Darwin, Evolution and His Critics - Part 2 Darwin's Escape from God

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute ^ | Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon

[Mockingbird For Short]

It's ALL about p-r-e-s-u-p-p-o-s-i-t-i-o-n-s. Everyone enters the discussion with one of two (or more) presuppositions. Either:
1) God's "revelation" (what he tells us) is the primary truth.
2) Science is the primary truth.

These two "truths" are compatible. That is what many don't know...

[RightWhale]

People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons.

The theory makes sense, very simply, of an otherwise bewildering variety of forms of life. That is attractive to mathematically-inclined scientists.

[Modernman]

And so, I gather that Darwin, more than anyone else (aided and abetted by T. Huxley, of course) is to be credited (or blamed) for the (to me) utterly astonishing view that, in order to "be scientific," people "must study the world as if God did not exist."

If you study the world with the assumption that God exists, then everything can be explained by saying "God did it."

There, I've answered all of humanity's questions about life, the universe and everything. Let's shut down all the universities and fire all the scientists.

[betty boop]

If you study the world with the assumption that God exists, then everything can be explained by saying "God did it."

But that wouldn't be an explanation, Modernman. For we would still want to know "how" God did it. See????

[RightWhale]

that wouldn't be an explanation

That's right. For one thing it lacks the ability to predict.

[PatrickHenry]

That's right. For one thing it lacks the ability to predict.

And thus cannot be falsified, even in principle. It may be the way things are, but it's beyond scientific investigation.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

It is difficult to talk about things about "tax reduction" or "social security reform" or "war on terror" when the reply is "but that is just supported by people who are anti-science."

Both parties have ideologies - whether widely supported or belonging to a special interest - which are anathema to the other and will chop off communications from the get-go.

For instance, the single-issue pro-life voter would never consider a Democrat's idea on anything because the party is pro-choice. So I'm not surprised you would run into a brick wall wrt evolution and the YECs in the Republican ranks.

The bottom line (Jeepers, I'm going to sound like a liberal) - is tolerance. The Democrats preach it, they need to live it.

Actually, it is much easier for me to "preach" tolerance to my fellow Christians because Christ commands that we love God absolutely and every one else unconditionally (Matt 22). All of the laws and prophets hang from those two commands. If we don't get them right then nothing else matters. And unconditionally means where they are, as they are, without judging them personally.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

These two "truths" are compatible. That is what many don't know...

I absolutely agree with you! He is the author of both the Scriptures and the physical realm.

[RightWhale]

cannot be falsified

and may therefore be ignored as an immature postulate. It is useless and not worth our time. If we spend any time on it we are on the road to insanity {inability to cope with the world}.

[Modernman]

But that wouldn't be an explanation, Modernman. For we would still want to know "how" God did it. See????

God used his supernatural powers. There, I've answered all of humanity's questions.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may...

betty boop: But that wouldn't be an explanation, Modernman. For we would still want to know "how" God did it. See????

Modernman: God used his supernatural powers. There, I've answered all of humanity's questions.

We Christians would point out that we are all accountable to look and see:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

[betty boop]

And thus cannot be falsified, even in principle. It may be the way things are, but it's beyond scientific investigation.

Hello Patrick! There are distinctions to be noted here.... What is the "it" in the above statement? God as creator of "the way things are?" Certainly it seems that God's action is, as you say, "beyond scientific investigation." But "the way things are" as a result of God's action is not.

Of course, to say that God created the universe is not a scientific statement.

On the other hand, one could assert that God has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, either at the "beginning" or at any other time. But that would not be a scientific statement, either.

The only answer, it seems to me, is not to begin by arguing for either view, but just look at "the way things are." For clearly, the way things are is susceptible to scientific investigation. In other words, start with the evidence, and then see where it leads.

The more I learn about the nature of the universe, the more I become comfortable with the idea that the physical world has an immaterial component to it that transcends the space-time continuum. To my way of thinking, this points to a divine creator. Other people might think it points to something else.

In which case, I'd love to know what that "something else" might be. For that "something else" would need to explain, say, the uncanny effectiveness and universality of mathematics, and the origin of the physical laws, neither of which (apparently) is the product of the material evolution of the space-time continuum.

It is a widely accepted view that the physical laws kicked in almost simultaneously with the Big Bang (that is, immediately after that first infinitessimal moment of Planck time in which those laws are now thought to have no "traction"). If the universe didn't generate them, then who or what did?

Thanks for writing, Patrick. It is always a pleasure to hear from you!

[Logophile]

Since when did science become a multiple choice piece of information? You don't choose to 'believe' in how the natural world works. Either you understand, or you don't, period.

It is not quite so cut-and-dried as you suggest. The natural world is a complicated place; no scientist can be said to understand how it works in all of its complexity.

So we devise models of the real world. These models are necessarily simpler than the world they describe. We "believe" in a model only so long as it remains useful in describing and predicting the way the natural world works.

For example, for a long time we believed in the "conservation of mass," the idea that mass is neither created nor destroyed in a system. It was a useful model, and still is for many purposes. However, Einstein proposed an alternative model in which the mass of a system depends on its energy. The alternative view is more useful in some situations.

[PatrickHenry]

Nice post. I can't disagree with anything you say. Well ... to be true to my grumpy nature, I'll quibble with one thing. You say:

The more I learn about the nature of the universe, the more I become comfortable with the idea that the physical world has an immaterial component to it that transcends the space-time continuum.

That may -- or may not -- be a useful model of the universe. It will ultimately depend on what verifiable evidence we can discover to either exclude your model (if that's even possible) or to support your model. It's very early days for this kind of thing, from a strictly scientific viewpoint.

My personal impression (which, of course, has no persuasive value for anyone) is that your model is running a bit ahead of the available evidence. Model building (or theorizing) usually happens after there's a body of data to be modeled. The existence of physical laws and the utility of math are not, in my always humble opinion, enough to build on.

So I'll just drag my feet, skeptical fellow that I am, and let you get the glory if your model turns out to be the one that uniquely fits what the next generation of telescopes tells us.

[RightWhale]

It is a widely accepted view that the physical laws kicked in almost simultaneously with the Big Bang

Yes, but there are millions of solutions--each presenting their own laws of everything--to the string equations, and the problem is to figure out why one solution seems to have been preferred in this universe and whether parallel universes have the same solution, and if the Big Bang was the necessary result of a prior universe/solution. Parallel universes are big now, not just the imagination of a few quantum physicists.

[Tribune7]

Unfortunately YEC's also destroy the credibility of the rest of the conservative agenda (and I do support some parts thereof.) It is difficult to talk about things about "tax reduction" or "social security reform" or "war on terror" when the reply is "but that is just supported by people who are anti-science.

What possible threat to your lifestyle, our national security or industry does YEC pose -- unlike, say, global warming advocates who endorse non-conservatives?

Even science itself is not significantly endangered by YEC. Now, I can see a long-term concern that they take over our scientific institutions and arbitrarily and unscientifically discriminate against those who hold heretical views (ahem like what happened to that fellow at the Smithesonian) but even that is a real unlikelihood and even that may not be worse than the status quo considering some of the garbage that has been presented in the name of science -- alien abuctions taught at Harvard, global warming as noted, repressed memory just off the top of my head.

[Alacarte]

The natural world is a complicated place; no scientist can be said to understand how it works in all of its complexity.

Of course not, I studied a science, I know how complicated a field is. But the scientific literature defines our best understanding of the world.

It is not quite so cut-and-dried as you suggest.

I agree with your post, but as far as what we understand today, it is as simple as understanding or not. The scientific literature contains our best understanding of how the natural world works, there is no alternative to science. I am not saying that we know everything, and I know sciecne is changing, and will continue to improve. But... right now, the literature is the THE final word. Evolution is science, and good science, whether people understand it or not.

[betty boop]

[What is or is not] a useful model of the universe ... will ultimately depend on what verifiable evidence we can discover to either exclude your model (if that's even possible) or to support your model. It's very early days for this kind of thing, from a strictly scientific viewpoint.

I definitely agree with you there, Patrick, times two.

Model building (or theorizing) usually happens after there's a body of data to be modeled.

I'm not quite sure that's true in principle. I suspect the likes of a, say, Albert Einstein would find something incomplete, and therefore, unsatisfying in that proposition.

The practical problem seems to be this: Before one can even begin to select what data qualifies as "evidence," one must first have a sense of what could possibly constitute the qualifications by which otherwise inchoate data can be qualified as direct, germane evidence in the first place.

To put it in a nutshell, it seems to me that before one can formulate a proper question, let alone array direct evidence pro or con in its case, one must first have had some intuition or imaginative experience in which such a question could arise in the first place, so as to become directly relevant in the instant place.

Capice, amici?

It seems to me there is a profound difference between the "strictly scientific," rationalist, "blinkered" viewpoint so mindlessly promulgated by persons and institutions in positions of power these days, and the viewpoints of everybody else. The latter actually consult reality every now and then, up close and personal.

But "direct consultation with reality" is the sort of thing that ideologues ever seek to avoid -- like a vampire avoids garlic, crucifixes, mirrors, and silver stakes....

But of course, all this is conjecture, given the state of the evidence I've seen so far (which I'm sure is partial, incomplete).

Must leave it there for now, dear Patrick. Thank you so much for writing. Good night, and God bless!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the ping to your discussion with PatrickHenry! Excellent points!

To put it in a nutshell, it seems to me that before one can formulate a proper question, let alone array direct evidence pro or con in its case, one must first have had some intuition or imaginative experience in which such a question could arise in the first place, so as to become directly relevant in the instant place.

Your argument reminds me of Albert Einstein who famously conducted many thought experiments before proceeding. His quest was always the "lofty structure of all that there is" and his dream was to transmute the basewood of matter to the pure marble of geometry.

Or as Dallaporta observed:

An interview with Nicolò Dallaporta

Today the emphasis in the world of research and also in the university is to go to extremes in the pursuit of details…

… Often it happens that each person is pushing one little channel and doesn't know anything but that. The great themes have very little resonance. But the problem is that today scientists no longer have time to think. Physicists have "thought" up to the generation of Hesemberg and Shroedinger. After that, there has been no time for this. The quantity of knowledge and information has grown so fast that it is increasingly difficult for a scientist to have a view of the whole.

This, I think, is a tragedy of modern science.

[gobucks]

It has been suggested that the death of his young daughter from a long, wasting illness in which she suffered horribly is what destroyed his faith.

Well, I have to go to work this morning ... otherwise I'd be here all day. I'm way behind on my replies.

I didn't know this about his daughter. Betty, thanks for this tidbit. Once again, public schools have proved to me that the game is not about what is taught, but what is not taught.