Posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Well, I don't know you and I haven't followed your postings, so I don't know in detail what you believe.
Part of the issue is that many creationists (and I don't know if you are among them) deny the Big Bang explanation of the Universe as contrary to the Biblical interpretation of creation.
Part of the issue is that many creationists (and I don't know if you are among them) accuse scientists of being anti-God because we subscribe to the scientific explanations. I happen to be a Christian and this really is offensive to me.
Part of the issue is that many creationists (and I suspect you are among them) simply do not have a working knowledge of science or the definition of science. Ultimately, we talk past one another because the definitions we use for words and concepts are different.
Those of us who know what science is, and indeed are practicing researchers, know:
1. Science is not about truth. It is about fact. Science is defined not by outcome, but by process.
2. Science is minimalist. It does not try to explain what it does not have observation or first principle to address.
The fundamental argument I hear from the creationists and IDers is (my interpretation): "Evolution (or Big Bang) is a theory that is not completely correct and has problems. Moreover, scientits keep changing their view of it. Therefore, it is only a theory that they happen to believe; it is not truth. Creation is a belief supported by the bible and perhaps a few observations but it is something I believe. Well, the only difference is that we believe different things. There is no essential difference between Evolution (also Big Bang) and Creationism (or ID)."
The argument made by scientists is: "Big Bang and Evolution are science and I take them as science. Creationism and ID are not science, they are faith."
Note that the semantics of the two positions are different. We are talking different things. Creationists want to talk truth, scientists want to talk the scientific process. Evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories because they were developed by the scientific method. Creationism and ID are not science because they were not developed by that method. Truth has nothing to do with it.
Scientists don't claim to know the "truth", that is the province of faith. We do claim to know "facts", which are different than truth and which can be observed. Moreover, science is a process which includes as essential elements an unbiased estimation and a minimalist explanation of existing observatations. Sciece flat out does not answer "why?"
So, consider the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. It is consistent with a raft of observation that includes astronomy, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, atomic physics, gravitation,...the list goes on. The Big Bang theory will change as we learn more. It will evolve. Parts of it will be found to be incorrect. That, indeed, is the process of science.
However, it is a beautiful theory.
The Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain how or why the initial explosion originally took place. We simply don't know and can't possibly find out. Science doesn't address this question. It is the result of working backwards in time from present observations. The science stops when we can no longer extrapolate from existing physics or observations.
How did the Big Bang happen? That is not a question for science because science cannot answer it. It is a question of faith. As a matter of MY faith, separate from MY intellectual understanding of science, I happen to believe thatt the Big Bang was God's creation. But, that is a belief based on faith, not science.
As a matter of science, Big Bang and Evolution are science and Creationism and ID are not. As a matter of FAITH, not science, I happen to believe that Creationism and ID are bad faith as well. In my opinion, as a matter of Faith, God's creation is much more magnificent as described by the Big Bang and Evolution than it is in the Biblican description or ID.
As allegory, I would argue that when you and the other creationists and IDers go to heaven, and I believe you will because you are probably good people, God will say: " Welcome to Heaven, sirchtruth. You were a good person. However, that Creationism thing? Did you really believe that was the best I could do????"
Well said.
The List-O-Links. Direct link to the right part of my homepage.
Works great. A wonderful set of links, to be be avoided at all costs by anti-science Luddites, much as a Vampires avoid sunlight, and for the same reason.
I have no problems with your statement generally, however there are some things you are referring too that don't really address my point, but I think are a good attempt and a decent explaination of the difference between science and CR/ID.
Just so you know, I think that "The Creation" happened exactly like Genesis describes it, literally...there is no metaphors, similies, or figurative language.
My only problem is that evolution, for the most case, is taught as fact. Not that there are not facts to lead one to conclude evolution, but evolution itself is taught as fact, and that is just not so. I could not make the argument better than this:
So, consider the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. It is consistent with a raft of observation that includes astronomy, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, atomic physics, gravitation,...the list goes on. The Big Bang theory will change as we learn more. It will evolve. Parts of it will be found to be incorrect. That, indeed, is the process of science.
That's a great explaination, I think. However, being "consistant" with something does NOT make it factual. That's where the problem comes in, the scientific evidence might be consistance with theory, but the lot of evidence does not make the THEORY fact.
That's my only contention.
"Just so you know, I think that "The Creation" happened exactly like Genesis describes it, literally...there is no metaphors, similies, or figurative language. "
What does that mean specifically? Do you believe it was a literal 24 hr day or an indefinite period? Both are literal translations.
Do you believe firmament is an expanse between two types of water layers or the boundaries of the universe? Both are literal translations.
Do you believe God created heavens and Earth or do you believe He sired the universe? Both are literal translations.
Well, this is a great question! A "Day" is basically described in scripture as 24 hours by two ways I know of:
Ten Commandments - Observe Shabbat
Daniel 9:25 is an exact to the day phrophecy. There are other ways in scriptue I believe describe a literal day as being 24 hours, but those are two I can think of at the moment.
Do you believe firmament is an expanse between two types of water layers or the boundaries of the universe?
From what I know I believe WATERS.
Do you believe God created heavens and Earth or do you believe He sired the universe?
I'm not sure about this, where is "sired the universe?"
Let me make this point, when someone in the bible was reading the bible, they ALWAYS took the verse(s) literally.
I am not saying there isn't any figurative language in scripture, but I do believe there is much less than what people point as figurative. I know because of SCIENCE I have been proven wrong MANY times when I thought scripture was figurative and science showed the way it could happen litterally.
That is not an entirely unreasonable concern. Indeed, Evolution is taught as fact at the high school level. Well, Evolution as an observation is fact. Evolution as a process, namely the mechanism for Evolution is a theory. However, at the high school level it is taught as TRUTH. At the college level and certainly at the graduate school level, it is taught as all science is, as simply the best explanation of the facts that we have. The anticipation, and it is EXPLICIT, is that much of it is wrong and it is the job of scientists to fix that.
I suspect that you might not find it so problematic at that level.
However, at the high school level, it is taught as fact. However, in defense of high school, they have a different educational objective than college or graduate school. They are trying to make students conversant in a subject. They need to be simply conversant before they can study principle or concept.
I have no problem with the approach of qualifying that Evolution is theory. Indeed, that would apply to all science. Consider, we teach physics at the high school level and they teach Newton's laws of motion. Those are not correct either (except in the limit of zero velocity and zero gravitation and ignoring quantum effects). However, I still think it is the right way to go. Students need to be conversant in concepts such as energy, momentum, and angular momentum as a precursor to understanding more complicated issues.
That's my only contention.
Actually, my only disagreement with you is one of semantics. Being fully consistent with the entire ensemble of observations does make something fact (it is the definition). What it doesn't make it is TRUTH. However, I continue to argue that the province of science is not Truth, that is the province of Faith.
If that's the case, I have no problem either considering ID is taught as well just as a valid theory.
What I was getting at is that to translate the Bible literally, you must go from the Hebrew not the English.
In Hebrew, day can be translated either a regular day or an indefinite period. If you look at Gen 2.:4 you will see, even in the English, that all the "day"s in in creation must be translated as an indefinite period. Also, since the Sun was not formed until the fourth day, it is impossible for the first three days to be 24 hrs. unless you do some interpretive tap dance.
Firmament literally means "beginning of the boundaries of the universe". You get this from the word sentence composed by the letters of the word "rakia" translated as firmament in the KJV. So, it is improbable that "waters"
can be taken literally, especially since the Hebrew word is not really a plural as it is translated in English. It just looks like a plural. So, the KJV mistranslated water and did not take the Hebrew in a literal sense, at all. In fact, no one really knows what firmament means.
The best and most literal translation of the first sentence of the Bible from the Hebrew is, "In the first instant, God sires the universe." Creates is not wrong at all, but it is not literal either.
So, if you want to take the Bible literally, you really need to understand the literal meaning of the Hebrew. The English translations are too remote from the original to draw any conclusions about literal translations. At best, you can only get an interpretive take from the English.
It is the ridiculous position that you must take the literal translation of the English that warps meaning and makes a real student of the Bible reject creationism as nonsense. If the English non-literal translation is the basis for your "literal" belief in the Bible, you need to reconsider your whole basis for what you think the Bible means.
Alas, I thought I explained this.
Evolution is a scientific theory because it meets the definition of science.
ID is not a scientific theory because it does not meet the definition of science.
The distinction is important. All science is ultimately a theory. Newton's laws of motion is a theory, so is Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum ElectroDynamics, Statistical Mechanics, Electromagnetic Field Theory, and everything else. All have limitations. All have regions where they are no longer valid (although there have been no corrections yet found to any of the Quantum theories).
The notion that anything else that is a "theory" is also a scientific theory is rhetoric, not logic. The proof comes from simple logic: it is called reductio ab absurdiam. (reduction to absurdity).
Let's postulate your perspective that because Evolution (and the rest of science) is a theory and because ID is also a theory, then ID should be equally valid as a scientific theory. (Equally valid means it should also be taught in school). Note, we are making no distinction between Evolution as a theory and ID as a theory. (i.e. we ignore that one meets the definition of science and the other does not). Well.... OK.
Well then, I am going to propose a new theory to replace Newton's Law of Motion. It is called the "Little Pink Polka-dot Men" theory. In the LPPDM theory, little pink polka-dot men, moving too quickly for the eye to see, run around moving objects in such a way that they nearly approximate Newton's laws. So, when you break a car for a stop light, it is not friction at work, it is little pink polka-dot men. OK, now, we have Newton's theory and the LPPDM theory, and get this: BOTH ARE THEORIES. NEITHER IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, BUT BOTH FIT THE AVAILABLE DATA. THEREFORE, the LPPDM theory is just as good as Newton's laws. We should now insist that high school physics teach LPPDM as well as Newton. (This is the Creationist / ID rehtoric at work).
Well, hell, why stop there. Palmistry is a theory. Tarot card reading is a theory. Witchcraft is a theory. (Well, some people think so). The daily horoscope is a theory. 1-900-Psychic-Hotline is a theory. Astrology is a theory. Think I am being unreasonable?? I bet there are more people that believe in Astrology than in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since they are all "theories" and the rest of science is all "theories", let's teach all of them.
Have to, to be consistent with the Creationist / ID rationale.
And this result is absurd. There is indeed, sirchtruth, a difference between Quantum Mechanics and Astrology. There is also a difference between Evolution and ID. That difference is the same in both cases.
I suppose the only solution is that everything should be taught in the schools. Well....OK. However, I would like to suggest that Evolution, Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology are taught in one class. And Creationism, ID, Astrology, Palmistry, Witchcraft, Tarot Card Reading, and Pyschic Phenomena are taught in another. Then we make each an elective. Let's see which kids get into college.
micelles
Excellent points. But the response will probably surprise you.
placemarker
It's like being stuck in a packed elevator during a winos' convention.
So virtual particles are a function of (t)?
Exactly.
We've had this same argument so many times on FR that it makes my head spin just thinking about it. IF we decide to let every competing "theory" (but not scientific) into the classroom, there won't be time to teach much of anything that is meaningfully connected to reality.
It means adding the following courses to the already crowded curriculum:
Numerology in addition to math classes
Astrology in addition to Astronomy
Alchemy in addition to Chemistry
Homeopathy and Chiropractic in addition to Allopathic medicine
Augery in place of history
and so on...
There's no end to all the postentially "competing" non-scientific theories that can be shoe-horned into the curriculum.
The proper test is whether or not they are scientific, and additionally, in the context of primary and secondary schools, whether or not the theory is widely embraced by the scientists in the respective field of study.
Well... Yes. At least the time that they exist. Larger, more massive particles exist for shorter periods of time, for example.
The very elegant experimental proof of the presence of this "froth" in the vacuum field as Feynman described it was to shoot particles from an accelerator through a vacuum. Occasionally, when the "virtual" particles came into existance and were real for a brief instant, they were collided into by one of the accelerator particles. Since the virtual particles exist for a very short period of time, this collision does not occur often. But it does occur. And once it occurs, one of the particle / anti-particle particles is knocked away by the collision. Energy from the collision has to go back into the vacuum field. But the collision is real and can be observed by a particle detector.
That there is. The "grand sweep" of evolution can never be observed. That says nothing about the viability of the theory, it is simply fact. ID is observable on a daily basis. Chimera's, genetically modified wheat, cotton etc.
I know, it's not the ID you are talking about. But I'm curious, assuming a catastrophic event how would future paleontologists and geneticists know that chimera's were designed? Or to remain in the present, how would we know whether an airborne communicable immunodeficiency virus with very high mortality was designed or mutated?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.