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

[Barbarian]

Assuming you actually believe in mischievous spirits. As you see, the hypothesis of those pre-Columbian people was repeatedly verified by experiments. Evidence can still give you wrong answers. One philosopher of science remareked that science goes from being wrong to being less wrong.

Since, as has been consistently the case to date, you're not going to try to interact/deal with what I've written, why do you keep bothering to even post your pathetic "replies" to my posts?

You're entitled to an answer. You're not entitled to an answer you like. Sorry about that. And think about how long it took for you to stop denying that birds are dinosaurs.

I note, though, that your "philosopher," here, happens to speak the truth in his admission to us that the corpus of irrational thinking you like to call "science" is always wrong.

From wrong to less wrong, as he put it. In other words, every scientific theory is provisionally true, subject to further evidence. This always surprises people who don't know much about science, but keep in mind that nothing else we do works better for useful understanding of the natural world.

Since you like to call yourself a "scientist,"

My employers thought so. I made them money doing science, and a few awards here and there.

you are thereby admitting that you've dedicated your life to always being wrong.

Turns out, I've usually been right. Just like those Native Americans were spot on when they predicted that altitude would change cooking times.

Maybe I'm wrong about the nature of the Higgs boson but I was still able to effectively redesign manufacturing processes to make them more safe and efficient.

Even if the mechanisms of certain inflammation processes are poorly understood.

So, truly you are begging a colossal gratuity in your vain hope of being taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.

Well, you know how irrational old science barbarians can be... ;D

 

[Barbarian]

When you say that this or that false proposition "works," what (if anything) do you mean by that?

I mean it gives useful and reliable answers. As your fellow YE creationist admits about evolutionary theory...

There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

But Dr. Wood, besides being a YE creationist, is also an accomplished scientist who is familiar with the evidence and with evolutionary theory. And being a Christian, he's honest and tells the truth, even if he disagrees with the theory. You should emulate him, if you want to talk about it. Learn about it, and then deal with the evidence, even if it doesn't fit your assumptions.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's a pretty good article, featuring an apparently non-theistic scientist, respectfully answering questions posed by creationists:

22 Messages of Hope (and Science) for Creationists

No snark, no sarcasm, no judgement, just the genuine, honest answers to 22 creationist messages. “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; […]

bigthink.com

Worth reading for all of us.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I mean it gives useful and reliable answers.

In what way is it useful for you to believe falsehood?

And who cares that you can rely on falsehood? Lots of people do that, every day. Your reliance on falsehood is wrong thinking; there's nothing special, nothing good about thinking wrongly. But, since you imagine otherwise, in what way, and to whom is your reliance on falsehood beneficial? Why would you want to rely on falsehood?

 

[Runner]

As you already learned, that's wrong. The mischievous spirits theory worked every time. Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood writes:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

I read Todd's original blog entry and all the follow-ups. He is clearly a very intelligent guy, but I think his position is badly flawed.

He makes an important point when he says, "I define evidence as simply data that corresponds to or is consistent with a theory."

A rock is a raw piece of evidence. There may be lots of questions about the natural order to which the rock is relevant. For any given question, the rock might be fitted into (be consistent with) a particular theory or more than one theory. As other evidence is gathered, one theory may emerge as the most plausible - perhaps so plausible and confirmed that it's deemed as fact, as having been established to a level of scientific certainty. This is all we can accomplish in terms of trying to explain the natural order. If the question is one whose answer lies outside the natural order ("Did God create this rock?"), we'll never achieve the same level of certainty.

However, Todd then says, "As a point of application, I think modern creationists would be much better served if we stopped coddling their every doubt and fear with new 'evidence for creation' and instead helped to wean them off evidence altogether. A truly close Christian walk with Jesus should render evidence irrelevant." He seems to be suggesting that if we're faithful Bible believers (i.e., literalists), we should just forget about scientific evidence and scientific theorizing and plow mindlessly ahead with the confidence that the Bible will somehow, some way, be demonstrated to be correct (perhaps when Jesus returns and explains that the natural order was just a huge illusion to see whether people would believe the Bible or their lying eyes?).

This to me is the worst sort of Young Earth Creationism. In fact, it's my strong belief that there actually are few if any genuine Young Earth Creationists. No one as sane as Todd could live with the sort of cognitive dissonance his position entails. It's all some sort of weird, compartmentalized "theological pretending," the dynamics of which I don't even begin to understand.

Even as someone who has deep concerns about evolutionary theory, I believe it's strictly a scientific question. It's the very sort of question for which God gave us brains and five senses and a natural order susceptible to investigation, analysis and explanation. When the question is one regarding the natural order, the Bible must be fitted into the science, not the other way around. If common descent is established to a level of scientific certainty and the concerns I have are eliminated, then this will become my Christian position just as with the age of the earth. I can only admire the Dalai Lama for his straightforward statement, "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” This is far more rational than Todd's position.

And those of you worried that I'm enabling him, keep in mind, he's making progress, a little at a time.

I think I'd have to disagree. When someone continues to play self-evidently silly word games, insists world-renowned philosophers of the caliber of Alvin Planting and Edmund Gettier are dummies, and resorts to badgering and ad hominem attacks, I'd question whether there has been any progress. I question whether anything your antagonist has said is even sincere. I think this has become nothing more than a game.

I will agree, however, that you're a very patient guy!

 

[Paul E. Michael]

A rock is a raw piece of evidence.

What "evidence" do you have for your claim that a rock is evidence?

 

[Runner]

Here's a pretty good article, featuring an apparently non-theistic scientist, respectfully answering questions posed by creationists:

22 Messages of Hope (and Science) for Creationists

No snark, no sarcasm, no judgement, just the genuine, honest answers to 22 creationist messages. “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; […]

bigthink.com

Worth reading for all of us.

I do think the objection to ID is disingenuous. I believe the ID proponents are correct in asserting that ID theorizing is legitimate science. If the inference to the best explanation for a body of evidence is "a designer," I fail to see how this is any less scientific than any "non-designer" explanation. The designer may be within the natural order (e.g., aliens) or outside (e.g., God), but ID doesn't demand that we identify the designer - merely whether the inference to the best explanation for the evidence is "a designer" or "not a designer."

It seems to me that the real objections to ID are that:

1. Many scientists are wedded (knowingly or not) to philosophical naturalism, which rules out a supernatural designer as one of the axioms of the paradigm. There cannot be a supernatural designer - it's disallowed by the paradigm. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, is perfectly legitimate. As John Lennox has pointed out, if science is properly performed by a devout Christian scientist and a militant atheist scientist, the results should be the same.

2. Many scientists can't get over the mental hurdle that ID is thinly disguised Creationism and the proponents of ID have a not-so-hidden agenda to promote Creationism. But science should be able to confine the debate to its legitimate parameters and call out the ID proponents if and when they go too far.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Assuming you actually believe in mischievous spirits. As you see, the hypothesis of those pre-Columbian people was repeatedly verified by experiments. Evidence can still give you wrong answers. One philosopher of science remareked that science goes from being wrong to being less wrong.​

Remar[e]kable copy/paste work, Barbarian. Calm yourself, and maybe you'll do better the next time(s) you mindlessly repeat your parrot squawks.​

You're entitled to an answer.​

If you thought that, then you'd have answered my questions. But, so far, you've not answered them.​

You're not entitled to an answer you like. Sorry about that.​

No need to apologize; you've got me all wrong. See, I like that you have persistently stonewalled against the questions I've been asking you. It is not my problem that you are so beside yourself with anger at your failure to answer them that, in order to try to soothe your self-wounded pride, you have persistently resorted to lying about your failure to answer the questions I've been asking you. Your apology is unnecessary.
​

And think about how long it took for you to stop denying that birds are dinosaurs.​

I see you're still asserting that non-dinosaurs are dinosaurs.​

From wrong to less wrong, as he put it.​

Yeah, he said that the irrational thinking you call "science" is always wrong.​

In other words, every scientific theory is provisionally true, subject to further evidence.​

In other words, every thing you call "scientific theory" is not true.​

This always surprises people who don't know much about science, but keep in mind that nothing else we do works better for useful understanding of the natural world.​

As you've been demonstrating, you understand nothing. Which is why all you can do is sit there and keep reflexively repeating your little slogans.​

My employers thought so.​

So what?​

I made them money doing science, and a few awards here and there.​

Doing what you, and perhaps they, are irrationally pleased to call "science". But, you've already demonstrated, in post after post, that what you call "doing science" is nothing but thinking irrationally. Remember, you can't even distinguish between something observed/observable, on the one hand, and observation thereof, on the other. So, obviously no rationally-thinking person cares a whit whether you fancy to call this, that, or the other thing, "science".

Turns out, I've usually been right.​

But then, since you've already asininely told me that one can be right in believing falsehood, you've nothing to plume yourself on, there.​

 

[Barbarian]

Remar[e]kable copy/paste work, Barbarian. Calm yourself, and maybe you'll do better the next time(s) you mindlessly repeat your parrot squawks.

Ah, typo flame. You're doing better.

No need to apologize; you've got me all wrong.

I think we've all seen enough to get what you're about.
And think about how long it took for you to stop denying that birds are dinosaurs.

(falls back into denial)

And you were doing so well...

In other words, every scientific theory is provisionally true, subject to further evidence.

In other words, every thing you call "scientific theory" is not true.

Provisionally true. Subject to further evidence, if it turns up. This might seem wrong to you, but of course nothing else we can do, works better for understanding the natural world.

(Regarding Barbarian being a scientist)
My employers thought so.

So what?

They actually knew what a scientist is. I made them money doing science, and a few awards here and there.

Doing what you, and perhaps they, are irrationally pleased to call "science". But, you've already demonstrated, in post after post, that what you call "doing science" is nothing but thinking irrationally.

I get that you want to think so. But your emotional reactions to it, suggest that you know better. You're being, yes, irrational here. Remember, you can't even distinguish between something observed/observable, on the one hand, and observation thereof, on the other.

Turns out, I've usually been right.

But then, since you've already asininely told me that one can be right in believing falsehood

No, I didn't. You just "adjusted" the wording a bit to get what you wanted it to be. One is justified in believing what the evidence indicates, even if sometimes, that's wrong. One of my degrees is in systems, and there are entire courses in which one learns the effective processes for decision making with only partial information. We do that almost all the time in this world.

So, obviously no rationally-thinking person cares a whit whether you fancy to call this, that, or the other thing, "science".

As I mentioned, my employers did, and they actually understand how it works. Sorry.

You've let yourself get all flustered again, and you're angry and calling names. It never works out well for you. When someone angers me, I go get an iced tea, play with the dog a bit and then respond. Saves me a lot of embarrassment. Worth a try?

 

[Barbarian]

It seems to me that the real objections to ID are that:

1. Many scientists are wedded (knowingly or not) to philosophical naturalism, which rules out a supernatural designer as one of the axioms of the paradigm. There cannot be a supernatural designer - it's disallowed by the paradigm. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, is perfectly legitimate. As John Lennox has pointed out, if science is properly performed by a devout Christian scientist and a militant atheist scientist, the results should be the same.

For a Christian, the issue is whether or not it's proper to demote God to a mere designer. He is, in my belief, the omnipotent Creator, and has no need to figure anything out. I'm closest to IDers like Michael Denton who thinks that (designer) "front-loaded" the universe to naturally produce everything intended.

2. Many scientists can't get over the mental hurdle that ID is thinly disguised Creationism and the proponents of ID have a not-so-hidden agenda to promote Creationism.

Yeah, the Dover Trial, "a train wreck" in the words of ID inventor Philip Johnson, showed that ID as presented by the Dover School board was a thinly-disguised attempt to bring creationism into the classroom. I don't think all IDers are like that. But unfortunately, many of them are.

And yes, when IDers veer off into special creationism, or scientists veer off into ontological naturalism, then they should be called out.

 

[Barbarian]

In what way is it useful for you to believe falsehood?

For example, those Native Americans believed that the higher concentration of spirits at altitude would mean food would take longer to cook there. Very useful theory, and it always worked. The planetary model of the atom explained much about the physical and chemical properties of elements and gave reliable and useful answers about those things. But the model was succeeded by other models that were even more useful.

Stuff like that.

 

[Barbarian]

Creationist to scientist: "Why do you insist on using a methodology that cannot be found to be absolutely true?"

Scientist to creationist: "It works."

Creationist to scientist: "Why don't you use my religious belief in creationism that always is absolutely true, because it says it is?"

Scientist to creationist: "It doesn't work."

(Creationist walks off, muttering to himself)

 

[Paul E. Michael]

One is justified in believing what the evidence indicates, even if sometimes, that's wrong.

Evidence always, without exception, indicates (entails) propositions that are true, and never indicates (entails) propositions that are false; so one is always justified in believing what evidence indicates. One is never wrong in believing what evidence indicates, because evidence always, without exception, indicates truth, and one is never wrong in believing truth. One is always, without exception, wrong in believing falsehood; without exception, one is never justified in believing falsehood.

Remember, you can't even distinguish between something observed/observable, on the one hand, and observation thereof, on the other.

Sure I can, because, unlike you, I'm a rationally-thinking person; unlike you, I'm not in a war against truth and logic. It's easy to distinguish between something observed/observable, on the one hand, and observation thereof, on the other. (I mean, it's easy for rationally-thinking people to so distinguish; it seems, though, that it's at least very difficult, if not altogether impossible, for you to so distinguish.)

But you answered "Yes" to both of my questions:

1. Is a fact an observation? Yes or No?
2. Is a fact something observable? Yes or No?

Yes.

Because of your confusion, and your inability, or refusal, to think analytically, you said your mechanical watch is a fact. So, since you say that a fact is both something observable and an observation, then by saying your mechanical watch is a fact, you are saying your mechanical watch is both something observable and an observation. You also say that a dog is a fact; thus, you are saying a dog is both something observable and an observation. No dog is an observation. No mechanical watch is an observation.

Why can't you distinguish between a dog and an observation, Barbarian?
Why can't you distinguish between a mechanical watch and an observation, Barbarian?

Provisionally true.

I mean considered true, subject to future evidence.

Like how you consider false propositions (such as that non-humans are ancestors of humans) true.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

you've already asininely told me that one can be right in believing falsehood

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.

Here, you are asininely telling me some people are right ("justified") in believing ("thinking that their hypothesis is correct") falsehood (something "incorrect"):

So they go out and test the hypothesis, and discover that cooking times do indeed increase with altitude, and are justified in thinking that their hypothesis is correct. Only later does additional evidence show that this is incorrect, even though their theory was a useful one that always worked.

Here, you are asininely telling me that some people have been right in believing falsehood:

They were justified in accepting the phlogiston theory even though it turned out to be incorrect.

There, you are saying people were right ("justified") in believing ("accepting") falsehood (something "incorrect").

So, you are flat out lying when you say that you have not asininely told me that one can be right in believing falsehood.

 

[Barbarian]

Evidence always, without exception, indicates (entails) propositions that are true, and never indicates (entails) propositions that are false;

As you learned, there was evidence for the planetary model of the atom. And for a while, scientists accepted that model, until further evidence showed it to be more complicated than that. So your assumption is just wrong.

Barbarian, earlier:
One is justified in believing what the evidence indicates, even if sometimes, that's wrong.

Paul E. Michael said:
you've already asininely told me that one can be right in believing falsehood

Nope. You just changed some words to make it say what you want. Being justified in believing something (because the evidence you have so indicates that) is not the same thing as being right. You know this. Why even bother to argue otherwise?

You seem to be unable to realize that a thing can be an observation and and fact. One can see a dog; that's an observation. But because it can be observed, it is also a fact. You keep getting yourself twisted up in your word games.

Like how you consider false propositions (such as that non-humans are ancestors of humans) true.

As you learned, even honest and knowledgeable YE creationists admit that is what the evidence shows. There's really no point in denying the evidence. Those honest creationists haven't changed their minds; they just openly admit that they prefer their reading of Genesis to the evidence. If you could bring yourself to accept these facts, you'd be much less troubled by all of this.

So, you are flat out lying when you say that you have not asininely told me that one can be right in believing falsehood.

I don't think you're lying when you misrepresent what I said. I think you are so locked into your ideology that you cannot think rationally about the issue. And so you changed what I said to fit your emotional needs. And that's really very sad.

It's not what a good Christian would do, is it?

 

[Barbarian]

Evidence always, without exception, indicates (entails) propositions that are true, and never indicates (entails) propositions that are false;

As you saw, that's wrong. Phlogiston, tricky spirits, and planetary atoms are examples.

Remember, you can't even distinguish between something observed/observable, on the one hand, and observation thereof, on the other.

Sure I can

No, you can't. For example, you were unable to distinguish between the fact of a dog, and the observation of it. No point in denying the fact. You left evidence on the thread.

 

[Runner]

For a Christian, the issue is whether or not it's proper to demote God to a mere designer. He is, in my belief, the omnipotent Creator, and has no need to figure anything out. I'm closest to IDers like Michael Denton who thinks that (designer) "front-loaded" the universe to naturally produce everything intended.

I don't see ID as "demoting" God any more than evolutionary theory does. The issue is more in the vein of "Does the natural order show a creative mind behind it or does it not?" A theistic evolutionist would presumably say evolution was God's "design" - i.e., this is how he chose to generate the species. From a theistic standpoint, I don't see either direct creation or evolutionary creation impinging on God's ominpotence. The problem with evolution is that it can be explained (or at least non-theistic Darwinists insist it can) in purely naturalistic terms without reference to a creative mind. The ID proponents emphasize aspects of the natural order that they believe simply can't be explained in purely naturalistic terms.

Just a random thought, but some book I recently read made the point that most of us tend to think that evolutionary theory is in the forefront of most scientists' minds, when in fact the vast majority of scientists know little about, care little about and have little reason to care about evolutionary theory because it's of no real relevance to the work they do. They accept it as an axiom of modern science, but it certainly isn't in the forefront of their minds.

A final random thought regarding evidence for those who seem to be having difficulty with the concept. In the practice of law, the threshold evidentiary issue is whether a supposed item of evidence is relevant to an issue before the court. A rock, in the abstract, isn't evidence - it's just a rock. If the issue is "How do whales mate?" - the rock isn't relevant. If the issue is "What are the geologic characteristics of this area?" - voila, the rock is relevant. There is no ontological category called "EVIDENCE" into which items may be lumped. Whether something is evidence is determined by its relevance to the question being asked.

 

[Barbarian]

Just a random thought, but some book I recently read made the point that most of us tend to think that evolutionary theory is in the forefront of most scientists' minds, when in fact the vast majority of scientists know little about, care little about and have little reason to care about evolutionary theory because it's of no real relevance to the work they do. They accept it as an axiom of modern science, but it certainly isn't in the forefront of their minds.

Pretty much the way biologists don't think much about Newton's theory of Gravitation. But it's huge thing for biologists, because it touches everything in biology. BTW, it does matter, though. Tidal rhythmites have a lot to do with the way life was at different times in the Earth's history. And that has to do with lunar recession and the amount of coastline at the time (Pangea had relatively little coastline because it was compacted), and this affected lunar recession and therefore tides and life in the seas. Everything turns out to be tied to everything else. Probably, nature in general has more to do with evolution than evolution has to do with nature in general.

A final random thought regarding evidence for those who seem to be having difficulty with the concept. In the practice of law, the threshold evidentiary issue is whether a supposed item of evidence is relevant to an issue before the court. A rock, in the abstract, isn't evidence - it's just a rock. If the issue is "How do whales mate?" - the rock isn't relevant. If the issue is "What are the geologic characteristics of this area?" - voila, the rock is relevant. There is no ontological category called "EVIDENCE" into which items may be lumped. Whether something is evidence is determined by its relevance to the question being asked.

Yes.

 

[Barbarian]

I read Todd's original blog entry and all the follow-ups. He is clearly a very intelligent guy, but I think his position is badly flawed.

I don't remember if we've talked about it, but have you read anything about Dr. Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" concept? It's a creative way to explain the evidence in a YE context.

I think he's completely wrong, but it's interesting and a sincere attempt to resolve the issue.

 

[Runner]

I don't remember if we've talked about it, but have you read anything about Dr. Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" concept? It's a creative way to explain the evidence in a YE context.

I think he's completely wrong, but it's interesting and a sincere attempt to resolve the issue.

No, I'd never heard of Aardsma, but "creative" is putting it mildly. "Desperate" is always a good adjective for YE theorizing.

I now have enough knowledge of "virtual history" to fill a thimble, but the analogy he keeps using is a book. When you begin reading a novel, the characters, buildings and everything else have a "virtual history" the author doesn't tell you about. You just plunge in where the author begins the novel. The virtual history preceding that point is just in the mind of the author. Aardsma says "The appearance of a history in a created thing, predating its creation, is what we call virtual history."

According to Aardsma, the story of the universe from beginning to end was in the mind of God before any act of creation. No part is more real than any other. The first "story" began with the act of creation about 7000 years ago. The "story" we now occupy begins with the Fall. At the Fall, the pre-Fall reality was supernaturally altered by God to subject it to futility. What we observe - all the things that seem very old - are the "virtual history" of our story that begins at the Fall. This sounds an awful lot like the YE theory that God created everything with an appearance of age, but Aardsma insists the resemblance is superficial because there really is a virtual history in the mind of God, as opposed to God dishonestly creating an appearance of age.

What? I now have a headache. Yeah, I think desperate about sums it up.

To be honest, I pay no attention to any YE arguments, theories or evidence. When I hear "Young Earth Creationist," I just roll my eyes. I'm not interested in anything a Young Earther has to say. Harsh, but that's just the way it is. In my opinion, it's the Christian equivalent of Scientology and does considerable harm to the Christian message.

As I said above, I question whether anyone could sincerely hold a YE position. It strikes me as some sort of compartmentalized theological pretending that allows them to live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance while convincing themselves they're holier than thou for so doing.

(Believe it or not, folks, I heavily edited this to make it kinder, gentler and less judgmental toward Young Earth Christians.)