[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[GodsGrace]

No, that's only important when he's not already receiving notifications for the thread. The point of tagging is to make sure he'll see it. He will see my post.

Paul E. Michael is correct.
You must ALWAYS tag another member when speaking of them.

 

[GodsGrace]

As you also learned, we directly observe your frantic meltdown constantly, as you keep exhibiting it by writing things like what you have written, here, because you can't deal rationally with any of my criticism and questions about your war against truth and logic. What a tangled web you weave, Barbarian, when first you practice to try to create and/or maintain the illusion of prestige you wish to project on behalf of your sorry racket as a professional Darwinist.

I don't believe Barbarian is a "professional Darwinist" as I have posted with many.
I do believe he is just offering his beliefs based on what he believes to be truth.

I tend to listen to Barbarian.
He's a very intelligent fellow,
and even if I don't agree with him on everything...
I always pay attention when he speaks.

Just my thoughts...

 

[Barbarian]

Since I retired, I'm not even a professional scientist. But I like to read the literature and talk about it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Since I retired, I'm not even a professional scientist. But I like to read the literature and talk about it.

Yeah.
You're still a scientist.
You just don't get paid.
LOL

Blessings.

 

[Barbarian]

It's a Yes/No question, Barbarian. By your word, "provability," either you are referring to a property of truth, or you are not.

I'm talking about logical certainty. Truth is stronger than provability.

So, by "only provisionally true," you mean considered true, rather than true.

I mean, so far, demonstrated to accurately predict the phenomena it describes. Hence Newton's theory remains true for almost everything but relativistic effects. We still teach it. It's still useful for almost every application.

The rank subjectivism you're trying to hand us is self-destroying.

It's been around in Western science since Bacon. Nothing else we do works as well for understanding the physical universe. That's why we use it.

But, at least you are admitting that the non-theory you call "the theory of evolution" is not true, but is only considered true.......by Darwinists. LOLOL

Since it makes accurate predictions and has so far been verified by the evidence every time we do test it, yeah. It's considered to be true. Maybe someday, it will be like Newton's theory of gravitation and turn out to be only true in most cases. That's how it works in science.

Paul E. Michael said:
By your phrase, "provisionally true," do you mean untrue?

Already told you "no."

I don't consider clowns that write stuff like what you (at least purportedly) quoted to be YE creationists. Duh. Like you, either they are speaking out of shameful ignorance and dismal confusion, or they are lying through their teeth.

Those guys are both YE creationists and scientists. They know what you don't. About science and about creationism.
And that's the difference. Both are honest enough to admit the evidence, while asserting that they prefer their understanding of Genesis. Can't fault them for that.

 

[Runner]

Well, this is certainly an edifying thread. I can't say I read every post, but I think I got the gist. I would agree with the point that certain posters could do with a course in Epistemology 101. I wasn't overly impressed with Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, but it would clear up a lot of the confusion on the part of certain posters if they were willing to spend $50. A refresher course in the Ad Hominem Fallacy might be in order as well.

Ken Ham and his ilk are simply an embarrassment to Christianity. I enjoy listening to Ken. He's sincere and fun in a goofy way. I listen every Saturday to The Christian Worldview, where the host has lots of intelligent, worthwhile things to say but insists you aren't a "Bible-believing Christian" if you think the earth is older than 6,500 years. These well-meaning folks make fools of themselves and make Christianity a laughingstock in the eyes of people who might be inclined to take it more seriously if they weren't hearing this sort of nonsense.

It's a category mistake to treat the Bible as a scientific treatise. There was an original Star Trek episode in which a civilization was using an old copy of the Manhattan Yellow Pages as its scripture. Kirk and his crew tried to patiently explain what a telephone book actually was. The Ken Hams of the world are making a similar mistake.

The Ken Ham approach also exemplifies what I believe is one of the single greatest threats to Christianity today: bibliolatry. The Bible is literally worshipped as something it was never intended to be and in a way it was never intended to be. Bibliolatry is seemingly becoming the litmus test of a "true Christian."

God created a universe that is orderly and susceptible to investigation, analysis and (to a considerable degree) explanation. He blessed humans with minds and senses uncannily suited to such investigation and analysis. As the proponents of Intelligent Design emphasize, such investigation and analysis increasingly points toward a Creator. If it also points to the universe being something like 14 billion years old and the earth being nearly 5 billion years old to a level of scientific certainty, as it does, why should any Christian resist this reality because a wooden reading of Genesis or some wacky calculation by Bishop Ussher suggests the scientific data is off by a factor of 707,692 (my quick calculation of the actual age of the earth divided by Ussher's figure)?

Scientism (worship of science) is, of course, little different from bibliolatry. It's the antithesis of real science. I have studied the evolution debate quite intensively. If evolutionary theory had been established to the same level of scientific certainty as the age of the universe and the earth, I would have no theological objection. There is certainly some evidence supporting aspects of evolutionary theory. As a comprehensive explanation for the existence of modern homo sapiens, however, I believe (along with many experts across many scientific disciplines) that current evolutionary theory is deeply flawed and almost certainly false.

A book that I found fascinating, and that accords with what I have always intuitively suspected, is The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry by S. Joshua Swamidass. The basic thesis is the special creation of Adam and Eve something like 20,000 years ago, when the record begins to show astonishing leaps in human sophistication. All humans are genetic descendants of this pair. As unlikely as this may sound at first blush, its scientific viability has been acknowledged even by those who would love to ridicule it as nonsense. It's well worth reading, far superior (IMO) to William Lane Craig's effort to square creation with evolutionary theory in his recent book, In Quest of the Historical Adam.

​

 

[Barbarian]

Yeah.
You're still a scientist.
You just don't get paid.
LOL

Mrs. Barbarian gets a little upset with me many times when she says "we need to replace this; it's broken." Apparently, she can see me thinking and says "no, you won't fix it." The family refers to it as "fix-it mode." Can't help it. It comes with the job.

Blessings.

And to you, too.

 

[Barbarian]

As a comprehensive explanation for the existence of modern homo sapiens, however, I believe (along with many experts across many scientific disciplines) that current evolutionary theory is deeply flawed and almost certainly false.

That's what Wallace (co-discoverer of evolution via natural selection) thought. He felt that humans were somehow elevated by God apart from other animals. That's what the Bible says.

Our bodies are like those of other animals, of the Earth, and produced naturally. But we are not our bodies. We are, as God says, living souls, and that is given directly to us by God, not via nature.

And that makes all the difference. Evolutionary theory cannot and does not propose to explain that difference. The rest of it all fits nicely with the evidence, however.

If evolutionary theory had been established to the same level of scientific certainty as the age of the universe and the earth, I would have no theological objection.

This is evolutionary theory, as proposed by Darwin:

1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.
2. Every individual is somewhat different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce.
4. The useful ones tend to accumulate in the population and the harmful ones tend to disappear, and this leads to speciation, and evolution of higher taxa.

All of this has been directly observed to be true. We can't, of course, directly observe the age of the Earth, but we have abundant evidence for it. We know evolution is a fact, but like the age of the Earth, we can't directly observe the common descent of living things. That depends on indirect evidence such as anatomy, fossil record, genetics, and the like. Just like the age of the Earth.

 

[Runner]

This is evolutionary theory, as proposed by Darwin:

I'm not going down the road of a debate regarding evolutionary theory because I'm not into pretending to have expertise I don't have, but the undeniable fact is that evolutionary theory "as proposed by Darwin" has had to be revised and revised and revised to keep pace with the evidence (or lack thereof), be it the New Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Evo Devo or Whatever. I'm satisfied that the holes are gaping enough that a wholesale revision will eventually be required as the Guardians of the Paradigm die off as Thomas Kuhn described. What that wholesale revision may look like I have no idea, but there are serious issues with fundamental matters such as the origin of life ("chemical evolution"), whether the available time frame is even close to adequate for evolution as currently posited to have occurred, irreducible complexity, the fossil record, yada yada.

I don't believe my concerns are even slightly theological. They are based on evidence and what I at least believe to be rational inference and intuition.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm not going down the road of a debate regarding evolutionary theory because I'm not into pretending to have expertise I don't have, but the undeniable fact is that evolutionary theory "as proposed by Darwin" has had to be revised and revised and revised to keep pace with the evidence (or lack thereof), be it the New Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Evo Devo or Whatever.

The basic four points of Darwinism remain exactly as they were proposed. The theory itself continues to be verified every time we check. Punctuated equilibrium is merely a refinement about the pace of evolution. Fact is, most evolution operates in a relatively short period of time, followed by a long period of stasis. Why?

It's because of natural selection. Mayr noted that aberrant species of a group tended to be in small populations in out-of-the-way places. Most speciation is allopatric, that is in separate locations. So the population evolves rapidly because it's not well-fitted to the environment. Then, as it becomes more fit, natural selection slows the pace of evolution greatly. Darwin predicted this, BTW, showing that a well-fitted population in a constant environment would be prevented by natural selection from evolving much.

Evolutionary Development (Evo-Devo) merely observes the way that evolutionary change works in embryos. And it's illuminated the mechanisms many things first noted by Darwin.

Neo-Darwinism, (new Darwinism) is mostly Darwin's four points plus genetics. The rediscovery of genetics saved Darwinism, which had one weak point. Darwin could not explain why a new trait would not be lost like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. Then Mendel showed that heredity was not like mixing paint (as most scientists thought) but was like sorting beads. And Darwinism was saved.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't believe my concerns are even slightly theological. They are based on evidence and what I at least believe to be rational inference and intuition.

They aren't theological, and they are reasonable concerns worth discussing. See above. There is also the issue of neutralist theories like those of Kimura. We can discuss how they affected Darwinism also, if you'd like.

 

[Barbarian]

Yeah.
You're still a scientist.
You just don't get paid.
LOL

Blessings.

"The difference" by XKCD

The Difference

xkcd.com

 

[GodsGrace]

Mrs. Barbarian gets a little upset with me many times when she says "we need to replace this; it's broken." Apparently, she can see me thinking and says "no, you won't fix it." The family refers to it as "fix-it mode." Can't help it. It comes with the job.

Well Barb,
You were ahead of the times.
These days it's fashionable, and necessary for the ecological well-being of earth, that objects not be discarded but reused, even made into something different.

Too bad this idea couldn't be patented,,,
Both you and my husband would be rich.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Every theory is either true or false.

No.

Some theories are neither true nor false, then?

Every theory is only provisionally true.

So, humans aren't descended from non-humans; rather, humans are only provisionally descended from non-humans?

I mean considered true, subject to future evidence.

Oh, OK. So, humans aren't descended from non-humans; rather, humans are (by Darwinists) considered descended from non-humans, subject to future evidence?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed.

So, something is not a fact unless/until it is "directly observed"? Was it never a fact that the earth is a globe until only some point in time after humans began to live on earth?

If one of the ideas turns out to be true

What do you mean if you say that something "turns out to be true"? And, would you say that no thing is true unless/until it "turns out to be true"? Was it not true that the earth is a globe until it "turned out to be true" that the earth is a globe?

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed.

So, something is not a fact unless/until it is "directly observed"?

Yep. A fact is something in evidence.

Was it never a fact that the earth is a globe until only some point in time after humans began to live on earth?

The spherical Earth was not directly observed until we had space craft to get far enough out to see the entire Earth. However, a number of facts allowed the ancients to infer that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes was able to measure it with surprising accuracy by using trigonometry. But his measurement was an inference based on the evidence.

If one of the ideas turns out to be true

What do you mean if you say that something "turns out to be true"?

It means that we are able to infer what it is from the evidence, or maybe directly observe it. Like the round Earth.

And, would you say that no thing is true unless/until it "turns out to be true"?

Lots of things are true that we don't know to be true. Do you see why?

Was it not true that the earth is a globe until it "turned out to be true" that the earth is a globe?

Well, technically, it's an oblate spheroid, not a globe. But it's very close to being a globe; for most practical purposes, we can assume it is.

 

[Barbarian]

Every theory is only provisionally true.

So, humans aren't descended from non-humans; rather, humans are only provisionally descended from non-humans?

There's no way to prove that Douglas Adams is wrong in his suggestion that we are actually the result of an alien race deporting all their schmendricks to Earth. But given the evidence, it seems pretty unlikely.

Oh, OK. So, humans aren't descended from non-humans; rather, humans are (by Darwinists) considered descended from non-humans, subject to future evidence?

There's never a zero likelihood of that. But since even informed YE creationists admit that there is "very good evidence" for the evolution of humans from non-human hominins, we'll probably never see it overturned.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Was it never a fact that the earth is a globe until only some point in time after humans began to live on earth? [Yes or No?]

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Before any humans ever lived on earth, was it a fact that the earth is a globe? Yes or No?

Why won't you answer this question, Barbarian?

Any rationally-thinking person, like myself, has no trouble answering this question in the affirmative: "Yes, before any humans ever lived on earth, it was already a fact that the earth is a globe." You, on the other hand, are stonewalling against this question, refusing to answer it in the affirmative, and refusing to answer it in the negative.

Was it not true that the earth is a globe until it "turned out to be true" that the earth is a globe? [Yes or No?]

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Before it "turned out to be true" that the earth is a globe, was it true that the earth is a globe? Yes or No?

Why won't you answer this question, Barbarian?

Well, technically, it's an oblate spheroid, not a globe.

Another juvenile attempt by you to shift attention away from your failure to answer the questions I've asked you. And what a stupid thing to say: "Well, technically, it's....not a globe". Wrong again, professor. According to your enemy, the dictionary, a globe is "a spherical or rounded object." So, you've just told me that, "Well, technically, [the earth]'s....not a [rounded object]." Bravo, Barbarian! Sorry, Barbarian, but, contrary to the silliness you've just handed us, technically, the earth is a globe, because the earth is an oblate spheroid, and a spheroid is a rounded object.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

there is "very good evidence" for the evolution of humans from non-human hominins, we'll probably never see it overturned.

Darwinist assertion #1: "Humans are descended from non-humans."
Darwinist assertion #2: "There is evidence that humans are descended from non-humans."

What "evidence" do you have for this second assertion of yours, professional Darwinist? You are asserting Darwinist assertion #2. What "evidence" do you have for Darwinist assertion #2?

 

[Barbarian]

Before any humans ever lived on earth, was it a fact that the earth is a globe? Yes or No?

The spherical Earth was not directly observed until we had space craft to get far enough out to see the entire Earth. However, a number of facts allowed the ancients to infer that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes was able to measure it with surprising accuracy by using trigonometry. But his measurement was an inference based on the evidence. Now remember what a fact is?

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work.

ncse.ngo

It's observable. So until we could directly observe it, we could not consider it to be a fact. But Eratosthenes ( and others) did infer that it was round from facts that they did know.

Another juvenile attempt by you to shift attention away from your failure to answer the questions I've asked you.

You keep forgetting what these words mean in science. They have more precise meanings than you'd like them to have. But if you want to talk about these things, you're going to have to remember what they mean.

And what a stupid thing to say: "Well, technically, it's....not a globe". Wrong again, professor. According to your enemy, the dictionary, a globe is "a spherical or rounded object."

Well, let's take a look...

globe

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. ​

• noun A body with the shape of a sphere, especially a representation of the earth in the form of a hollow ball.

Sorry, this time it was your enemy, I guess... I'm thinking you need to have a more precise dictionary. This kind of goes back to your essentialism. The world just doesn't work that way.