[_ Old Earth _] Considerations about science

[brother Paul]

Some interesting philosophical assessments for the scientifically oriented were pointed out in Living Issues in Philosophy (1972 edition) that I though worthy of consideration and wondered what others might think…

1) Scientific research can only find that which our methods and instruments are capable of finding.

2) Every observation includes an observer, and every experiment, an experimenter who designs it. Thus one can never be totally free of the somewhat subjective element in one’s conclusions.

3) Each scientific conclusion includes the physical analysis (which is concrete and for the most part objective) and a resultant mathematical and logical speculation (which is abstract and often contains unconscious bias)

4) No single method of classification adequately and absolutely describes or finds everything of the subject matter being classified.

5) Definitions (for example what is a “species”) vary over time to include the more general variances and nuances of the one or many that are defining a thing or subject in their time.

6) The whole may have qualities not found in the parts, and the parts can have qualities not clearly reflected or discerned when looking at the whole (the nature of the atom is a great example here).

7) There can be many interpretations of a thing, person, or event. How, when, or from what angle we look at a thing or event/process can influence our conclusions (what is the nature of an electron is a perfect example).

8) Anything in process or development can only be completely understood when one grasps the past of the process or development and the future or where or why it is going there (which can never actually be fully known until we actually arrive at that place).

9) Conclusions are only as precise as the concluding intellect can analyze, organize, and articulate them and must not be closed to alternative possibilities that are not the norm.

Any thoughts on any of them?

Brother Paul

 

[Barbarian]

As Darwin pointed out if evolution were not a fact, species would be immutable and easy to define. But evolution happens and so it's virtually impossible to come up with a simple and reliable definition of the term. Too many "in between" cases.

Probably the easiest way to get one's paper shredded in peer review is to mess up the statistical analysis.

Science doesn't deal in "proof." It's mostly inductive, trying to figure out the rules from the particulars. Logical certainty is only possible when you know the rules, and predict the particulars. We can only know within a certain degree of confidence. And humans are fallible.

Epistemological questions always come down to one thing:
Science works. As one person noted, it tells us how to make computers out of dirt. There are other systems of thought that once competed with science for understanding nature, but they didn't work. And so we don't use them.

 

[brother Paul]

Science indeed can help us understand nature.

 

[turnorburn]

i have a question Paul is science now saying that evolution is a fact?

tob

 

[brother Paul]

i have a question Paul is science now saying that evolution is a fact?

tob

I think most scientists are saying that but I think we as Christians really only have issue with Darwinian evolution. No one doubts that things change over time. I mean when conceived you were a Zygote which became a Blastula, which became an Embryo, which became a human Fetus, then infant, toddler, and so on...but as for the Darwinian hypothesis science has never "proved" a single thing (not as he presented it)

In other words anyone can observe how God made things to change over time (within individuals and even within particular species and phyla) but what we NEVER see (nor have ever), cannot be demonstrated (and never has), and all tests prove otherwise is the cross phyletic morphism that Darwin claimed (fish BECOMING amphibians, or Amphibians reptiles, etc)

Scientists (not Science) speculate and hypothesize based on their OPINION of and INTERPRETATION of the data we do have, but in reality that's all it is....speculation, hypotheses, and conjecture (which is sharing of a similar opinion), but remember, in chapter 6 of Origin of Species, Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“

And it has been demonstrated...in fact many scientists now admit as Stephen J. Gould eventually had to conclude, that "“In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.“

This has been demonstrated from the Cambrian layer to the most recent layers....NEW SPECIES appeared FULLY FORMED with all their inter-dependent subsystems and organs all in place and fully functional. Therefore Darwin's theory of Evolution HAS BEEN "absolutely" broken down (regardless of the rhetoric or propaganda in textbooks)....

In His love

Paul

 

[turnorburn]

Thanks for that brother Paul, i think most scientist believe as they do because they can't believe that Adam was created fully formed, not that they won't believe that God created man in an instant but because that they can't due to mans fallen nature..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Indeed brother, you may have something there...they HAVE TO believe in something other than the Lord so that they can justify being the lord of their own lord and decide good and evil for themselves and do what is "right/good/correct" in their own eyes....

 

[Barbarian]

i have a question Paul is science now saying that evolution is a fact?

Technically, evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it.

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks for that brother Paul, i think most scientist believe as they do because they can't believe that Adam was created fully formed, not that they won't believe that God created man in an instant but because that they can't due to mans fallen nature..

Since the Bible doesn't say that man was created in an instant, it's a non-issue for Christians. On the other hand, it does make it difficult for a scientist to accept creationism. This is why many scientists are Christians, but few are creationists.

 

[turnorburn]

Since the Bible doesn't say that man was created in an instant, it's a non-issue for Christians. On the other hand, it does make it difficult for a scientist to accept creationism. This is why many scientists are Christians, but few are creationists.

He created man in a day, if someone is having a difficult time believing that God is capable of doing that then that someone lacks faith to believe Gods word..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

He created man in a day,

He doesn't say so. As you know, "yom" can mean a variety of things. In Genesis 2, He says he created the world in one "yom", same word that translates as "day" for some people.

if someone is having a difficult time believing that God is capable of doing that

Conflating what God can do, with what He chose to do, is not a good idea. If one has faith in God, one should accept it as He chose to do it.

In the second chapter of Genesis, it says:

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."6
Does this mean God created the heavens and the earth in one day, instead of six days? No.


"Yom" is not meant to be defined specifically. If the Hebrew were specific, then certainly we would need to hold to whatever it says. However, the end of Genesis chapter one could just as accurately be tranlated, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth time period. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished..."

The text does not obligate us to conclude that God completed his creation in six, 24-hour time slots, nor does the book of Genesis necessarily conflict with scientific conclusions that formation of the earth and universe lasted billions of years.


It makes little sense fixating on the length of time (when the Hebrew is going to remain ambiguous anyway), instead of focusing on the far more important message of what was actually happening?!
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html

 

[brother Paul]

Technically, evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it.

Yes! As I said change over time is obvious (after all I was a Fetus once), what is not is the cross or trans phyletic morphology many EBs insist upon as an alleged "established fact" (which has never been established as an actual fact). It just is nowhere to be found (especially in the geological column).

Take DNA for an example, there can be NO functional cell (hence living tissue) without functional DNA. Yet there can be no (and there is no) functional DNA without a cell (in fact there is no free floating DNA in all the universe we have explored so far). Simply put one could in no way have "evolved" without the other already existing. No cell evolution void of DNA, and no functional DNA (from which cells are evolved) void of a cell.

No semi evolved cell can exist without DNA making the proteins, and no cellular proteins exist unless made by transcription and translation. No semi evolved DNA can exist to function while the rest of the cell (which is made from it) is complete. So what we have is NOT "which came first, chicken or egg, but both had to appear all ot once fully formed with all fully functional subsystems (the enzymes made via DNA, the m and tRNA, etc.) already in place (exactly what is observed and ever demonstrated on the more gross level by the geo column)....

The first Cells appeared all at once fully formed,,,

This actual "established fact" cannot be explained away....

 

[turnorburn]

He doesn't say so. As you know, "yom" can mean a variety of things. In Genesis 2, He says he created the world in one "yom", same word that translates as "day" for some people.



Conflating what God can do, with what He chose to do, is not a good idea. If one has faith in God, one should accept it as He chose to do it.

In the second chapter of Genesis, it says:

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."6
Does this mean God created the heavens and the earth in one day, instead of six days? No.


"Yom" is not meant to be defined specifically. If the Hebrew were specific, then certainly we would need to hold to whatever it says. However, the end of Genesis chapter one could just as accurately be tranlated, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth time period. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished..."

The text does not obligate us to conclude that God completed his creation in six, 24-hour time slots, nor does the book of Genesis necessarily conflict with scientific conclusions that formation of the earth and universe lasted billions of years.


It makes little sense fixating on the length of time (when the Hebrew is going to remain ambiguous anyway), instead of focusing on the far more important message of what was actually happening?!
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html

Maybe you missed this verse where God immediately turned Moses staff into a serpent..

Exodus 7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.

God has the power and the glory forever he can do anything he pleases when it pleases him and that includes making man in an moment of time..

So how can you say "Conflating what God can do, with what He chose to do, is not a good idea" you speak as if this theory of yours is a fact and it isn't... Gods word is the only fact we have and he gave us the facts.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/Ge-1.html

tob

 

[turnorburn]

There is a place in I Timothy that talks about science Paul refers to it as science falsely so called, i believe evolution falls into this category...

Yesterday i found this..

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). There’s one place we must start our quest for knowledge—God’s Word. Otherwise, we can easily be seduced by false ideas masquerading as truth.

The Apostle Paul had very high respect for his disciple Timothy and described him with affirming words to the church at Philippi.

Timothy, however, like all of us, was in constant danger of being drawn into, or at least deeply influenced by, some false ideas masquerading as truth. So Paul ended his first letter to Timothy with these words of warning: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust [see 6:14], avoiding profane and vain babblings, and the oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (1 Timothy 6:20–21, KJV).

Now what did Paul mean by “science”? The Greek word gnosis means “knowledge” in a general sense, not in the technical sense we use the word “science” today. Greek expert W. E. Vine explains that “science in the modern sense of the word, viz, the investigation, discovery and classification of secondary laws, is unknown in Scripture.”1

But this verse’s application to historical sciences, such as the study of the origin of the universe (cosmogony) and the study of fossils (paleontology), is clear. Most contemporary scientists who discuss these foundational issues are immersed in “science [knowledge] falsely so called” because they exclude divine revelation about Creation, the Curse, and the Flood. They extrapolate presently observed processes into the distant past.

Refusing to believe that the Bible helps explain the stars and fossils we see today, they hold to uniformitarianism (the belief that present slow processes are sufficient to explain what happened in the past). By rejecting the one-time, unique events of Creation and the Flood, “they are willingly ignorant” of how the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and people came into existence, and how this world has been judged by our holy Creator (see 2 Peter 3:1–7).

https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/science-so-called/

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Yes! As I said change over time is obvious (after all I was a Fetus once), what is not is the cross or trans phyletic morphology many EBs insist upon as an alleged "established fact" (which has never been established as an actual fact). It just is nowhere to be found (especially in the geological column).

Speciation is a fact. Most creationists now admit the fact of evolution of new taxa.

Take DNA for an example, there can be NO functional cell (hence living tissue) without functional DNA. Yet there can be no (and there is no) functional DNA without a cell (in fact there is no free floating DNA in all the universe we have explored so far). Simply put one could in no way have "evolved" without the other already existing. No cell evolution void of DNA, and no functional DNA (from which cells are evolved) void of a cell.

You've confused abiogenesis with evolution. Evolutionary theory assumes the first living things and describes how they evolve. Darwin, for example, assumed that God just created them. However, it is known that short proteins form in organically, so that's pretty good evidence that God was right when He said the earth brought forth life. We are just beginning to learn how it happened.[/QUOTE]

 

[turnorburn]

Speciation isn't a fact if it violates Gods word, and most Christians don't believe evolution a fact..

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Brothers it seems we have gone off topic. What are your thoughts on some considerations listed in the OP? Are they sound? Do they make sense?

 

[turnorburn]

What i know about science you could put on the head of a pin what i know about creation comes from Gods word.. If science were out to glorify God then that would be different, some scientists are some are not. Then when an astronomer comes along and says something like this.. " he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.” i begin to wonder what science is really all about, what's their bottom line. Don't know why we started talking about evolution brother Paul, was that what you were driving at?

tob

 

[turnorburn]

i apologize brother Paul for fouling up your thread..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

You didn't! We all just go into tangent topics on any thread. But being a person who defends the word of God (such as you do) I thought it good to offer some equipment when dealing with science oriented people. I love science, but it is far from perfect. It serves it's purpose like any other gift God has bestowed (a mind that can explore the laws and substance and functions of the thingness of His creation) but people can be led astray by its false prophets just like in any other field.

I do not find a conflict with science and God's word, though I have many issues with the conclusions drawn by many scientists (their interpretation of the data is oft skewed by their preconceived conclusions when they us these to shape the data rather than letting the data shape the theory)

Paul