Recently, I have been watching some apologetic videos where people with creationist worldviews debate or attempt to debate people with a scientific, naturalistic worldview. Often these debates focus on evolution, or often focus on the history of the Earth.
One prominent debate a few years ago was between Bill Nye and Ken Ham (seen above). As a creationist, I did enjoy Ken Ham pointing out that "science" has become this umbrella term to encompass different methods of inquiry. This is important because often people holding to scientism / naturalism declare that science has spoken, and treat analytical inferences into the past as if they were equivalent to repeatable experiments done in a laboratory today. They are ultimately of a different nature because experiments follow the scientific method. Inferences into the past based upon data, while incredibly useful and informative, are not equivalent to direct observation that anyone can repeat by conducting their own personal experiment.
One assumption modern scientific philosophy makes is uniformitarianism. This concept is a way of describing how science assumes, "... invariance of physical laws through time and space." In science, uniformitarianism is made to make inferences into the past for such things as radioactive decay dating. In school, I remember it being explained to me that the radioactive decay of an element could never change. Recently, science has demonstrated this claim to be false in certain circumstances, and last I checked, they were unclear as to the reasons.
Forbes - Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All
Phys.org - Radioactive Decay Rates Vary With Sun's Rotation
This is just one minor thing I take issue with in modern science. Grand claims such as uniformitarianism are made, without ever proving that the underlying principle is true. Then when actual science is performed, we learn the principle is not as true as we were told. In general, I think uniformitarianism is a nice concept to work with, but to make it an overreaching absolute without ever proving how things worked in the past, is not really science. It is an anti-science viewpoint. It is for issues like this that I think Ken Ham's criticism of "historical science" vs. "observational science" is valid. Often, historical science makes an interpretation of data using an unproven principle to make a conjecture. Conjectures are nice; they are not science. To do actual science, you would have to prove all the assumptions used in the conjecture are valid, before the conjecture could be supported. Certainly, you could call it science if you had begun down the road of how to prove the assumptions of a conjecture, even if the answers were not all developed yet. It is fine to have a conjecture be a hypothesis. This is not what modern science does. Modern science ignores that assumptions were made, and calls an unproven conjecture "scientific fact". Then this conjecture is taught as fact to people such as myself, since the time I was a child.
"Don't let schooling interfere with your education" - Mark Twain
Is Creationism Science?
What I dislike about the entire premise and format of a creationism vs. scientism debate, is that creationism is not science. When I say this, a lot of atheists reading that sentence might be thinking, "Of course, science attempts to logically prove things through a methodology that can be trusted, and creationism is not proven, ergo, creationism is a false belief system." When I say creationism is not science, I do not mean it is a false belief. I mean that most all people (including myself) who hold to a creationism worldview did not derive this worldview by the study of science, or the proofs available in science. Certainly, some few people out there did look at the scientific facts of nature and ultimately conclude in a creator. Those people are a minority compared to the millions of religious people who believe in creation. The average person who believes in creation, takes that stance because they were told to.
Isaac Newton is considered the founder of modern science. He was born in 1642. Prior to the mythologies and philosophies of science ever existing, is when the creationist worldview existed. For example, I am a Christian. Jesus did not believe in creationism because he studied science and science told him creationism is a valid viewpoint. Jesus believed in creationism because he claimed to be creator. He referenced and quoted from Jewish scrolls, that pointed to a creationism worldview. The basis of Jesus's belief in creationism was never through the implementation of the scientific philosophy.
The fallacy I see many Christians in apologetics engaged in, is that we are creationists because the "evidence suggests this is so". No, we are creationists because someone told us to be creationists. The source of this belief might be a friend, a relative, God, or what we have read from scripture. We are generally not creationists because we looked at all the physical science information available to us, weighed the evidences rationally and fairly, and then ultimately concluded creationism was the best explanation for all the possibilities of what could have transpired. What should matter to a Christian is whether the source of the statement on creationism was actually telling the truth in a way that can be relied upon, such as reliance upon scripture, direct revelation, ect. I do not call this activity science because it does not adhere to scientific philosophy, even though when done correctly, I believe the conclusions are true.
Why it is usually wrong to try to make creationism science...
The danger with creationists trying to turn a trust-belief about creationism from a source like trusting scripture, into a statement of scientific fact is that they are violating how science works when they make this claim. It is also highly disingenuous. If creationism should be taught as science, but the person telling you this does not believe in creationism because they derived the belief from science, but they derived that belief from something else... why should we believe them? I don't even believe them, even though I am a creationist.
I think it is great for science to research creationism, but if it does so, it needs to actually still be science and not religious opinion or philosophical statements. Philosophy and belief systems are not science, and it is actually very productive as a Christian to separate the two.
Really what science is, it is the implementation of a philosophy that was originally birthed from a Christian worldview. We can think of this in three tiers. The higher-order tier is implementing science, below the practical implementation is the philosophy of science, and below the philosophy of science is basic worldview such as a Christian one. Recently, people have begun to use a naturalistic or scientism worldview as the foundation, rather than Christianity.
-) Implementation of Science
-) Philosophy of Science
-) Worldview: Christian, Judaism, Naturalism, ect.
One thing to cover is that the philosophy of science is not scientifically proven because it is philosophy. Trying to fully prove it using science would be circular logic in many instances. It is an important point because many people like to claim they do not believe things which are not scientifically proven. Their statement is false because to prove something, you have to take on assumptions which you cannot prove. Just to perform science, people are believing a great many things which were never scientifically substantiated.
Then also, historically, the philosophy of science was born from Christianity. Isaac Newton wrote a great deal about his belief in Jesus Christ. From that Christian worldview, he implemented some of the founding concepts of the philosophy of science. He did not first engage in science, and then become a Christian, it worked the other way around. First he was a Christian, and from that worldview, he engaged in science and invented it.
What if science disproves our belief?
To me, if this is the situation we are presented with, we should first look at all possibilities:
Possibility 1) Science is making an error, as it commonly does, because 'scientific facts' are often just conjectures where not all the possibilities or underling assumptions have been explored
Possibility 2) Our belief is wrong
Possibility 3) A mixture, some of what we believe is wrong, some of what science claimed is wrong
Possibility 4) Both science's claims are wrong, and our belief is wrong, and it is just two positions of ignorance trying to claim they are right
How to deal with science as a Christian Creationist
For me, I am not threatened by the conclusions of science because I have a personal relationship with God. If science makes a statement which seemingly disagrees with my interpretation of scripture, it is a very simple matter of me asking God for answers (wisdom).
When I became a Christian, I asked God why evolution was false. I had believed evolution my whole life, and I understood scriptures well enough to understand that they teach against evolution. To me, it seemed evolution made sense, and was pretty logical, so I needed an answer from God because I am not smart enough to figure everything out. God showed me the scientific reasons why evolution is false.
The best reasons against evolution are rarely ever talked about. And the thing God showed me that demonstrated it was a false theory, is a concept I have only heard a couple people discuss, meaning the correct information is almost unavailable.
Many religious people have no relationship with God, though, so they cannot/will not ask God for legitimate understanding. They are often relying on their weak interpretation of religious concepts to try and say creationism is science. As if science should conform to their personal (and often wrong) viewpoint derived from a religious doctrine. As a Christian who believes God, who claims to have met God on multiple occasions in vision and dreams, I do not believe this is a productive path forward because it would be trying to force false religious beliefs on culture. Yes, I believe creationism, but I do not believe just any version of it that a Christian puts forth as true based on their limited understanding of scripture. Why would I as a Christian, support teaching other people false concepts? I would not. We should be able to adequately substantiate something is true before we expect people to believe it.
Then there are other Christians who just end up accepting things like evolution, and then they conveniently reinterpret scripture to make it say something it never said. This too is just silly, and it undermines Christianity to those who evaluate it from the outside. Any sane person who reads the Bible, knows it teaches creationism, to reinterpret the plain meaning to make it say something it does not teach, makes you seem like a wishy-washy person unable to accept reality. The better Christians in apologetics, like Ravi Zacharias, focus on the philosophical and moral aspects, without trying to wade too heavily into the scientific realms where they would be unequipped. This can be done without diluting scriptural beliefs.
This is important to understand because as a creationist, I understand creationism to be true, but I also understand that in the present society, we are totally unequipped to logically debate creationism in a meaningful way in the realm of science. One reason we are unequipped is lack of funding. Even with funding, it would take decades to build up a body of research. What we are far more equipped to deal with, are false claims made by the scientific community which often deviates from science and holds anti-science viewpoints. Part of the reason I am writing this is I hope some creationists will read it. Presenting arguments as "science" when zero actual research was done is not science. God does not require you call it science if it is not science. We should endeavor to be honest, and get our facts in order, which presents Christianity or creationism a lot better than trying to make things up.
Proper Scientific Apologetics (which really is just "Science Done Right")
For those interested in creationist apologetic arguments, or why I could possibly believe evolution is false, here is an example of real science being done by a PhD:
Notice the scientific community put claims in our school biology textbooks, which were unproven conjectures that failed to consider all the possibilities of what transpired. Similar to the 'scientific fact' that radioactive decay rates could never vary, even worse than this claim was that evolution has been put forth as proven, when the theory failed to ever address or adequately explain where the information in genetics comes from, since natural selection produces a loss of genetic information. Furthermore, mutations creating genetic information such as new proteins with new positive functionality has not been observed. The mutation cited in the video was a very simple change inside of an existing protein. Mutating an entire new protein which is adequately built to produce positive functionality in an organism (not negative functionality) is problematic for a system of minor increments of mutational changes which evolution requires. Half of a protein, will not produce 50% of the functionality, just like trying to drive 50% of a vehicle does not work. At best, it produces neutral functionality, but more likely it produces negative functionality, meaning the organism would be selected against by natural selection, thus preventing evolution from ever happening.
It is this type of rigor that creationists need to prepare themselves for in order to adequately argue against existing false viewpoints in the scientific community. To do this properly, you must be more intelligent/knowledgeable than the people you are arguing against. If you are not intelligent, you either should not do this, or have God make you intelligent so you can do this. Fudging it, and doing it wrong, pushes people away from Christianity not toward it.
Resteemed but coming back to this one tonight- really want to absorb what you are saying here Ted. I have been meaning to post on this topic myself.
SK.
Posted using Partiko Android
Glad you are interested in it! Thanks, @sirknight.
I had a fascinating experience reading this post. I will start by saying that I have a PhD in a biological science, and that I believe that the Theory of Evolution provides by far the most plausible explanation for what we can observe about life on earth. I will also say that I am staunchly a non-Creationist, but I could not care less what anyone else believes.
During the first part of this post then, I was quite surprised to find myself agreeing with what I took to be the central premise of the post: that it is pointless to debate Creationism vs Evolution, when one is a belief system and the other is a Theory attempting to explain scientific observations.
Having said that, I found the second half of the post to be littered with concepts that I soundly reject. I have no desire to begin a debate on this topic in general, but I do feel the need to address your attempt at explaining genetic elements of the Theory or Evolution. You state:
...when the theory failed to ever address or adequately explain where the information in genetics comes from, since natural selection produces a loss of genetic information. Furthermore, mutations creating genetic information such as new proteins with new positive functionality has not been observed. The mutation cited in the video was a very simple change inside of an existing protein. Mutating an entire new protein which is adequately built to produce positive functionality in an organism (not negative functionality) is problematic for a system of minor increments of mutational changes which evolution requires. Half of a protein, will not produce 50% of the functionality, just like trying to drive 50% of a vehicle does not work. At best, it produces neutral functionality, but more likely it produces negative functionality, meaning the organism would be selected against by natural selection, thus preventing evolution from ever happening.
This statement displays a fundamental, though not uncommon, misunderstanding of what a mutation is and the relationship between molecular biology and natural selection. In fact, this relationship in my view is one of the greatest strengths of the Theory of Evolution. A mutation is nothing more or less than a variation, a difference from the norm. On its own, it is neither positive nor negative. But variation is the fuel of Evolution.
All organisms use particular enzymes to replicate their genetic material during cell division. These enzymes have an inherent error rate, and these errors result in mutations, or variation in the resulting genetic material (genes).
Here is the really elegant part. It has been shown that when organisms (animals, plants, etc) experience stress, at the molecular level, the error rate of the enzymes I mentioned increases. This results in increased variation right when the species needs it, since increased variation increases the chance that some of that variation will provide a competitive advantage and will be selected for.
The further beauty of this is that it provides an explanation for the observed nature of evolution as occurring in fits and starts, as opposed to the incremental changes you incorrectly describe. That is, the greatest degree of variation is produced at times when a species experiences the greatest stress, and that is when the greatest evolutionary changes occur.
Thanks for getting me thinking.
Hey, thanks for taking the time to read it all. You should watch the video.
Okay, so I actually found time to watch the video. I will preface my comments by letting you know that my undergrad degree is a BSc in Genetics and I have taken courses specifically in Population Genetics. I say this because the presenter is a population geneticist and I want to be clear that I fully understand the lecture as it was delivered and none of the concepts discussed are new to me.
The presenter takes issue with the way in which Evolutionary Theory is taught in Polish high schools. I have no knowledge of Polish high school curricula, so cannot comment on those aspects. However, the presenter presents two points against Evolutionary theory: that genetic drift, which occurs in isolated populations, should not be considered evolution in action; and that his perceived absence of evidence for mutations that confer positive function argues against Evolution. I will take this opportunity to note that neither of these points are directly related to my earlier argument.
Regarding genetic drift, his point is that the genetic signature of a particular population may change over time basically by chance. This is true. The reason for this is that the traits in question do not confer any significant competitive advantage either for survival or reproduction. These traits, and variation in them, are irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective. This is why I disputed your point regarding evolution as an incremental process. If Polish high school text books are teaching this as the basis for evolutionary theory, then I agree they are misguided.
In contrast, I presented (maybe too briefly) Evolution as a process of periods of great change, interspersed with comparatively longer periods of relative stability. Think of it this way: some great source of stress is applied on a population. As I mentioned earlier, this produces changes at the cellular level that result in increased variation. To be clear, the stressor triggers increased variation. At the same time, the stressor is challenging survival at the individual level. Greater variation of a trait that is relevant to survival, in a population increases the chances that one or some variations of that trait will allow individual survival. This particular variant is then selected for as individuals without this variant do not survive. The result is that a variant of a particular trait which previously was either non existent or very rare, becomes dominant within a population/species.
On his second point, I dispute his suggestion that Evolutionary theory requires new positive functionality, or your extension, that it requires actual new (from scratch) proteins. This simply is not the case. Evolution, and natural selection depend on competitive advantage. While the process I described above may result in completely new variants of a particular trait, this is unnecessary. It is also possible for a particular variant that is “normally” competitively neutral to confer competitive advantage in certain circumstances. If this results in a change in the genetic makeup of the population through elimination of competitively disadvantaged variants, this is a Evolution at work.
Hey, I think this is great you actually know your stuff and can deal with the content. Many people I have conversations like this with, have absolutely no ability to process any of the statements I make and simply regurgitate high school biology 101. .... When I was in high school, I was not taught the version of evolution you are presenting.
"In contrast, I presented (maybe too briefly) Evolution as a process of periods of great change, interspersed with comparatively longer periods of relative stability."
So what has occurred here is the historical version of evolution we were given in generations gone by never stated this. I will trust you that the modern version of evolution is as you stated. I have heard similar things talked about by some people in various research I have done. If you study the history of evolution, it has been a constant history of bait and switch. When the theory fails to meet the present data, modifications are made, but if we are changing the theory, then why must not the new theory be reproven and begin as a hypothesis and not a theory? And why should I believe the present version of the theory, if it is going to change in 20 years, since the current description fails to meet what is actually occurring? How does it get to keep theory status, if no one believed this version of the belief set 20 years ago? Keep in mind, evolution has no mathematical proof like the laws of physics, so it is not a gradual refinement such as Newton's equations required later refinement.
Certainly the theory of evolution did not hinge around major genetic changes if we go back 40 years? Historically, it has been taught as incremental change over time.
Now all of what I said is irrelevant if we assume that the current version of the theory which was given by you is correct. It being wrong in the past is irrelevant to whether it is wrong now.
At the crux of my multi-layered reasons for disagreeing with evolution still, the two I would point out are:
Finally, thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote all this because you took the time to watch my video and respond to me. I really appreciate it. Do not feel obligated to go through your counterpoints if you are not feeling up to it. If you did have some evidences of the sort of gradual protein formation I am looking for, I am very interested in any scientific articles related to such. Thank you for your time.
So, I pondered jumping in. I hummed and hawed. You will notice that I upvoted your post. I did so on the merits that is was well articulated post and seemed to me that you put a lot of time and effort into it. And, you must know that this is a very decisive topic. Let me state this up front, I'm a Secular Humanist and my family and I are all scientists (ML/AI and Data for me and others are in bio and physics.)
I wrote this huge comment on how the philosophy of science actually strengthens science by forcing critical thinking and constantly forces the challenging of the status quo. I went on to rant about Ken Ham putting a creationist square peg in to a scientific round hole to make creationism work. To wit, all that money spent by the ICR on the RATE project only to have no non-affiliated substantiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RATE_project).
I was scouring your post for minutia ammunition for arguments and then I reread this statement…
And then at the end of your post this…
I deleted my whole comment. I was floored and wrong. I AGREE!
Here's the gist of it. I totally disagree with the claim that evolution is unproven conjecture. The therory of evolution is not a hypothesis. That being said under the philosphy of science everything is questionable (this does not mean it is questioned, ergo, it is disproven.) However, questioning goes both ways. I do agree that if creationists want to present the creationism hypothesis from a scientific platform then the ducks had best be in a row. The data had better be able to withstand scientific scrutiny, criticism and have other non- affiliated scientists substantiate it in order to validate creationist claims.
I wanted to leave off with one of my favorite quotes by Professor Richard Feynman:
Until then, be well.
You are a descent living being. Followed, and will be reading you around.
Hey, thanks for reading.
The only people qualified to speak on this are those painstakingly handpicked for their militant adherence to one particular side of the argument.
Maybe I missed something but I don't see here what god "told you" about creationism and what evidence there is to support it as actually occurring.
God did not show me why creationism is real. I just believe him on a trust relationship on that point. I asked God specifically about why evolution was false, and this is what I was showed. It is a different question to ask why creationism happened or how it happened. The video covers just one point against evolution among the several I have accumulated.
I personally do not require or strongly desire to have a scientific explanation of creationism down to great detail, because even to just learn the little tidbit of why actual science should be skeptical of evolution, required hours of study on my part. Meaning, creationism is a complex topic, and to scientifically justify it correctly should take decades of research, and life-long dedication of multiple researchers garnering great insights into physical reality. For me, as one person to think I am going to wade into that, and do it real justice is asking a bit much of my capabilities and is an unrealistic demand for simple limitations such as time.
This all said, there are plenty of reasons thrown out there by creationists, for scientific reasons pointing to a creator. I will offhandedly mention some of these reasons, but I would not consider these reasons emphatic proof of Christian Creationism:
And I used to have a longer list than this, but this is what I recall off the top of my head as some of the scientific / logical evidences. Another common one is that the Genesis account of creation mirrors the concept of the "big bang" quite well. I certainly have heard this used by many.
From your post:
And apparently you:
So you were shown some wikipedia links, which are renowned for being unreliable sources for any type of information. And this X thing you speak of isn't really mentioned much in that link. And from what I can gather is poorly understood and far from proven.
As to the rest, it appears that your understanding of the various topics listed in your comment is average at best.
But this isn't a debate that I can get into without offending people. So I think it's best for me to not participate.
The point of my post was never to prove creationism. I was talking about the science vs. creationism debate. My impression is you expected me to scientifically defend creationism. The point of my post, is that creationists are unequipped to do this, including myself. Thanks for taking the time to read.
I think it was your comment that your god showed you why evolution was false that triggered me a bit. It seems a little nuts for a god to give someone evidence as to why evolution can't be a legitimate discovery. In my opinion, any god would disregard evolution as a consideration. They are a god after all. So why bother themselves with silly human thoughts? It seems stranger still for one god to show someone evidence given that there are more than 4200 religions out there and something along the lines of 300 gods. Which god should you listen to? Which one should you take advice from? Which ones are real and which ones are the creation of silly humans?
I think it's very hard to post about this type of thing and not expect some form of debate to come about. Religion and atheism is a sensitive topic and will very easily trigger debate.
I think your post is worded very well and carefully for the most part. But the topic itself will always trigger someone who is passionate about this topic, such as myself.
I have a big problem with the Creationists who insist that God created the world less than 10,000 years ago. All the physical evidence points to a world much, much older.
The creation account in Genesis can't be interpreted as happening over 7 literal 24 hour days.
The 7 day Creationists are a stumbling block to many of the unsaved. I would had a hard time accepting Christ if I had to believe that the earth was less than 10,000 years old when all the scientific evidence points to a world billions of years old.
I wouldn't say they are a stumbling block to the unsaved because you're assuming people should be saved based on logic. The vast majority of Christians in the scriptures (all?) were not saved based on logical reasoning pertinent to modern western society.
It's a bad premise, that to think a person should be a Christian because they went through a series of higher intellectual reasonings. If this were how God did things, then a vast majority of the human population could never be saved due to their lack of intelligence or knowledge.
God is intentionally foolishness to the wise: "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles," - 1 Cor 1:23
First I want to say this article is very well articulated and I for one appreciate it. Secondly no one like to admit a truth about science that comes from the limitations of existing. Math is a regimental discipline that is designed to tell us about the substance of this reality. It cannot ever be used to prove or disprove things that have no substantial existence. This is why a person has to be able to verify and confirm there integers by a physical count. With out that one can use the math symbols and principals. but it will not represent reality.
Both sides of this issue have a problem with this as a fact. Until evidence is truth again it will remain so.
Really nice post.
I see no arguement here afterall. It is clear that God exists and He does miraculous things like the creation of the world. He is the inventor of 'science' itself! So, I for one can start arguing the existence of God.
Whatever the science viewpoint is, is simply trash and uncalled for!
I'm guessing this is sarcastic, but we're on Steemit, so I have no clue. Thanks for reading.
Believing vs "believing is seeing"
Your last sentence there, should apply to both sides of the "argument" as rarely do those who know what they are actually talking about "argue" the topic at hand.
This is a very controversial issue, there will always be opponents from both sides, but in something you are right, as Christians we must be prepared and well argued when we touch the subject, hence the need to ask God for Wisdom (James 1: 5) and ourselves try to learn something new every day.
This is a huge post that you probably could have put in a series lol Add it's gonna take me a minute to Digest at all. That being said I applaud you for approaching the topic and such a manner and you might be the 1st creationist that actually wanna listen to.
So there's that :)
I'm a steaming and going to take a look at this hour later. It really is a lot to go over but skimming through it I can already tell that you have an interesting approach. A lot of times I read/listen people that have your view point and they don't back it up with any empirical data. You have given us some food for thought. Thanks and I look forward to going into this article deeper when I am not in the middle of the daily hustle and bustle.
Posted using Partiko Android
Creation stories exist in every religion and indeed every people group. Everyone has a story about the way we got here. These stories are usually analogies or symbolic representations and not literal. Besides the creation story in Genesis, what other parts of the Bible mention that the earth cannot be over 10,000 years old? Why hold to this claim?
It’s an interesting point to insist. What is wagered on not admitting the possibility of a much older earth? Genuinely curious.
As you mentioned about natural laws being
"... invariance of physical laws through time and space."
I'm skeptical.
I've often got in big trouble when arguing relegion when I ask "who created god"
I've also gotten in trouble with 'scientists' when I asked "what came before the big bang?"
A theory can NOT be proven to be correct. It can only be proved to be wrong.