level, and in a very real way (thus Romans and Psalms), it can not be analyzed and tested and determined by the very limited method of natural inquiry.

This is nonsense. If the supernatural is real then it is natural. In the end you are just talking about conceptual categories that are created by ourselves for our own ease.

To see how silly this statement is why don't you look at some examples of supernatural claims. The Red Sea parted. A virgin gave birth. A man called his friend who was dead and the friend was then alive. A man who was killed rose from the dead three days later. A woman claiming to be a 2000 year old virgin appeared to some peasent girls and gave them predictions about the future. A psychic informed the police about where a murder victim's body was located. A man bends spoons by 'concentrating' on them. All these claims, whether you believe, half believe or outright dismiss them are empiracal. If CNN was set up by the Red Sea either their cameras would have or wouldn't have caught it parting. An autoposy on Lazzarus would or wouldn't have indicated he was dead before he 'rose' again. The man who bends spoons was or was not shown to be a fraud by a professional skeptic and magician.

Nick
As far as I can tell, detecting design ultimately relies on comparison to human design, the only form of design that we all agree on. ID claims that grasshoppers, for instance, have certain distinctive features that are shared by the products of human design but not by undesigned objects like pebbles. The problem is that pebbles are just as much God's creation as grasshoppers. If "design" is to be understood as a synonym of "creation, if God is the Great Designer, then pebbles and grasshoppers and everything else are designed. There is then, nothing that is undesigned.

Ahhhhhh someone gets it!!!!!

You can have a 'scientific ID' where the designer is some finite inhabitant of the universe -- I happen to think it's scientifically incorrect and incompatible with Christianity, but it is theoretically compatible with methodological naturalism.

Indeed, not for nothing do IDers make such a big deal that their designer doesn't have to be a supernatural beign. By definition if something is 'detectable' then it has to not exist in places or else what are you really detecting? You can't say a diamond is hard unless you have knowledge of things that are softer or harder. If 'design' is some detectable quality then it is detectable in some things and not others. And then you've talked yourself out of even having God as a possibility. If he designed the grasshopper then who designed the pebble? If the pebble doesn't yield to your 'design detector' then you've failed to "see God in nature" therefore you're not setting yourself up against the scripture you're supposedly defending.

30

thanks for the post. it was an encouragement to me.

31

Vance: Oh! I see. I was pretty slow to catch your point, but I do now.

32

"What the OP does is swallow the modernistic, naturalistic elevation of science to the "arbiter of all truth"

Well it is and you probably "swallow" it too without realising.heres how...A man is murdered and a suspect is arrested shortly thereafter with blood on his person and a bloody butcher knife. Forenzic analysis reveals that the blood on his cloth and on the knife came from the victim,who was incidently stabbed to death and who's body sports stab wounds that match the knife and prints of the suspects hand are lifted from the handle adn succesfully identified. Furthermore,a video camera caught the entire things and a canvass of the neighborhood reveals that several people say they heard the 2 men argueing hours earlier and that the suspect actually threatened to stab the victim with a butcher knife before the day was over. Now,the suspect in his own defense claims that he did not do it...that it was in fact the work of a 10 year old chinese boy in Beijin named Chang who had never met either men and was celebrating his birthday with his family at the time te victim was being killed half way across the world. The suspect then add to clarify that the chinese boy avtually seized contol of his body half a world away and remote controlled it as a tool of assassination to further the cause of the Devil because both men were devout members of a local congregation....so...if you agree with the case against the suspected murderer,built on a mountain of evidence linking him directly to the murder of his victim, which i magine you would in a snap,isent then science an arbiter of truth?

33

Taking Joe down a peg again:

This is the real reason why the creation/evolution is important. It is not the disputes over data that is significant but rather the disagreements over the philosophical presuppositions. It is a matter of grave importance for all those who love science for, as can clearly be deduced from Paul's argument, atheism leads to faulty reasoning and, ultimately, to flawed science.

This is why creation/evolution is UNimportant. There are no 'philosophical presupposition' in regards to evolution that doesn't also apply to, say, table salt. If Joe cannot see God in table salt he stands in opposition to Paul's argument, which he claims to support.

You don’t have to be a Young-Earth Creationists or an advocate of Intelligent Design theory to be a Bible-believing Christian. But a Bible-believing Christian must believe that God's attributes--including His intelligence, power, and wisdom--can be clearly perceived--empirically detected--in Creation. To believe otherwise is to exchange the truth of God for the lie of naturalism.

But look carefully. In Paul's day they didn't have biochemistry, fossils or electron microscopes. Quite frankly, they had table salt and that's about it. What Paul is saying is a lot more subtle and a lot more radical than Joe would care to even imagine. He is saying that God is visible in creation which is everything. Not so-called 'profound' questions such as the ultimate origin of man or the Big Bang or what makes up dark matter. etc.

34

Ludwig,

Watching you attempt to argue reminds me of the old saw about presnting a case for trial if the facts aren't on your side argue the law, if the law isn't on your side, pound your shoe on the desk. It would be interesting to dialog about the particulars of the Genesis creation account, however your lack of knowledge makes it impossible. Moreover, your inability to simply say "I don't know, could you please explain" says a lot about your level of intellectual curiosity and honesy.

You are like the blind man arguing about what color the sky is. Or someone debating whether Ted Williams was the greatest hitter without having seen a baseball game.

35

Boonton:

You seem to have missed my point. I did not mean that the supernatural does not impinge upon the natural. The point is that when it does, it is just that, SUPERnatural, it is something that does not happen according to the natural way things happen. If there is a natural explanation, then it is not supernatural. So, miracles are supernatural, not natural, even though they happen in the natural world.

The point is that science is the study of how things happen in their natural way of happening. That means that it can not say much at all about the supernatural, either to support or deny that it happened. If it is observed, that is not "science" observing it, it is just PEOPLE observing.

So, a miracle is not contrary to science, since it does not fall within its purview.

Ludwig, yes, indeed, I would consider the scientific evidence very powerful in that case and almost assuredly would let that evidence control my decision. But NOT because science is the arbiter of all truth, but because I just do not believe that particular supernatural explanation.

A person who has elevated science to be the arbiter of truth is one who thinks that science should be able to answer all questions, both the natural and the supernatural. I say that we should allow science to do its limited job of describing the natural as best it can, but then realizing that this is not the end of the story.

36

"Ludwig, yes, indeed, I would consider the scientific evidence very powerful in that case and almost assuredly would let that evidence control my decision. But NOT because science is the arbiter of all truth, but because I just do not believe that particular supernatural explanation. "

so in other worse,you get to pick and choose what "supernatural" explanation you believe according to whatever strikes your fancy at any given moment?...well...sounds very conveniant,dont it...just out of curiosity...what is the "arbiter of truth" and how do you know that it is?

37

Well, yes, of course I get to choose. I definitely can't rely on someone else to choose. It is a matter of personal experience, conviction, and supernatural conviction at that. It is the type of experience that causes faith. This faith then tells me that God is the arbiter of truth, and so I seek all of His revelations, starting with Scripture.

38

The point is that when it does, it is just that, SUPERnatural, it is something that does not happen according to the natural way things happen. If there is a natural explanation, then it is not supernatural. So, miracles are supernatural, not natural, even though they happen in the natural world.

The problem, though, is that these are just labels that have no inherit meaning. Let me illustrate with a discussion I read about number theory. Imagine 'interesting' numbers. Perhaps 666 is one because of its association with satanism. Perhaps 13 is one because it is unlucky. Now imagine the biggest possible interesting number. Well, what is that? If X is the biggest possible interesting number then X+1 must be uninteresting. But doesn't that make X+1 interesting as the beginning of all the uninteresting numbers?

But "interesting" and "uninteresting" are just labels that you are applying. 999,999,999 is still just 1 away from 999,999,998 whether or not you call them interesting or uninteresting.

If a virgin birth happened then it is natural. It is no more supernatural than a leaf falling off a tree after a slight breeze.

So, a miracle is not contrary to science, since it does not fall within its purview.

It doesn't? Take ghosts, they are supernatural. If tomorrow someone said they had a ghost trapped inside a magenetic field and it could be studied just like you can study a bird in a cage would it still be supernatural? What about the Shroud of Turin? Why so much scientific study of that if the supernatural is outside the purview of science?

A person who has elevated science to be the arbiter of truth is one who thinks that science should be able to answer all questions, both the natural and the supernatural. I say that we should allow science to do its limited job of describing the natural as best it can, but then realizing that this is not the end of the story.

And where is this breaking point? Your position seems to be that God made some things natural and other things supernatural. OK, do the supernatural things have any ability to interact with the natural things? If they do then you can study them by observing natural things. Are they still really supernatural? I don't think so. If they don't then you can't study them by looking at natural things which leaves Joe's argument dead in the water.

39

"Watching you attempt to argue reminds me of the old saw about presnting a case for trial if the facts aren't on your side argue the law, if the law isn't on your side, pound your shoe on the desk. It would be interesting to dialog about the particulars of the Genesis creation account, however your lack of knowledge makes it impossible. Moreover, your inability to simply say "I don't know, could you please explain" says a lot about your level of intellectual curiosity and honesy.
"

that is neither a fair nor accurate assessement of my argumentation. I specifically said i dont know the answer to your followup questions no less than 3 times and asked you to clarify what you meant because you seemed to imply that we do not have the same definition of certain words and i wished to know your definition of these key words so i could at least find out what we are talking about here. As per your original question" Why can't the Bible and evolution be reconciled? Enlighten me." i believe i ve answered it to the best of my ability and it is you who has been changing the subject ever since because you did not like the answer i gave you and countered by argueing against the "law" (in this case the commonly accepted definition of certain words).

"You are like the blind man arguing about what color the sky is. Or someone debating whether Ted Williams was the greatest hitter without having seen a baseball game. "

to that i can only answer that you are like my 7 year old niece who has an imaginary possum friend that only she can see and hear and which she says i cant see and hear because i m not a 7 year old girl. That may serve as an argument on your planet but on this one it is known as a figment of imagination run amok. But i believe i m begining to understand the appeal of such world views...in your peculiar little universe,you re the only one who can know th whole truth,who can see the true meaning of reality whereas everyone else gets it wrong....even the people who mostly agree with you still arent getting all the facts excatly right and need you to explain it to them...and it makes you feel very special...unique...the cornerstone of creation...the spokesman of God to other lesser mortals...the funniest part about all of this is that virtually every religionist is like that and thanks to the magic of supernatural explanations,you can all believe yourselves to be the only one who's right all at the same time...but hey...how would i know...i m a blind man who doesnt have a clue what the sky is,right?

40

"Well, yes, of course I get to choose. I definitely can't rely on someone else to choose. It is a matter of personal experience, conviction, and supernatural conviction at that. It is the type of experience that causes faith. This faith then tells me that God is the arbiter of truth, and so I seek all of His revelations, starting with Scripture."

and since you are the only one who gets to decide what reality is according the feelings that traverse your mind without relying on anything outside of it to reinforce your certainties,you could actually be imagining the whole thing and you would never know,would you?...tell me...the crazy guy in some booby hatch who's dead convinced he's Jesus Christ re-incarnated...how can you tell he's actually NOT? Do you even know what Faith means? its not someone who believes...its someone who WANTS what he believes in to be true and a leap of faith is someone who acts as though what he believes in is true,weather or not it actually is...faith is a good thing to have in life in general...but a very poor thing to rely on when it comes to specifics because Faith cannot be divorced from what you personally WANT the truth to be and if Faith is your only tool for mesuring what is true,then truth therefore becomes whatever YOU want it to be. to me,thats an uttely insane worldview.

41

Boonton:

We can often study the physical effects or natural results of supernatural events, sure. If they are there to be studied. But that is not studying the actual supernatural itself. If something is considered supernatural, that is a definitional matter, meaning that the causative agent is not something natural, even if it is impacting something natural and even leaving natural evidence behind.

Thus, a virgin birth is both natural and supernatural. It is something that happens in the natural world, with natural results, but it is the result of supernatural causation. It is something that is contrary to natural laws and processes, so science can only record the effects, not analyze the cause.

But, yes, I think Joe's argument is very likely dead in the water, but for very different reasons than you might, I suppose. I don't think God created in a way to allow the Creation itself to provide naturalistic proof of the supernatural, ie Himself.

42

Thus, a virgin birth is both natural and supernatural. It is something that happens in the natural world, with natural results, but it is the result of supernatural causation. It is something that is contrary to natural laws and processes, so science can only record the effects, not analyze the cause.

The ability to determine a cause follows from examination of the evidence. You seem to be defining supernatural as effects without causes. (Before you say supernatural cause stop, it would be circular reasoning). But how do you prove something is without a cause? Since all evidence of a 2000 year old virgin birth is long gone there's no way to see if a cause couldn't be found (hypothetically, suppose there is a biological quirk that lets 1 in 20 billion women conceive despite being a virgin?)

How about claims that a house is haunted? The ghost, if it exists, is natural. It has properties that can be observed. Perhaps those properties cannot be derived from any combination of elements on the periodic table but no one ever said the periodic table is the sum of all of nature.

But, yes, I think Joe's argument is very likely dead in the water, but for very different reasons than you might, I suppose. I don't think God created in a way to allow the Creation itself to provide naturalistic proof of the supernatural, ie Himself.

Indeed, it's kind of like characters in a book trumping the book's author. I'm not going to say its paradoxical but when you really start thinking about it, something seems very wrong. It's as if you're taking something you say is infinite (God) and then acting as if it is something finite that can be put into a box, sampled and examined.

43

Boonton,

I do not define supernatural as events without causes, just events without natural causes. Your entire arguments are bound up in the proposition that only what is observable is real and what is real is observable.

And you seem to be assuming that I think that a supernatural cause can be provable. I am not making that argument at all. The belief in the existence of the supernatural is based entirely on faith ("the evidence of things NOT seen").

Assume, for the sake of argument, that there was a supernatural force out there occasionally acting upon our natural world in ways that are contrary to the natural laws and processes that science has rightly observed and described. Now, assuming that this DID occur, what would you expect to be able to observe and prove with science alone?

Let's say there WAS a virgin birth, and it really was the result of a supernatural causation. And let's say that there were scientists on hand to see the results and study her. What would they find? They would see the result, but what would they posit as the cause? They could not just throw up their hands and say "heck, beats me!". Well, they could say that, but their job would be to provide the best natural explanation they could. And rightly so. What they could not do was say "hey, it was a supernatural event!". The closest the could say was that it seems, based on the evidence, to be something entirely different than what they expect to see in the natural order of things.

I am not at all trying to say that such a supernatural event would be self-provable to science, since science does not have any other job than describing the natural events and providing the best natural explanations. Yes, they would be very persuasive to those involved, though! And, those of us who believe that they were telling the truth are also pretty impressed.

44

Wow Joe...we'll make a Young Earth Creationist out of you yet. I'm amazed at the vitriol and animosity in many of the comments directed at this somewhat simple line of reasoning.

Either God can be "clearly perceived" in nature or He cannot. If He can, then there is empirical evidence of God's existence and we must reject a hard and fast rule of methodological naturalism for science. If He cannot, then the Bible is wrong and should not be trusted.

Ironically, many of the barbed comments here are from people who believe God cannot be clearly perceived in nature....thus making your initial point about who this post was directed at particularly poignant.

Additionally, the comments about being forced to lie also seem very accurate. When many have claimed that 'science' must be done via methodological naturalism even though God is clearly perceived, then they are ruling out the true or possibly true) option and science then is no longer about finding truth and must therefore lie when God has been involved.

But what I actually really object to is mostly not the lame and expected ad hominem attacks and unsupported claims of continued 'victory', but the stupid (and yes, they are stupid) comments about actual science and philosophy of science that have been made...

For instance
Boonton "Science is not about belief but about how to collect and evaluate evidence. There is no belief about a virgin birth 2000 years ago since all such evidence has long since been lost"

What a load of rubbish. Archeology and History, both used in scientific investigation, speak to this event. You may argue that the evidence is not strong enough or compelling, but to argue that there is no evidence is simply ludicrous AND would rule out most of the historical sciences.

Ludwig
"...since virtually all available evidence points to a world (and to an even greater degree a universe) that is immensly more ancient than 6000 years..."
This is patently false....all available evidence is interpreted in light of theory (perhaps Ludwig, you should bother to do some reading in introductory philosophy of science and theory-ladennes), which is based on presuppositions of God not doing it (i.e. methodological naturalism). Even if you ignore this basic lack of philosophical understanding of science with your comment,
there is plenty of evidence that the earth is not immensely old. You might argue that the evidence for an ancient earth is more compelling or stronger, but to claim that 'virtually all evidence' supports that view is just plain idiotic.

Vance
"Empirical evidence is, by definition, NATURAL evidence."

What a load of rubbish...empirical simply means 'originating in or based on observation or experience' (Webster) There is no requirement for it to be 'natural' (if that is even a valid concept). You are making a false distinction.

Boonton
"There are no 'philosophical presupposition' in regards to evolution that doesn't also apply to, say, table salt. "

Either you are disingenuously equivocating common descent evolution with simply change in allele frequency, or you just made the stupidest statement I have ever seen you make. There are massive presuppositions involved in any historical science (and indeed, current philosophy of science still argues over the validity of historical and thus indirect evidence and even whether there is a warrant from science for belief in unobserved entities, and by extension historical theories). There is no comparison between common descent evolutionary theory and the observation of table salt and to make such a statement reveals such gross ignorance that I am truly shocked...

45

Alan,

This entire discussion is about the empirical evidence being from nature itself, thus being natural. We are not talking about observing supernatural events themselves, but studying the natural effects of supernatural events (the creation itself, for instance). This type of empirical evidence is natural, and only natural, and can only be studied by science in that way.

You make a very dangerous argument before that, though, which has to be addressed:

"Either God can be "clearly perceived" in nature or He cannot."

So far, so good. But you should not limit that perception to scientifically provable evidence. Unless you have fallen into the mire of modernism and naturalism, you must accept that such perception can be spiritual, instinctive and God speaking directly to our soul through the power and beauty of nature. To require actual empirically testable data is very shallow and not an absolute requirement.

"If He can, then there is empirical evidence of God's existence and we must reject a hard and fast rule of methodological naturalism for science."

Well, if you want to describe empirical in such a way to include our broader experience of spirituality, etc, then sure. But if you are talking about testable, repeatable empirical evidence, then as stated above, this is overstating the point.

"If He cannot, then the Bible is wrong and should not be trusted."

This is where it gets dangerous. You have defined perception in a very specific way, and then insist that if God is not perceivable in THAT way, we should ditch the Bible. INCREDIBLY dangerous, not to mention presumptuous.

Here is an article I wrote on that very point I would urge you to consider:

http://submerging.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2007/09/04/creationism-v-evolution-the-danger-of-misplaced-dogmatism/

46

Ludwig,

Thank you for admitting you don't know anything about the Bible and are therefore unable to engage in any kind of educated critcism or discussion of what it does or doesn't say. Thanks for stopping by.

You heard somwhere that the Bible says the world is only 6000 years old, but can't cite a passage other than some vague rambling about counting the geneologies given in the Bible.

You heard somewhere that the Bible says the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days, but haven't done the study neccessary to back up your assertion.

You are unaware of the historical and cultural background of both the author of Genesis and its original intended audience.

You are ignorant. Instead of coming to the discussion as someone with little knowledge should, in a spirit of humility and inquiry, you come as a smug arrogant know it all. When you really don't know anything at all.

47

Ludwig,

Pay attention to Oclarki-he's sharing the love of Jesus Christ with you....can't you feel it in his words?

48

"This is patently false....all available evidence is interpreted in light of theory (perhaps Ludwig, you should bother to do some reading in introductory philosophy of science and theory-ladennes), which is based on presuppositions of God not doing it (i.e. methodological naturalism). Even if you ignore this basic lack of philosophical understanding of science with your comment,
there is plenty of evidence that the earth is not immensely old. You might argue that the evidence for an ancient earth is more compelling or stronger, but to claim that 'virtually all evidence' supports that view is just plain idiotic."

Really?...ok...radiometric dating allows one to measure the half life break down of radioactive isotopes...it also allows one to measure with predictable and repeatable results how many time a given isotope has broken down...several of these isotopes have a mesured half life of hundreds of millions of years and evidence has been found of the multiple stages of breakdown of these isotopes. Now you compare these with annual formation of earth stratas, you can get a good estimate of the age of the world and in all instances,the result you get is considerably more than 6000 years. Now i realise that this is a massive oversimplification and if you want a detailed explanation you can visit talk origin.org site...they have numerous acticles which detail the process at great lengh...now,of course you are free to presuppose that some time ago,radioactive isotopes decided to break down faster than they do today and when you present some concrete evidence of this presuposition,it will be my pleasure to discuss them with you but until then,i m afraid the actually observed rate of decay can be safely and rationally "presupposed" to be the same now that is was however long ago you want to go back to. Same with the light of distant stars...you are free to presuppose that the speed was accelerated during the "creation week" and then slowed down afterwards but with that presuposition comes a truckload of equally rational pseudotheories which must include the possibility that we were created 5 minutes ago complete with all memories and planted evidence that would lead us to believe we re actually older than that. this is utter nonsense. I trust the scientific cnclusions that the world is an ancient place because itsa the exact same scientific mindset that produced our ability to discuss the matter from a distance at this very moment...you wanna prove me wrong?...easiest thing in the world to do for a christian "Ask and you Shall receive"...so ask God to produce a bible class miracle before my very eyes NOW...thats all you have to do.

49

"Thank you for admitting you don't know anything about the Bible and are therefore unable to engage in any kind of educated critcism or discussion of what it does or doesn't say. Thanks for stopping by."

Well since you have once again refused to give me any of the clarifications as aksed in order to better answer your question, thank you for making me see that you are exactly like my 7 year old niece with her invisible talking possum that only she can see and that i ve been wasting my time trying to have a rational discussion with you dude...peace.

50

"Wow Joe...we'll make a Young Earth Creationist out of you yet."

I'm amazed anyone would wish this on a person. It's tantamount to saying "Wow, Joe, we'll get you that lobotomy at last!"

51

Ludwig,

OK, I see where you're coming from. But there are a couple of major problems with using radiometric dating as a basis for determining how old the earth is:

1) You don't know - no one does - how much of the original was the pure substance and how much was already partially broken down when the original began. For radiometric dating to be accurate, only parent radioactive atoms could have existed in the original rock.

2) There must be absolutely no contamination of the system, no matter how many millions of years are supposed to have passed. No parent atoms can have been removed, and no daughter atoms can have been added, or the dating will be flawed.

3) You yourself also mentioned the issue that the rate of decay must have remained constant over the centuries.

If any of these presuppositions are violated, the result of the dating will be false.

In real life, when rocks of known age are sent for radiometric dating, they regularly produce false results. For example, in 1996 11 samples were collected from the Ngauruhoe volcano in New Zealand. The samples were from lava flows whose ages were known: two from 1949, seven from three different eruptions in 1954, and two from 1975. The samples were sent to Geochron Laboratories, a respected commercial lab whose potassium-argon manager has a Ph.D. in potassium-argon dating. But the lab "ages" for these rocks ranged from

I'm sorry, but if you are trusting radiometric dating to "prove" that the earth is millions of years old, you are most likely relying on false information. If the radiometric method fails repeatedly on rocks when we have independent eyewitness accounts, how can we rely on it for rocks we don't know about?

52

This post is probably going to become an object lesson on not posting while drinking Scotch. I really ought to print out this thread, and consider the various arguments and positions.

On the other hand, a couple of posters appear to be arguing past each other, and a few more (like me) only post one message. My (few) comments may well reveal either my ignorance or my drinking.

First, Romans 1 only defines how a pagan should consider the world; it does not define how a Christian views the world. Quite a number of years ago, I received a revelation from God. Unlike many reported revelations, mine was quite limited; I was told by God "The Gospels are in essence true." While I had been attending Christian churches for years, I had many, many doubts. Now I have many doubts, but the certainty of "the essence of the Gospels" has affected my thinking.

Of course, that left many gaps. It did not exactly tell me how to view the Epistles, or St. John's Revelation, or parts of the Old Testament. Still, it makes me different from "professional Christians".

Now, to the topic.

There is a rational basis to criticize the Theory of Evolution. I do not refer to the almost certain evidence that horses (as just one example) evolved from earlier, smaller animals. Instead, I refer to the vacuum about how first life was created. I am aware of the experiment which shows that the primordial soup could have arisen from a methane atmosphere and lightning (creating amino acids.)

Evolution happens. We have only to look at bacterial species responding to antibiotics, or even to the birds Darwin studied in the Galapogos Islands.

But there is no reason to believe that the primordial soup could have given rise to life.

The Intelligent Design people have, at least, identified places where the Theory of Evolution should direct its attention. The identification of blood clotting as an irreducibly complex phenomenon should be fairly easy to refute, using just fish, amphibians, reptiles and so on to identify how blood clotting evolved.

But even refuting every problem raised by the ID people will not rescue the Theory of Evolution, in essence. The Theory of Evolution must propose some mechanism which yields DNA.

I have other thoughts, but I'm about to follow Dean Martin: "I drink, I fall down, I awake." Or something like that.

53

I do not define supernatural as events without causes, just events without natural causes. Your entire arguments are bound up in the proposition that only what is observable is real and what is real is observable.

On the contrary, there are plenty of unobservable things. For example, I pointed out we have no evidence left of a virgin birth 2000+ years ago. We have no witnesses to cross-examine, no physicals that can be given to the mother nothing. In addition there are things that are unobservable in principle such as inside the event horizen of a black hole or space beyond our visible universe (assuming the speed of light is really the fastest we can ever possibly go). In addition, Godel proved that there will be true statements that cannot be proven as well as false ones that cannot be proven false. So I'm quite comfortable knowing there are many areas our knowledge is limited. If you want to boil my position down to a sentence try the line from Star Trek, "Nothing unreal exists"

Assume, for the sake of argument, that there was a supernatural force out there occasionally acting upon our natural world in ways that are contrary to the natural laws and processes that science has rightly observed and described. Now, assuming that this DID occur, what would you expect to be able to observe and prove with science alone?

How would you tell this apart from natural laws being a little less law-like?

Let's say there WAS a virgin birth, and it really was the result of a supernatural causation. And let's say that there were scientists on hand to see the results and study her. What would they find? They would see the result, but what would they posit as the cause? They could not just throw up their hands and say "heck, beats me!". Well, they could say that, but their job would be to provide the best natural explanation they could. And rightly so. What they could not do was say "hey, it was a supernatural event!". The closest the could say was that it seems, based on the evidence, to be something entirely different than what they expect to see in the natural order of things.

Of course there is a procedual bias towards known natural explanations. Hence when you go to a magician's show you tend to assume he has found a clever way to trick your eyes, not that he has developed a technology to invert gravity or to make matter materialize. But at the end of the day if nothing else the event would have to be recorded as a one off event in natural history. As I pointed out suppose that one out of twenty billion women can pull off a virgin birth. One observation in all of recorded history would be about right then wouldn't it? You may say this is a cop out but I think there are, in fact, just a few 'one offs' in science just like this. For example, as far as I've read the inflation that happened right after the Big Bang 'just was'. There's no mechanism or cause and it only seems to have happened once. Supernatural?

I am not at all trying to say that such a supernatural event would be self-provable to science, since science does not have any other job than describing the natural events and providing the best natural explanations.

I think you're implying a definition of supernatural that just means "natural event of unknown cause or explanation". If that's so then I suppose it's ok but you've hitched a lot to a very fuzzy target.

Alan
What a load of rubbish. Archeology and History, both used in scientific investigation, speak to this event. You may argue that the evidence is not strong enough or compelling, but to argue that there is no evidence is simply ludicrous AND would rule out most of the historical sciences.

Point taken but there isn't going to be a cat scan of the Virgin Mary dug out of some dig. Even today I suspect medical scientists would say they couldn't establish a virgin birth after birth so any mother-to-be who claimed to be a virgin would need to be examined before giving birth. So yea I'll give you historic evidence but that's about it and it isn't much of a point you've made.

There are massive presuppositions involved in any historical science ...

Please list them. Since they are so 'massive' this should be an easy request.

54

") You don't know - no one does - how much of the original was the pure substance and how much was already partially broken down when the original began. For radiometric dating to be accurate, only parent radioactive atoms could have existed in the original rock."

Flatly and absolutely incorrect--as is the rest of the post. This is scientifically the most ignorant post I have read in some time.

A comprehensive analyis of radiometric dating from a Christian perspective is here:

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

He begins by observing: "Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating."

His article is a detailed discussion by a beliving Christian of the accuracy of radioisotope dating.

He includes a list of COMMON MISPERCEPTIONS.

Here are two of them (with his responses)

MISPECEPTION 10. To date a rock one must know the original amount of the parent element. But there is no way to measure how much parent element was originally there.

SHORT ANSWER: It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life.

MISPERCEPTION 11. There is little or no way to tell how much of the decay product, that is, the daughter isotope, was originally in the rock, leading to anomalously old ages.

SHORT ANSWER: A good part of this article is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope. For example, in the rubidium-strontium method one compares rubidium-87/strontium-86 to strontium-87/strontium-86 for different minerals. From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay). Figures 4 and 5, and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof, comparison of several dating methods will always show whether the given date is reliable."

==========

I cannot recommend this article highly enough. Although lengthy, it covers the entire subject and removes all doubts regarding the accuracy of readioisotope dating.

55

Need evidence for the Bible? Take a look at Bible prophecy, the ultimate validation of the supernatural nature of this book.

A sampling:

-- Dramatic rebirth and agricultural development of the nation of Israel (Ezekiel 37)
-- Continuous political instability surrounding the city of Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:3)
-- Military alliance between Russia and Iran which will eventually lead to a preemptive strike against Israel (Ezekiel 38)
-- Rebuilding of Israel's temple (Revelation 11:1)
-- Reemergence of European coalition (Book of Daniel)

If the Bible is reliable in predicting the future, we should also be able to trust it's record of past history.

56

When we are talking about the cause behind the origin of nature, of course we cannot appeal to naturalism.

And before even talking about evolution, let's cut down Darwin's tree at the stump: there is no theory of abiogenesis. It is as impossible as the evolution of Honda's Asimo robot from a junkyard.

Let's go even further than that and hack at the roots: there is no naturalistic explanation for the fine tuning of this universe's constants.

You have to jump through these (impossible) hoops before being able to consider evolution, since these issues precede evolution.

57

"-- Dramatic rebirth and agricultural development of the nation of Israel (Ezekiel 37)"

if someone is aware of a given "prediction" and takes steps to make it happen,does that really make the prediction supernatural in origin? i predict that sometime next week some will go to his local grocery story and buy chocolate milk...admit it...you re impressed by my suopernatural prediction capablity

"-- Continuous political instability surrounding the city of Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:3)"

that prediction is false...there have been several quiet times in Jerusalem...some lasting over centuries...strike 2

"-- Military alliance between Russia and Iran which will eventually lead to a preemptive strike against Israel (Ezekiel 38)"

Ezekiel refers to a war taking place with the help of horses,arrows swords and shields and Gog is supposadly a "spirit of atheism". from the land of Rosh. While atheism existed in the former communist party, most people is Russia belong the the catholic orthodox faith and are no athiests by any stretch of the imagination. And the communist party was removed from power and will likely never return to power because Russian society has changed dramatically toward a market based ecconomy. In any event,since this "prediction" has not come to pass and probably never will,how can it be used and an exemple of the supernatural origin of the bible?

"-- Rebuilding of Israel's temple (Revelation 11:1)"

another prediction that has not come to pass but even if it did,its reconstruction would come as the result of the actions of people who are aware of the prophecy and would be taking active steps to make it come to pass so you have the same problem as the first. strike 3

"-- Reemergence of European coalition (Book of Daniel)"

what you mean Nebukadnezar's dream? thats one of the clearest exemple of christian appologists seeing what they want to see...you have to twist it several times upon itself to make it fit historical events..whats more you can amke that dream fit hundreds of possible historical as well as non historical scenarios...Daniel's interpretation of the Dream is in turn interpreted by christians who basically chose teh interpretation they like and pretend that there are no other...strike 4

58

"When we are talking about the cause behind the origin of nature, of course we cannot appeal to naturalism."

No appeal needed...the natural is observed and recorded and identified..the supernatural is neither observed nor recorded and as such is impossible to identify...so how do you decide which supernatural origin of nature is the correct one? Why the God of the bible and not the invisible pink Unicorn?

"And before even talking about evolution, let's cut down Darwin's tree at the stump: there is no theory of abiogenesis. It is as impossible as the evolution of Honda's Asimo robot from a junkyard. "

Thats an invalid albeit oft repeated comparaison...a junkyard is not a living organism and as such it takes no step to adapt to its environement and pass on this adaptation to its offspring

"Let's go even further than that and hack at the roots: there is no naturalistic explanation for the fine tuning of this universe's constants.
"

exactlly what fine tuning are you refering to?

"You have to jump through these (impossible) hoops before being able to consider evolution, since these issues precede evolution.
"

and yet for all these difficulties,(most of them false but lets say they are true for the sake of argument), the position of the methodological naturalists is preferabe to that of the supernaturalists because the later possess no means to differenciate their supernatural explanations from the figments of their imagination.

59

Silly bloggers. It's quite simple.

Evolution is as atheistic as our sun-centered solar system.

People used to believe that believing the sun was the center (and not the Earth) was tantamount to disproving the Bible and the existance of God. They were wrong, weren't they? We all know that the Earth goes around the sun (in apparent contradiction to what the Bible says), but that discovery does absolutely nothing to disprove God or advance atheism.

Evolution is the same way. That's how we got here, it's a scientific fact, and should not affect anyone except the most backward fundmentalist young-earthers.

As it's been said, "Evolution is as atheistic as plumbing."

60

Ludwig, thanks for engaging in the dialogue.

Regarding prophecy #1, the reemergence of the state of Israel defied all odds. The Jewish people were dispersed among the nations for 2000 years, but amazingly they maintained their cultural identity. The Jewish people did not really have the power to create their own state -- it was only after the horrific events of the Holocaust that the world had pity on the Jewish people.

Regarding #2, I should have qualified the timing (actually the verse says, "in that day"). Jerusalem has indeed been a trouble-filled city since Israel became a state again. Who in their wildest imaginations would have predicted that a country smaller than New Jersey would be one of the most contentious areas in the world? The Middle East is the main hotspot of the world, Israel is the main hotspot in the Middle East, and Jerusalem is the main hotspot in Israel. Biblical prophecy centers around the tiny nation of Israel, and interestingly enough, so do today's headlines.

Regarding #3, yes, it has not happened yet. But perhaps one can find clues to see if the stage is being set. For instance, Google "Russia Iran" to see the military alliance that is being developed.

Regarding #4, even if they wanted to rebuild the temple, the temple mount is not open for construction. Something dramatic would have to happen.

Regarding #5, there is one standard interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and that is of the 4 world empires: Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman. The dream also talks about the revival of the Roman empire, which many Bible scholars construe to be the reemergence of Europe as a united superpower.

61

"Thats an invalid albeit oft repeated comparaison...a junkyard is not a living organism and as such it takes no step to adapt to its environement and pass on this adaptation to its offspring"

When we talk about abiogenesis, we are talking about the very origin of life. So there is no such thing as adaptation or natural selection because there is no life yet.

Regarding fine tuning, I am talking about the fine tuning of constants like the gravitational constant (G = 6.67*10^-11), which, if set incorrectly (raised or lowered by even a tenth of a percent), would cause the universe to be totally inhospitable to life. This is accepted science.

62

Henry Neufeld writes: My point about "wrinkles" is that we see God in all creation, not in places where God has intervened over time. My problem with ID is not "design," which I accept as a Christian, but rather with the detection of design.

Part of my problem there is theological and not scientific. The idea that God's design should be more manifested in one place in nature than another grates on me. That God should have to regularly intervene in the normal processes of nature suggests to me an inept creator.

"we see God in all creation" is a trite thing to say if it has no relevance to methodological [or in practice, ontological] naturalism, which assumes the opposite. Christians do not believe in a Sky God or a pantheistically inactive one, but an active one 'who holds all things together'. [Colossians 1: 15ff.]

Either we use design univocally - as design, and not as 'design' [Henry's term], or we are using double-talk and actually believe that God does NOT 'intervene' in 'normal' processes. What IS 'normal' in reality, except what limited scientific knowledge defines as such - so a circular argument. Atheistic Evolutionists believe God had no part even in initiating creation, let alone managing it by intervening in it. Christians believe the opposite, which is what Joe is saying. Theistic evolutionists give the farm away by trying to argue both sides, which is why Henry wants to short-change our theology - to avoid any deep conflict with atheists.

What do you mean, Henry, by supernatural 'design' that cannot, by your own definition of science, be 'detected' by our normal or rational methods. It is devoid of content. The Bible preaches an active Creator, not even an 'inept' occasional one. Evolution demands we believe only in naturalistic creation by 'natural' selection, surely.

63

"Regarding prophecy #1, the reemergence of the state of Israel defied all odds. The Jewish people were dispersed among the nations for 2000 years, but amazingly they maintained their cultural identity. The Jewish people did not really have the power to create their own state -- it was only after the horrific events of the Holocaust that the world had pity on the Jewish people."

the steps to re-establish the Nation of Israel were put well underway long before the holocaust and most holocaust survivors did not choose to return to Israel...they either remained where they were or moved to america...and jews have splintered into many groups with wildly differing cultural identities influenced to a large extent by their surrounding. In any event,the people who put forward the zionist project were aware of the so called "prophecy" and took it upon themselves to make it happen...where the God magic in that?

"Regarding #2, I should have qualified the timing (actually the verse says, "in that day"). Jerusalem has indeed been a trouble-filled city since Israel became a state again. Who in their wildest imaginations would have predicted that a country smaller than New Jersey would be one of the most contentious areas in the world? The Middle East is the main hotspot of the world, Israel is the main hotspot in the Middle East, and Jerusalem is the main hotspot in Israel. Biblical prophecy centers around the tiny nation of Israel, and interestingly enough, so do today's headlines."

the middle east is a main hot spot of world events because of OIL...jerusalem is merely a point of contention between jews and arabs,the later having most of the OIL...and as i said,since Jerusalem has indeed known several periods of tranquility in the last 2000 years,many lasting centuries, and since those period of political stability occured AFTER the prediction was made that there would never be any peace around Jerusalem,the prophecy is therefore invalidated.

"Regarding #3, yes, it has not happened yet. But perhaps one can find clues to see if the stage is being set. For instance, Google "Russia Iran" to see the military alliance that is being developed."

But that does not alter the fact that A: Russia was never really an athiestic nation,even under the reign of the communist party and is even less so now that its turned to market based economy (invalidating the Gog part) or that B:Neither army uses horses,swords,shields and arrows as tools of war,invalidating another part of the prophecy. Furthermore,if Iran retaliated against Israel for the laters preemptive skrike against Iran's nuclear industry,which is really the likeliest scenario we face,such an attack could never be called "unprovoked"

"Regarding #4, even if they wanted to rebuild the temple, the temple mount is not open for construction. Something dramatic would have to happen. "

Indeed...but that does not change the fact that Israel is militarely in countrol of the whole area and could conceivably decide to erect the temple again whenever they chose to and since the prophecy was given a completely open ended time frame,it really doesnt demonstrate anything at all...again,where s the God magic in that "prophecy"

"Regarding #5, there is one standard interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and that is of the 4 world empires: Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman. The dream also talks about the revival of the Roman empire, which many Bible scholars construe to be the reemergence of Europe as a united superpower. "

which is exactly the point i made...christians appologist seeing what they want to see and ignoring what they dont want to see...i could easily give you several other interpretations that would be every bit as valid as the "standard" (read:christian) interpretation as well as point out several flaws in the standard interpretation...a good exemple is about the third kingdom who was supposed to have laid dominion over ALL the earth...the persians never extende their rule beyond the Middle east and south west asia...they never ruled over china,japan,australia or America.

64

When we talk about abiogenesis, we are talking about the very origin of life. So there is no such thing as adaptation or natural selection because there is no life yet.

So what? That's like saying you can't write a book about the Roman Empire unless you first know all there is to know about the Greeks. Science is more like a jigsaw puzzle, you put together the pieces you can first instead of trying to put them all in at once. It isn't surprising that abiogenesis theory is less developed than evolution theory. You are dealing with something that happened deeper in the past for which it is very hard to find direct evidence. Our picture of what happened on 9/19/2007 is a lot clearer than our picture of what happened on 9/19/1507.

Regarding fine tuning, I am talking about the fine tuning of constants like the gravitational constant (G = 6.67*10^-11), which, if set incorrectly (raised or lowered by even a tenth of a percent), would cause the universe to be totally inhospitable to life. This is accepted science.

1. How do you know it was tuned? It may very well be a constant either that just is or as a result of other constants.

2. If it is 'tuned' what makes you think the 'tuner' is set in increments of a tenth of a percent? The 'tuner' may very well be set in increments smaller than the Plank scale...in other words smaller than any of can even imagine.

3. Inhospitable to life as we know it. There's no way you could work out all the implications of a different constant. Life in such an alternate universe might be possible but it wouldn't look like anything we see here (think 'clouds of energy' from some of your lower quality Star Trek episodes).

65

Joe, I agree with you that Rom 1:20 is a critical verse. What I disagree with is your link from God's invisible attributes to the necessity of the empirical. I also see God in the creation, but if this evidence became empirical--measurable by science, and validated over say 20 years, what would become of faith? Heb 11:1

66

I believe Joe's post can be summed up as follows:

"What you gonna believe, the Bible or your lying eyes?"

67

Another difficulty in reconciling evolution with Genesis, though I haven't seen it discussed much, is how you can continue to support the notion of death as the consequence of of the Original Sin of the first humans with the fact that death is a condition experienced by all living creatures from the very outset of life, and actually required as a condition for life to evolve in adaptation to changing conditions.

Can someone explain that one to me?