Creation Ministries International has an article which addresses the frequent criticism of creation science that most of it doesn't go through "peer review."
Andrew Kulikovsky examines the purpose of peer review, and why it is so difficult to gain peer-reviewed acceptance of creationist--especially young-earth creationist--research.
He points out that peer review can result in a better study and paper through the feedback provided. Sometimes peer review can point out flawed assumptions or weak arguments, providing an opportunity to better present them or abandon them, if necessary.
He also said that the term "peer reviewed" has evolved (excuse the pun) into another way of saying "quality," which also implies that if it isn't peer reviewed, then it's worthless and shouldn't be considered--an assumption that may be true much of the time, but cannot be reasonably assumed to be the rule.
As an example, Kulikovsky points out that German physician J. R Mayer first formulated the First Law of Thermodynamics in 1842, but it was rejected. He also points out a mea culpa in Nature magazine:
‘(T)here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.’
Kulikovsky also points out that peer review, while a good practice and measure, is not infallible, does not guarantee quality or correctness, does not prevent fraud, and is rarely objective--which should be one of the greatest attributes of true science.
But creation science cannot get a fair, objective "shake" in the evolutionist-dominated field of science in the modern world. Most scientist and adherents to the religion of evolution start from the assumption that there is no God, that completely naturalistic processes brought the universe to the state in which it exists today, and that there is no and can be no supernatural influence on the universe.
Consider this example: Several people live inside a house, but they've never been outside it, and there are no windows. Some occupants believe there is nothing outside the house, that the house is "all there is, all there ever was, all there ever will be." But others in the house contend that there is a whole other world outside the house, a place where light might come from something other than light bulbs, water might sometimes fall from the sky, and air might circulate without the means of fans or vents. These other people who believe in this external world hold up an earpiece and claim they get information about this outside world through this device. The occupants who believe there is nothing outside the house will sometimes pick up an earpiece, but they never go so far as to put it up to their ear; instead they claim the earpiece says nothing, and there is no proof that anything exists outside the house; after all, they've seen nothing come into the house from outside to "prove it." Meanwhile, unbeknownst to this group of skeptics, a whole world full of life and events is going on outside, and they remain incapable of even considering it.
Is such a scenario any different than someone who stubbornly insists there is nothing outside the natural universe, there is no supernatural force in existence, and they refuse to give the Bible and the ideas of creation scientists an honest, objective hearing to evaluate the merits of their contention?
But back to the subject of peer review, evolutionists posit that when "peer review" consists of other young-earth creationists, that this isn't valid peer review, that the work of young-earth creationists must pass muster with "old-earth" peer reviewers.
Apart from the glaring inconsistencies in this line of argument (if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?), it reveals an astonishing ignorance and naivety of how science and the peer-review process is actually conducted.
So we have a double-standard. You can't have your work "authenticated" by others who share your worldview. But we who don't share your worldview won't even give your work serious consideration because we already assume that anything you say is impossible. Meanwhile, all of us who believe in evolution will be busy peer-reviewing each other's work. Nice how that works out for the evolutionist.
The author points out that scientists who offer evidence contradictory to the myth of man-made global warming face the same intellectual bigotry. So this closed-mindedness is not confined only to creation science.
After examining the bias and ideological shortcomings of the peer review process, he concludes with an explanation of why you seldom see peer reviewed papers on creation science:
It is for these reasons that creationist scientists generally do not bother submitting papers that directly support a creationist interpretation of the natural world. Any such papers would be dismissed out of hand as being unworthy simply on the basis that they advocate a creationist interpretation. The quality of the research, the soundness of the arguments presented, and the validity of the logical conclusions would not even be considered. Thus, creationist scientists have created their own peer-reviewed journals and forums, such as the Journal of Creation, Creation Research Society Quarterly and the International Conference on Creationism.
Modern "science" is no longer the pursuit of truth where ever it leads, but is instead an exercise in peer pressure, group-think and herd instinct. If the "in" paradigm says "this," then no legitimate scientist can propose "that."
It is not a matter of evidence, scientific method, or openness to truth; it is an adaptation of a specific worldview (in this case, secularism/materialism/naturalism) that can tolerate no challenges to that philosophy.
Ironically, evolutionists and creationists accept the same scientific discoveries and evidence, examine the same evidence, yet reach different conclusions. Why? There are certainly presuppositions on both sides which determine the direction in which each will look for answers.
But wouldn't it be surprising if it turned out that, objectively, there might be more evidence to support the contentions of creation scientists than those of materialists and naturalists? I will even go so far as to say that the basic tenets of materialism and naturalism are impossible according to the very laws of nature that evolutionists hold in such high regard. In other words, some of the faith tenets held by evolutionists actually contradict other of their faith tenets.
Until adherents to evolution learn to approach other theories, other ideas such as those offered by creation scientists with an open mind, they will be holding their minds closed and captive to a certain set of preconceptions. They will be deliberately limiting their range and scope of scientific discovery.
Ironic, isn't it?
38 comments:
Have you considered yet the benefits that a good high school education could afford you and your children?
Seriously, you really should consider going to school, you might learn something about how the world works.
Ironic? You don't even understand the meaning of it. What's the point of leaving it open to comments if you're going to pre-approve them?
KT, it sounds from the tone of your comment that perhaps you're bereft of a high school education. Otherwise, you might have understood something I said in the post. However, it appears all of it went over your head.
I understand that critical thinking and open mindedness are a challenge for adherents to the religion of evolution, but you should give it a try sometime. It can be very liberating.
Anonymous, why do you say I dont' understand the meaning of "ironic." Could the lack of understanding be on your part?
Comments are moderated to prevent profanity and off-topic comments. Yours pushed the limits of the latter, since it added nothing substantive to the discussion, but I posted it anyway.
Please come back and leave a comment that's intellectually stimulating next time.
OK. I'll play, Bob. I've just written a chunk for my book on why Kulikovsky (and, by direct inferrence) you are in error.
Without going into depth, I'll refer you to "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darell Huff which has an excellent primer on how to confuse a correlation with a causation (and how to spot it).
You can use ad hominem attacks against me and KT (which I see you have) all you like, but without without the benefit of clear vision, you'll only see your own view in the data.
Demons is coming Bob (that's not a spelling error, so I've save you that riposte) and its coming for people like you.
Draco, I know the difference between correlation and causation. However, you didn't say anything specifically about why you disagree with anything I or Kulikovsky said.
You claim I made ad hominem attacks against KT, but it was KT who came to this blog and implied that my family and I lack even a high school education. In the absence of any substantive debate from KT, it would seem the shoe is on the other foot.
In fact, I've indulged all the empty, myopic criticism of creation science that I care to in this post. It has served to illustrate my point and that of Kulikovsky, in that evolutionists approach "science" from a religious and philosophical basis, not an intellectual one. In fact, what they call "science" is in fact a doctrine or philosophy called "naturalism" or "materialism."
If you or anyone else would like to discuss why naturalism is correct or why creation science is in error, you're welcome to do so here. But the "you're dumb because you believe the Bible" arguments really don't move the debate along.
Scientists do not "start with the assumption that there is no God." Scientists start with the assumption that what is observed, tested, and can be repeated is true. There may be other things that are true, but science measures physical phenomena just as accounting counts dollar amounts.
Accounting isn't supposed to be about art, and science is not supposed to be about the supernatural. It is not a metaphysics. Science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science is about facts.
Peer-review is not infallible? Well, nothing is infallible, and certainly throughout history nothing has proved more changeable than the "unchanging truths of the Bible." These change with the wind. Everything they told us about "scientific evidence for God" in church has dropped off the map in favor of intelligent design and whatnot. Well, soon that will drop off the map too, in favor of the newest creationist fad.
Science is cumulative, but creationists are always starting from scratch. That's a pretty good indication of which one works.
You may as well argue that an accountant checking another accountant's figures is infallible and flawed, and prejudiced because it didn't assume God. You may as well argue that taking your car to the shop is atheistic, because the shop isn't going to invoke God but instead go at your car with a lot of materialist wrenches. You may as well boycott all the medicines and surgical techniques that evolutionary biology has given you.
All those people who were initially rejected by their peers persevered and were ultimately accepted precisely because their peers found flaws in their work and suggested changes. It is unlikely that these same people would have had their names attached to their revolutionary concepts had they not been forced to endure the rigors of peer review. Likely, someone else would have come up with the idea (science abounds with stories of simultaneous discovery) and presented it in a manner that needed less correction, making that person, rather than Mayer, the formulator of the First Law.
I am not aware that Mayer or any other scientist whose discovery met with initial skepticism ever became bitter about peer review. Only creationists whine about peer review, because that is the tribute that superstition pays to genius. One thing for sure, creationists will continue to have decades of failure to look forward to. I notice that creationists never cite the work of earlier creationists, but only appropriate the quotes of legitimate scientists for their own purposes!
Why isn't "creationist research" cumulative, like science?
Karl Popper said that the strength of a scientific theory rests upon its falsifiability. My belief that God created the great diversity of life on earth would be seriously threatened if I were shown conclusively a lineage of organisms that spontaneously "evolved" from microbe to mammal, with all transitional forms unequivocally accounted for. A generation of fruit flies that suddenly change to humming birds would also be cause to reconsider.
Richard Dawkins, when asked what would be sufficient to falsify evolution, replied "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian [deposits], that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." Yet since that statement every Phyla of animals have been found in the Cambrian deposits. We have also discovered that the compound eyes of trilobites (animals that proliferated during the Canbrian period) are at least as sophisticated as any that exist today, having supposedly "evolved" during the very dawn of life on earth with no preceding transitional forms. These discoveries give the true believers little pause. New and novel stories, without scientific evidence, are sufficient for the high priests and their disciples.
It would seem that everything can be explained by evolution: the giraffe's neck, the elephant's trunk, the bombardier beetle, suicidal lemmings, gaudy coloration for sexual attraction, subdued colors for camouflage. Whatever we observe, scientists can come up with a evolutionary explanation, minus any empirical evidence. This, friends, is not science. These are so-so stories that can be fabricated from whole cloth and passed off to gullible students as facts.
We may be on different planets. Here on Earth, creationists have been subjected to continuing peer review for the last 200 years. No creationist book -- young earth, old earth, or intelligent design -- is published, no article printed, no blog posted but receives immediate, detailed, and critical attention. I can think of no other aspect of biology -- or any other science -- that has been so pubically and repeatedly reviewed.
And what has been the result? No predictions, no testable hypotheses, no experimental results. If indeed we can learn something about the universe by taking God into account, why hasn't this new knowledge been brought forth? After a couple of thousand years, you can understand how working scientists might get a bit impatient.
But to get to the main point of your article: creationism was, in the first few years after Darwin, still a plausible scientific position. But this theory didn't fit with our continuing increase of knowledge, and because of that, it was abandoned.
The moment creationism explains the world better than current theories, its proponents may start making room on their bookshelves for the set of Nobel prizes they're sure to win. Until then, it's simply another discarded theory from the 19th Century, and as such does not need to be revisited in peer-review journals.
Why are there Christians who reject the evidence that evolution happened? I see no evidence that God demands such a doctrine, nor do the religious bodies that the vast majority of Christians belong to.
First, the anti-science creationists do not use the evidence that has been gathered by scientists over the past two centuries. They select only the evidence that fits into their procrustean doctrine. Evidence that is not consistent with their teachings is ignored. Sometimes, the anti-science folks go so far as to lie about what evidence exists. None have made any attempt to offer a scientific alternative to evolution. Few have even made the effort to learn enough science to be able to do research in the field, yet they are willing, with that ignorance, to dismiss the facts that scientists have been gathering. That is shamefully un-Christian.
Mr. Bombastus, for example, appears not to understand why Creationism is not science: it is totally unfalsifiable. His examples of what would persuade him that he is wrong are examples of observations that would be completely inconsistent with evolution. He also appears to be unaware of the evidence that scientists have gathered. Again, bearing false witness, even against scientists, is not a sacrament of Christianity.
Kristine, evolution scientists do start with the assumption that there is no God, finish with the assumption that there is no God, and allow for no possibility whatsoever in their research that there may be a God.
The fact that you cannot see it only reinforces the existence of the existence of such blind bias.
Most creation scientists will at least admit their presupposition that there is a God, but evolutionists doggedly refuse any presupposition on their part. Somehow they believe that to acknowledge this might leave their work looking tainted by bias...as it very much is.
I'm not sure what you mean about science being cumulative, with respect to your statement that creationists are always starting from scratch. I suppose, in a sense, they are, because they are always looking back to "scratch" or the creation event as the start of things.
But if you mean to say that they are always coming up with new theories, the same at the very least could be said of evolutionists. There are untold dozens if not hundreds of evolutionary theories that bite the dust, only to see a new one rise up. I challenge you to look at science news for one week, just one week, and see if you don't find at least one article that says something to the effect of "this new discovery challenges the theory that blah blah blah." I don't specifically target science news, and yet I see one at least every 2-4 weeks.
The reason that creationists have reason to complain about the double-standard of peer review within the dominant scientific community is that they cannot get a fair shake because of the overweening bias of the dominant group of scientists.
Imagine a scientist who religiously refuses to believe in the existence of kangaroos. He's never seen one, never seen kangaroo tracks, so doggedly refuses to believe they exist. Any scientist who offers proof of the existence of kangaroos, short of a photograph (which he'd probably say was doctored), will be summarily dismissed. Doesn't matter that there are plenty of kangaroos in Australia; because kangaroos are outside the dominant scientist's experience or worldview, the kangaroo scientist will never have his work receive an objective hearing.
That's what's so utterly hypocritical about the peer review process in the dominant scientific world. It makes the claim of being objective and open to the truth, yet it is exactly the opposite. I dare say evolutionists believe what they believe with no less religious fervor than any Christian seminarian.
And since the very laws of nature which evolutionists so laud indeed contradict the claims of materialists and naturalists (something does not come from nothing, matter does not organize upward, stars do not form from incoherent matter, life does not come from lifelessness, etc), it could easily be said that they have more religious faith than the average Christian.
Garamond, you must misunderstand the peer review process. Yes, creation science material does indeed receive immediate critical attention...just as a Christian theological work in the Arab world might get immediate critical attention.
But what we're talking about as "peer review" is serious, formal review with an open, objective mind. This patently does not happen because the dominant body of scientists today religiously insists there is no God, no creator, and when someone posits that there is one, any work derived of such a position is summarily dismissed because it doesn't fit into the worldview of the materialistic scientist who has no room for God in his world.
What should creation science predict? Creationists do not predict that life forms will evolve, so there is nothing to predict in that regard. On the other hand, even Darwin expected the fossil record to bear out his ideas...and it hasn't, not even once. We see different forms which sometimes resemble other forms, but not once has a transitional form been found. And not once have been tested or observed evolution taking place.
Actually, creation science DOES explain the world better than current theories. Current theories cannot explain how everything came from nothing (what caused the alleged Big Bang?), cannot explain how loose clouds of gas gain cohesion and form stars, cannot explain how life springs from lifelessness, cannot explain how the universe has natural laws by which it operates instead of chaos, cannot explain how ANYTHING can become more ordered when the laws of nature indicate that things tend toward a state of disorder, and so on and so on.
Creation science phenomenally better explains the universe as we see it. Yet materialists/naturalists begin with the assumption that there is no God, was no Creator, so they cannot even consider such a possibility. They must explain the current state of the universe with no extra-natural (supernatural) influence or force...and you JUST CAN'T DO IT according to the very natural laws we see and observe.
Kristine, evolution scientists do start with the assumption that there is no God, finish with the assumption that there is no God, and allow for no possibility whatsoever in their research that there may be a God.
Then how do you explain the fact that the majority of scientists accept evolution and have religious beliefs?
I'm not sure what you mean about science being cumulative, with respect to your statement that creationists are always starting from scratch.
Are you kidding me? Then you don't understand peer review enough to write about it!
You do understand the necessity of citation, right?
"Cumulative" means that new theories build on previous knowledge, which itself builds upon past puzzles being solved (such as how to determine how much of a certain chemical is in a lava flow or a star's spectrum). Scientists don't just "come up with new theories," but creationists do. Creationists live perpetually in the present, throwing out new theories that don't build on (and outright contradict) previous creationist theories (and I'm old enough to remember those), but are ad hoc responses to new scientific knowledge that disturbs them. I think the only past creationist I've seen cited by today's creationists is William Paley.
Duane Gish was so big once, and who remembers him today? Old scientific theories are refined, and old scientists enter the history books. Old creationists have a brief heyday, then just fall off the map and are forgotten. They contribute nothing to the world's knowledge.
The fact that science is a cumulative acquisition of knowledge is central to the issue peer review! If you don't understand that, then I don't why you think you have enough knowledge to criticize the process at all to complain about a "double standard."
This has got to be a joke. Is it? Are you pulling my leg? No way would I submit a paper on information science without the understanding that 1)I must cite the work of previous researchers, and 2) the burden is on me entirely to demonstrate how my theory fits the (accumulated) facts.
What in blazes does God have to do with peer review, anyway?
Actually, creation science DOES explain the world better than current theories. Current theories cannot explain how everything came from nothing (what caused the alleged Big Bang?)
I don't agree that the Big Bang was "something from nothing." What about the Plank Era?
You know that the misnomer "Big Bang" actually does not refer to an explosion, right?
Imagine a scientist who religiously refuses to believe in the existence of kangaroos. He's never seen one, never seen kangaroo tracks, so doggedly refuses to believe they exist. Any scientist who offers proof of the existence of kangaroos, short of a photograph (which he'd probably say was doctored), will be summarily dismissed. Doesn't matter that there are plenty of kangaroos in Australia; because kangaroos are outside the dominant scientist's experience or worldview, the kangaroo scientist will never have his work receive an objective hearing.
Photography is not evidence. Bring the kangaroo into the lab!
Have it perform testable and repeatable behaviors for the kangaroo-doubting scientists. Have them analyze the kangaroo's DNA, and study (and submit for peer review) the kangaroo's habits. Then, and only then, should the kangaroo-doubting scientists change their mind.
That's how peer review works. You have that kind of evidence for God? Bring Him into the lab.
freelunch, many Christians reject the evidence that evolution happened for two reasons: (1) because accepting it would mean accepting that the foundational tenets of their faith were false, and (2) the evidence for evolution is flimsy at best, and downright impossible according to the laws of nature in most cases.
When you used the term "anti-science creationists," you display a lack of understanding of what science is, and what creationists believe about it. I believe you're confusing the philosophies of "materialism" and "naturalism" with science.
Science is the study of the universe around us. In itself, it does not make assumptions about whether there is a God or not.
Materialism is the assumption that all things in the universe came about through a completely independent, random process that was in no way caused or guided by a supernatural force. Naturalism is like materialism, in that it assumes basically the same thing for the biological and other forms in nature that we see--forms that evolutionists claim evolved to be as we see them today, and creationists believe were created essentially in their current form.
You make the statement that “Few have even made the effort to learn enough science to be able to do research in the field,” yet the credentials of many creation scientists are just as good as those of evolutionists, with most having obtained their PhDs from the same secular institutions.
Creation science continually offers scientific “alternatives” to evolution, but these explanations are summarily dismissed by the dominant scientific community which presupposes there is no God and no creator, and will harbor no explanations that involves one.
What evolutionists claim as “evidence” of evolution is just as easily explained in almost every case with a creation model—sometimes far better in a creation science model.
Both evolutionists and creationists examine the same data, but reach different theories about the origins of that evidence because they start from different points: the creationist starts with the assumption that it was created by God, while the evolutionist starts with the assumption that there is no God and everything must be explained through materialistic/naturalistic processes.
Again, what is often called “science” today is nothing more than the philosophy of naturalism and materialism. You do yourself a disservice when you confuse the two.
Kristine: You said, "The fact that science is a cumulative acquisition of knowledge is central to the issue peer review! If you don't understand that, then I don't why you think you have enough knowledge to criticize the process at all to complain about a "double standard."
You missed my point entirely. I understand exactly what you mean by cumulative acquisition of knowledge and referencing previous works.
What YOU don't seem to understand is that evolutionists "come up with new theories" just as creationists do. Both build on the previous work of others (only with the double-standard applied by the dominant scientific community that doesn't allow anything creationist to stand with peer approval), but both develop new and innovative theories over time.
You yourself are applying practically the same double-standard during this discussion. You claim an open mind, yet you summarily dismiss anything from a creationist origin. It doesn't do this, it doesn't do that, so it can't be worth anything. The ironic thing is, the work of creationists is just as good as that of evolutionists, but evolutionists are so closed-minded to the possibility that a creationist might present a good idea (partially because of elitist bigotry, partially because it doesn't fit their worldview), that it cannot gain a fair hearing.
So far today, I've seen nothing but further proof of this closed-minded intellectual bigotry.
Kristine: You said: That's how peer review works. You have that kind of evidence for God? Bring Him into the lab.
You have evidence of something appearing out of nothing? Show me in the lab.
You have evidence of nebulous gas forming tightly packed matter and igniting into a star? Show me in the lab.
You have evidence of life springing from lifelessness? Show me in the lab.
You have evidence of one life form transitioning into another life form? Show me in the lab.
You have evidence of a life form suddenly transforming into another life form? Show me in the lab.
We've all been waiting since the time of Darwin to see the so-called scientific, testable, repeatable evidence of these things...and we're still waiting.
Far from being censored, the Intelligent Design community has its own 'scientific' journal, Proceedings in Complexity and Design, which has not been appeared in over two years. No hypotheses are being proposed, no theories are being tested, no research is being done and so there is nothing to publish.
Bob Ellis said 'evolution scientists do start with the assumption that there is no God, finish with the assumption that there is no God, and allow for no possibility whatsoever in their research that there may be a God.'
This is complete and utter rubbish. There are many evolutionary biologists who are Christian or otherwise believe in a God.
I agree that all evidence will fit in with a version of the creation story and that is why it is not science. There is no conceivable finding that cause someone to say 'Oh. It looks like God did not do it.'
On the other hand, the results that Theophrastus Bombastus says would make him consider that evolution might be correct would, in fact, cause major, major problems for the theory of evolution.
Bob says 'You have evidence of life springing from lifelessness? Show me in the lab.'
That would be abiogenesis, not evolution. No-one has done it yet but there are rumours that people are close.
'You have evidence of one life form transitioning into another life form? Show me in the lab.'
There are plenty of examples of new species that have arisen in historical times. Ever tasted a grapefruit or a nectarine, for example? In many cases, the difficulty is not in getting populations to change, but to stop them from changing. Most examples are of relatively small changes in just a few years, like walking across a room, but with more time I could walk across Minot and with more time still I could get to Fargo and beyond.
'You have evidence of a life form suddenly transforming into another life form? Show me in the lab.'
This would not be evolution, but would be evidence for some versions of creationism.
Richard Simons: you pointed out an error in something I said, and I thank you for it. I'd like to clear that up now.
You pointed out that I said, "evolution scientists do start with the assumption that there is no God, finish with the assumption that there is no God, and allow for no possibility whatsoever in their research that there may be a God." and said that there are many evolutionists who believe in God. You are correct, and I misspoke.
While it is true that evolution and atheism go hand in hand, there are some who believe in evolution and God, maybe even some who are Christians who believe in evolution.
However, while one may hold both beliefs out of ignorance of one or both, you cannot fully understand the ramifications of both and believe both at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.
The creation account says unequivocally (you can claim "allegory," figure of speech and all that, but such claims do not fit the context of the passage in the slightest) that God created the entire universe, that there was no sun until the 4th day of creation, and that the creation days were 24 hour days. You may not like that, but there is simply no other way to read it without torturing the context. The Bible also says God created all animals and man in their present form. The Bible also provides a geneological record that claims the human race has been around about 6,000 years, and no more than about 10,000 years even with any geneological irregularities.
The Bible also says there was no sin, death or conflict in the world until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sinned. If they lived 6-10,000 years ago, and there was no death until the Fall, then there was no way for millions of years of fossils to accumulate.
If the Fall didn't happen as the Bible claims and sin didn't enter the world through the first man and woman, then the claims of Christ are completely bogus. Further, if sin and death are a part of the natural order of the universe, then Christ died for nothing.
I once believed both in God and evolution at the same time...because I was ignorant of the things I've just mentioned (as well as the insurmountable flaws in evolution theory, materialism and naturalism).
Once you understand both, you cannot believe both.
You have evidence of something appearing out of nothing? Show me in the lab.
I believe that Stephen Hawking demonstrated how matter and anti-matter appear, out of space, then mutually annihilate each other, and that this occurs all the time. If it occurs near a black hole, one particle can be absorbed, leaving the other to continue to exist. Do you need citations? Read A Brief History of Time.
If you are referring once again to the Big Bang, which is likely not "something out of nothing," then I suggest that you do research on the cosmic background radiation. The evidence is under your nose.
You have evidence of nebulous gas forming tightly packed matter and igniting into a star? Show me in the lab.
Obviously, one cannot bring a star into a lab (or onto planet earth) but I've got something better. We're seen both planetary birth and star birth in the cosmos. We've also witnessed supernovae. The evidence is under your nose.
Isn't it cute! Baby neutron stars have "natal kicks"!
You have evidence of life springing from lifelessness? Show me in the lab.
I think the most wonderful "lab" in which this is being studied is the sea beneath the Galapagos Islands. There are several hypotheses of abiogenesis being explored. Yes, we don't have the answer yet, but saying "Goddidit" is no answer at all. (Don't get me wrong, maybe God indeed did it, but that doesn't tell you how, does it?)
If you want to be a scientist and get published in peer reviewed journals, here's your chance. (The field I'm going into is information science, no relation to this one, unfortunately. However, one of the subjects that info scientists research is the citation patterns of scientists. Hmm, maybe I should research the citation pattern of creationists. It might be revealing for the reasons I have stated above.)
You have evidence of a life form suddenly transforming into another life form? Show me in the lab.
Life forms don't "suddenly" transform into another life form. I believe that you are referring to speciation? That's been observed in the lab. The evidence is under your nose.
We've all been waiting since the time of Darwin to see the so-called scientific, testable, repeatable evidence of these things...and we're still waiting.
You've been closing your eyes to the evidence, and they're still closed. Maybe if you read the peer-reviewed evidence, or even some popular science books and magazines, instead of arguing against something you've never even looked at, you'd get somewhere. (Myself, I've read a lot of creationist literature.)
What's great about peer-reviewed literature is that it includes citations and bibliographies showing how you can check their work, if you wish to. That's the difference between scientists and creationists - the latter don't show their work, because they don't do any.
Well, it seems you have some reading to do. I leave you to it. Let's see how open-minded you are.
Bob Ellis writes:
"
If you or anyone else would like to discuss why naturalism is correct "
Its not a question as to whether or not "naturalism" is correct or not. Science can only study what it can measure. It can't measure the supernatural. Science is a process of interrogating nature to elucidate the basic principles by which nature operates.
Show us how you or anyone else can measure the supernatural. Then you have something to talk about.
Kulikovsky's points are silly. Nobody claims the peer-review system is perfect, but it is better than anything else proposed so far.
You can cherry pick the literature all you want. Sadi Carnot's ideas on entropy had no troubles getting published, nor did Boltzman, Gibbs or plenty of other early thermodynamicists.
In fact instead of illustrating a weakness of science, you illustrate one of its strengths, the ability to adjust its views as new data comes to light. Scientific revolutions take a decade or two. Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity was published without any qualms.
On the other we need to fight crusaders and have bloody civil wars to get Christianists like yourself to change their minds about anything.
Creation science doesn't deserve a fair shake because it isn't science.
Creation science starts with the assumption the Bible is literally true and then tries to make observations conform to this assumption.
Show us the Creation science evidence for a 6000 year old earth. We can use a laugh.
And who are you to claim what is compatible with Christianity? Pope JohnPaul said Evolution is "more than a theory" and truth can't contradict truth.
If you want to interpret the Bible like a science book, thats your problem.
Bob Ellis writes "You have evidence of something appearing out of nothing? Show me in the lab."
Happens all the time Bob.
Google "particle-pair" production. Its observed all the time by particle physicists.
A particle and its anti-particle popping out of the vacuum. Just as predicted by Quantum Mechanics.
Kristine, in your latest comment, you've cited things that are still only theoretical as if they were fact. None of these has been observed in action in the lab or in the field.
And regardless of how you define the Big Bang, all matter (even anti-matter) had to come from somewhere. Something had to CAUSE it. Cause and effect are one of the simplest laws in the universe, yet this law is insurmountable to a number of materialist/naturalist theories, including "Where did the universe--and all matter in it--come from?"
No, "God did it" does not explain HOW God created the universe in the creation model, but then, materialists don't have any explanations for how something comes from nothing, either.
Stuart, if you're interested in seeing evidence that supports the contention that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, you can visit Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, or a number of other good creationist organizations. But I'm reasonably sure you're not interested or have already summarily dismissed anything they have to say; after all, they're outside the paradigm, so anything they say is worthless.
You are correct that the supernatural cannot be measured. But we can examine it's effects. For instance, the geology of the earth makes no sense in a "millions of years" framework; the data is inconsistent with such a model. It is, however, very consistent with the creation framework of just a few thousand years.
Most creationists believe the Genesis Flood had a profound impact on the geology of the earth, and accounts for most of what we see today. We cannot explain or measure exactly how God exerted his supernatural influence to cause a global flood, but we can certainly measure and examine the effect that influence caused.
Answering the ultimate questions may always be beyond the realm of science. Science should concern itself with measuring accurately and objectively the evidence before us before considering the question of ultimate cause.
If it can't handle the little stuff, it certainly isn't equipped to handle the big stuff. And materialistic/naturalistic theories which are impossible to implement within their own framework of a universe which operates by certain laws that cannot be violated (i.e. by a supernatural force) are no help in explaining even the evidence we have before us.
The links I sent you, which you obviously are too close-minded to read, have bibliographies that refer to lab experiments. Bibliographies exist for a reason.
But this is just a game you're playing. You're discounting observations in the field as not being "in a lab." Nature is the lab, too.
If people listen to you, they're buying a ticket to failure. That's their choice.
Bob writes:
"Kristine, in your latest comment, you've cited things that are still only theoretical as if they were fact. None of these has been observed in action in the lab or in the field."
Which things in particular? And contrary to what you may think, Laboratory study is not a sine qua non aspect of science. Scientific theories require testability and evidence.
If you can study something in a lab great. If not, no big deal, so long as you can measure it.
"And regardless of how you define the Big Bang, all matter (even anti-matter) had to come from somewhere. Something had to CAUSE it. "
If God didn't need to come from somewhere, then neither does the universe.
"Cause and effect are one of the simplest laws in the universe,"
No it is not. The Quantum fluctuations of the vacuum are uncaused. They exist without cause. The world experienced on sub-atomic levels is far from what we experience.
"yet this law is insurmountable to a number of materialist/naturalist theories, including "Where did the universe--and all matter in it--come from?"
Not only is it not insurmountable, but in fact for physcics on the smallest length scales, it is indispensable.
Where did all the matter come from. It came from a singularity. That is what the best cosmological theories tell us. These issues are already addressed by chaotic inflation.
"No, "God did it" does not explain HOW God created the universe in the creation model, but then, materialists don't have any explanations for how something comes from nothing, either."
Nobody claims it "came from nothing" Bob. Don't mistake popular press distillations for actual scientific principles. The Quantum vacuum is not nothing, and can be measured through the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift. We know its there, and according to the rules of QM, the most precise and precisely tested theory of all time is frothing with all sorts of particles.
With respect to Big Bang and Inflation, Google, "Zero-point vacuum fluctuation". Nothing precludes a new universe from popping out of the vacuum.
Science, is still only 300 years old. Its laughable to claim that because we don't know something now, we won't know it in the future.
The box you have put your God in, is getting ever smaller. The more science figures out, the smaller your God gets. I suggest you revise your theology before it becomes irrelevant.
I don't claim God didn't have a role in creation, but if he created he used something that resembles inflationary cosmology.
"Stuart, if you're interested in seeing evidence that supports the contention that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, you can visit Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, or a number of other good creationist organizations. But I'm reasonably sure you're not interested or have already summarily dismissed anything they have to say; after all, they're outside the paradigm, so anything they say is worthless."
It is worthless. In some cases it outright fabrications, which is worse than worthless.
Tell you what Bob, why not list what you consider to be the three best arguments for a 6000 year old Earth?
"You are correct that the supernatural cannot be measured. But we can examine it's effects. For instance, the geology of the earth makes no sense in a "millions of years" framework"
Exxon disagrees with you. They made 100billion last year.
If Geologists don't know what they are doing, then where are all those creationist oil companies, Bob?
"Most creationists believe the Genesis Flood had a profound impact on the geology of the earth, and accounts for most of what we see today."
Really, like what?
And just out of curiosity what is the flood explanation for Kimberlites?
Stuart: Where did quantum fluctuations come from? Where did the vacuum come from? Where did the singularity come from?
Everything in the universe has a cause; it cannot exist without a cause. That's one of the most basic, fundamental natural laws of the universe. God exists outside the universe and is not subject to the natural laws of this universe because he created the universe and all the laws that govern it.
The mechanics of God's creation will likely never be figured out; if we could, we'd probably put God out of a job...which isn't going to happen since he is infinitely more powerful and intelligent than we, his created beings, are.
But getting back to the original topic of the post, I've still see no justification for the intellectual bigotry that excludes creation science theories simply because they are based on the supposition that the Bible is correct.
Bob Ellis says "I've still see no justification for the intellectual bigotry that excludes creation science theories simply because they are based on the supposition that the Bible is correct."
They are not excluded because they are based on the Bible. They are excluded because there is no, as in not one, jot or tittle, of non-Biblical evidence to support them.
If they are true, some predictions could be made. For example, there would be strong evidence for a severe genetic bottleneck in all organisms. This is absent. The number of human diseases would be limited to those that could be carried by the human passengers on the Ark. This is clearly not the case. Fossil-bearing rocks would uniformly start with those laid down under turbulent conditions and progress to finer-grained materials. This is not found. Fossils would be jumbled within rocks. They are not. The distribution of plants (don't forget them) and animals would be consistent with a radiation out from a Near-Eastern origin. It is not. And so on.
I have frequently looked at Answers in Genesis and unfortunately all of its 'scientific' claims that I have seen are unjustified. Most are ad hoc attempts to justify a belief in the literal truth of Genesis. For example, it is suggested that the Flood came from underground (or under-sea) reservoirs, forced up by steam. This would have cooked the passengers on any boats.
AIG is also curious in that, while it is ostensibly promoting the idea that Biblical creation is true, many of the articles assume that the scientifically-accepted dates are correct. BTW, its 'technical' articles are no more technical than those in Scientific American, which is regarded as a popular, non-technical journal.
Please consider that most Christians accept Genesis as being allegorical.
Just a few thoughts Richard:
What if human diseases lay dormant, or we developed susceptibility to some diseases later, after the time of the Flood?
Given the land that existed prior to the flood, the turbulence of sediment, waves of water, volcanic activity, tectonic plate activity, and any number of other catastrophic events that may have happened during the Flood, it's no wonder we see a mix of geological layers.
The fossil record and their layering generally fits within what would be expected as flood waters rose and some organisms were able to escape those waters for a time while others were not.
The distribution of plants and animals wouldn't necessarily radiate out from the Near East. When God created the earth, he likely spread these organisms all over the earth, so the fossil record, excepting what was completely obliterated during the flood, would be roughly uniform over the planet. And after the waters receded, animals would have quickly spread over the earth, and in some cases some would have become geographically isolated from others as geography continued to shift from earthquakes, breaking of land dams, ice ages, and who knows what all. Plants might very well have sprang up spontaneously across the earth after the flood; not all the seed would have been destroyed during the flood, as would also be the case with smaller organisms.
And I contest that "most Christians accept Genesis as allegorical." Many do, but I don't believe it's most. And even if it was most, then most would be wrong. The language of Genesis is easy to see and accept as quite literal for the most part, unless one has an agenda to believe something else.
Just a few things to consider
Just a few thoughts Richard:
What if human diseases lay dormant, or we developed susceptibility to some diseases later, after the time of the Flood?
Given the land that existed prior to the flood, the turbulence of sediment, waves of water, volcanic activity, tectonic plate activity, and any number of other catastrophic events that may have happened during the Flood, it's no wonder we see a mix of geological layers.
The fossil record and their layering generally fits within what would be expected as flood waters rose and some organisms were able to escape those waters for a time while others were not.
The distribution of plants and animals wouldn't necessarily radiate out from the Near East. When God created the earth, he likely spread these organisms all over the earth, so the fossil record, excepting what was completely obliterated during the flood, would be roughly uniform over the planet. And after the waters receded, animals would have quickly spread over the earth, and in some cases some would have become geographically isolated from others as geography continued to shift from earthquakes, breaking of land dams, ice ages, and who knows what all. Plants might very well have sprang up spontaneously across the earth after the flood; not all the seed would have been destroyed during the flood, as would also be the case with smaller organisms.
And I contest that "most Christians accept Genesis as allegorical." Many do, but I don't believe it's most. And even if it was most, then most would be wrong. The language of Genesis is easy to see and accept as quite literal for the most part, unless one has an agenda to believe something else.
Just a few things to consider
Bob writes:
"Where did quantum fluctuations come from? Where did the vacuum come from? Where did the singularity come from?
Everything in the universe has a cause; it cannot exist without a cause. That's one of the most basic, fundamental natural laws of the universe."
We've been through that already. Its wrong. Repeating the same old wrong stuff doesn't make it any less wrong. Quantum vacuum fluctuations are uncaused, period.
"God exists outside the universe and is not subject to the natural laws of this universe because he created the universe and all the laws that govern it."
Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
Just because you hypothesize that God exists outside of the universe, doesn't mean God didn't have to be a creator. That is as much a postulate as the existence of God in the first place.
"The mechanics of God's creation will likely never be figured out; if we could, we'd probably put God out of a job..."
I thought salvation was God's job. I don't see how the accumulation of scientific knowledge interfere's with that job.
"which isn't going to happen since he is infinitely more powerful and intelligent than we, his created beings, are."
Prove he exists.
"But getting back to the original topic of the post, I've still see no justification for the intellectual bigotry that excludes creation science theories simply because they are based on the supposition that the Bible is correct.
I don't support the exclusion of theories merely because they may have some basis in the Bible. I support the exclusion of theories that are simply wrong. Science is not a democracy, Bob. Not all theories are created equal, and data is the ultimate arbiter of what theories have merit, and which are to be discarded. Over time, this winnowing out of failed theories produces a better body of knowledge.
The early Geologists, like Nikolaus Steno (who was the titular Bishop of Prague and developed the superposition principle a fundamental principle of Geology) set out to find evidence for the events in Genesis. They didn't find it. Even Di Vinci, centuries ago, understood that flood geology couldn't explain the observations.
There is good geological evidence that a regional flood occurred in ancient Mesopotamia, much like that which created the scablands in the NW. US, resulting from the collapse of a natural levee.
However the notion that the entire earth was inundated by a flood is falsified.
What if human diseases lay dormant, or we developed susceptibility to some diseases later, after the time of the Flood?
What if . . . Show me the evidence that Plasmodium, for example, can be dormant for at least a year.
Given the land that existed prior to the flood, the turbulence of sediment, waves of water, volcanic activity, tectonic plate activity, and any number of other catastrophic events that may have happened during the Flood, it's no wonder we see a mix of geological layers.
The wonder is that there are many places where there are distinct layers.
The fossil record and their layering generally fits within what would be expected as flood waters rose and some organisms were able to escape those waters for a time while others were not.
This is not correct, unless you could explain why fossil pterosaurs, which could fly, are always found in lower geological strata than fossil mangroves or willows, which presumably have never been able to outrun floodwaters. Also, how do you explain not only fossil nests with eggs of dinosaurs, but these undisturbed nests being just above other fossil nests? Somehow they built a nest and laid eggs in the middle of a raging flood?
The distribution of plants and animals wouldn't necessarily radiate out from the Near East. When God created the earth, he likely spread these organisms all over the earth, so the fossil record, excepting what was completely obliterated during the flood, would be roughly uniform over the planet.
But it isn't. The distribution fits with the positions of the land masses as derived from paleomagnetic and other studies and with their evolutionary history as determined from biochemical data.
This argument also ignores the fact that the present-day distribution of organisms does not fit in with the notion of a spread from the Near East.
One other point: the human population contains multiple alleles (variants) for certain genes, over 400 in some cases, yet the most that any one person can have is two. Given that the people on the ark were related, the most that could have been present was less than a dozen. Where did the others come from? The required mutation rate would be far higher than is observed in anything other than cancerous tissue.
I want to thank all who have posted comments on this post, regardless of whether I agree with you or not.
Unfortunately I need to end further comments on this thread. This blog is primarily concerned with current events, and since the nature of current events means they're a daily-changing and moving targets, I only have so much time to devote to each one.
It's obvious that some folks have a hard time getting beyond the confusion between science and naturalism/materialism, and find it difficult to consider any possibility of a supernatural force occasionally working in our natural world.
But I hope that there has at least been some food for thought here.
Thanks again to all who participated.
To BOB Ellis....
Bob, why can`t you seem to understand that evolution is merely God`s way of producing life forms? Belief in Evolution and God is perfectly compatable. I am a Deist with a strong belief that the Unverse and all it`s laws of physics were consciously designed and made reality by the Supreme Being. I also accept the informed verdict of the world`s scientists regarding the physical circumstances regarding our origins. Chances are that God made created millions of life supporting Earth like planets. Humans are nothing special in the grand scheme of things, all this talk of us being made in God`s image is arrogant nonsense just like all those rediculous fairy stories one finds in the bible.
For me believing in God is easy. Believing however in the Christian "god" is impossible given what I know.
Anonymous, I closed comments on this post last week, but because you raised an issue that hadn't really been addressed before, I'll allow one more.
God certainly COULD HAVE used evolution as a mechanism for biodiversity. And you're right that belief in evolution and God are not strictly incompatible.
But belief in evolution and what God has told us about the origin of the universe is incompatible. He made it clear in the Bible that he created all organisms about 6,000-10,000 years ago (based on geneologies), and he made it clear that he accomplished creation in six 24-hour days. Unless you engage in wild flights of hermeneutical fancy, it really can't mean anything else.
The Bible is also clear that death, disease, evil and other conflict came into existence when Adam and Even sinned, causing what is known as "The Fall." Before this, there was no death, so the alleged millions of years of dead fossils doesn't fit within the framework of the Bible, and the whole question of sin/death/evil doesn't match up either.
So while God COULD HAVE done it that way, the historical record he dictated to us says he DIDN'T do it that way.
I don't know why you believe in God but believe what he told us about himself and the universe is nonsense, but that's for another post.
Thanks!
Post a Comment