Greetings to all,
You fellows have worked at an incredible pace, and I simply have not been
able to keep up with you. Add
to this my effort to understand all the arguments being made, and I have
fallen even further behind. I'm still
trying to think of replies to things that were said 20 posts back. So,
I'm sorry I'm such a slow-poke, but I'm
not ready to quit just yet, particularly when things are beginning to sort
themselves out a bit.
I have really appreciated the efforts of Doy and Tom. I'm learning from
the exchange and would hate to see
it end right now, and certainly not before you, David, fulfill your promise
to provide a definition of science
and then explain briefly how the scientific method differs from other ways
of knowing. I think if you weren't
so rigid about your absolute compartmentalization of philosophy and science,
then you would not be asking
if we were going to leave the metaphysical and return to the scientific
aspect of this issue. We never left
the scientific aspect completely, and this is why you and Tom complained
at the beginning about us making
up our minds whether we were going to be discussing philosophy or science.
Doy and I think the better way
to think about these is to understand that they are related.
What I suggest is that we all make an effort to tie up the loose ends in
this phase before going on to the
hermeneutical aspect. Incidentally, the Newton church has just started
a meeting with Gerry Sandusky and
I wish you all could be with us as we engage in this effort. Tomorrow night,
Gerry and I will be doing a
2-hour, live, call-in T.V. program on whether creation ex nihilo produced
any avoidable appearances of age
and, if so, what they were specifically. (I'm not kidding about the program,
just the subject.)
Allan
re:thinking
dmathews
Global user
(3/7/00 8:04:48 am)
Reply
Science Defined
Good Morning Allan,
Science is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as: "1. a. The observation,
identification,
description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of
natural phenomenon. ... 2.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study."
The Scientific Method is defined by the same dictionary: "The totality
of principles and processes regarded
as characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, including
rules for concept formation, conduct
of observations and experiments, and validation of hypotheses by observations
or experiments."
Philosophy is distinct from science by definition: "1. a. Love and pursuit
of wisdom by intellectual means
and moral self-discipline. b. The investigation of causes and laws underlying
reality. c. A system of of
philosophical inquiry or demonstration. 2. Inquiry into the nature of things
based on logical reasoning rather
than empirical methods. 3. The critique and analysis of fundamental beliefs
as they come to be
conceptualized and formulated. ..."
Philosophy is devoted to logic and thought, science is devoted to observation
and experimentation.
Philosophers contemplate the fundamental questions of existence while scientists
exercise their perceptions
so that they may glean knowledge about the Universe's properties. The fundamental
questions of
philosophy are not suitable to scientific investigation while the discoveries
of science are not subject to
philosophical inquiry.
Unlike philosophy, science and the scientific method are designed in such
a manner that a consensus is
possible. Consensus is possible because scientific theories and observations
are subject to revision and
refutation. Philosophical axioms are subject to rejection, but not to refutation.
That is why there is much
more diversity of thought in philosophy than exists in science.
Among the primary tasks of science is observation, identification and description.
Science demands the
accumulation of knowledge about everything which exists, and that is the
reason why scientists have
travelled all over the world in the search for more complete knowledge
about the properties of the
Universe. Experimental investigation compels scientists to gain direct
insight into the properties of matter
and the forces of nature by examining these under controlled conditions.
Theoretical explanations are a
vital component of science as these are general descriptions of the properties
or behavior of matter and
forces. Theories are derived from experiments, and experiments are used
to validate or refute theories.
Science's great advantage is that scientific conclusions are always subject
to revision and refutation.
I hope that these definitions and comments are sufficient to clarify the
difference between science and
philosophy. If you have any questions or comments, I will attempt to answer
them to the best of my
ability.
Thanks,
David Mathews
Tom Couchman
Global user
(3/7/00 1:27:01 pm)
Reply
Re: No time to stop
Allan and all:
Amen, brother! I'm struggling to keep up, too. I hoped you would go for
David's suggestion that we move
on, but since you did not I will commit to at least one more post (I will
write each post as if it were my
last) to respond to Doy's questions, if I can think of any responses to
them.
Two CoC preachers doing a two-hour live TV call-in on the age of the earth
... now THAT would have been
interesting!
Tom
Tom Couchman
Global user
(3/8/00 9:54:05 am)
Reply
Doy's previous response
Doy, Allan and David:
Thanks to David for the compliments on recent posts. I have to confess
that David and Doy have been so
deeply into the meta-meta-meta-physics that I would have been unable to
contribute to that discussion
had I been asked. In hopes of keeping my tiny e-candle burning I will attempt
to respond to Doy’s latest
questions and comments, but I will take care not to start a firestorm with
it.
DOY:
“Having a ‘true indication of age’ is, of course, based upon having dating
methods that are pretty much
infallible, which I tend to doubt … To say that something, for example,
is ‘billions of years old’ is to say
what I doubt can be absolutely proved.”
I would never use the term “absolutely proved” about the inference of great
age. However, we have not
been discussing the difference between exactly four billion years and four
billion years plus-or-minus two
percent. We have been discussing the difference between four billion years
and ten thousand years.
DOY:
“Of course, I do not think that God can be unholy, but neither do I think
that God can be placed in our own
little ‘scientific box’ and made to conform to it. God’s own holiness constrains
Him, yes, but who determines
His holiness?”
God Himself does. God knows what facts found in nature will convince a
pious and humble investigator who
has never read the verbal revelation that nature is very old. If the facts
which are interpreted by the pious
and humble investigator as indications of antiquity are unnecessary indications
of age in a nature which
was recently created, then the pious and humble investigator has been deceived,
and God miraculously put
those facts into nature knowing he would be deceived.
DOY:
“Recall, further, the many times we have pointed to the idea that the interpretation
of Genesis plays a big
part of this. If Genesis takes on the more ‘traditional’ interpretation
(which I do indeed favor) then how can
it be called deceit when God is telling us what he did?”
AND
“God has told us about creating the heavens and earth in six days also.
I fail to see how deception is
involved in this (for the thousandth time).”
The first is a very good question. I am sure we will have ample opportunity
to discuss it thoroughly during
the “hermeneutical” portion of this exchange. For now I will simply point
out that the purpose of God’s
natural revelation is to glorify Him, that according to Paul it does glorify
Him apart from His verbal
revelation, and it would not glorify Him if it falsely testified to great
age.
DOY:
“Why don’t you tell us specifically what is ‘avoidable’ or ‘unavoidable.’
I have said ‘I don’t know’ because I
am not privy to how God did everything in His infinite wisdom. But once
you tell us what is ‘avoidable’
appearance, let me ask: how do you ‘know’ that it is indeed avoidable?
Because our modern science can’t
find a reason for it? Is it possible, maybe, perhaps … that there may be
something else involved from God’s
creative standpoint that we aren’t factoring in? If so, is it possible
that the earth is ‘younger’ than what
the uniformitarian-based aging system allows?”
Because I am not privy to the infinite wisdom of God, because human science
is fallible, and because “there
may be something else involved from God’s creative standpoint,” I usually
say, “I don’t know” when
someone asks me to give an age for the cosmos. I do sometimes add, “There
is a lot of evidence that it is
very old,” which I hope we have been able to establish as an indisputable
fact. Because I am not privy to
the infinite wisdom of God as verbal revelator, because human hermeneutics
is fallible, and because there
may be something else involved from God’s revelatory standpoint, I use
humility when I tell people that I
think they ought to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, but
I do so with a good deal more
forthrightness than I display when specifying an age for the cosmos.
But to answer the question again, an “avoidable” appearance of age is one
which indicates history which
never happened: either by giving appearance of the passage (uniform and
catastrophic) of time which has
not passed, or by pointing to (uniform and catastrophic) events which never
happened. “Avoidable
appearance of age” is “avoidable” precisely because it does not contribute
to function: childhood memories
in a just-created Adam do not help Adam to tend the Garden. Examples of
avoidable appearance of age are
in the ten sets of facts I posted in Part 1, adding Hill Roberts’ two items
(SN1987a and Foraminifera). If
pious and humble interpreters of nature cannot discern the “unavoidability”
of appearance of age in these
phenomena, and if there are no “answers in Genesis” which explain it, then
why should we not conclude
that these are in fact “true indications of age”?
DOY:
“Both of you admit that a created object contains appearance of age, but
neither of you can say what,
exactly, a created earth would look like. You ‘know’ it couldn’t look like
it is really older than it is. But if you
don’t ‘know’ what the created earth would [look] like, how can you be so
sure about what else you know or
don’t know relative to age?”
Doy, isn’t everything we know “known in part”? That fact should make us
humble. I hope you’re not saying
it should make us give up on trying to know anything, or even give up acting
on the imperfect knowledge
we do have. It doesn’t make you and me give up on studying scripture, or
of coming to conclusions as a
result of our study.
A created earth would look like the earth on which we live today, because
this earth is a created earth. An
earth just created ex nihilo would not contain evidence of history; the
twelve sets of facts we have been
discussing would not be there. I don’t believe those twelve sets of facts
would be seen on an earth
created ten ex nihilo ten thousand years ago, either. The earth on which
Adam and Eve lived might or
might not have been recently created ex nihilo, as I’m sure we will have
an opportunity to argue in the next
section of this discussion.
DOY:
“But now you’ve hit on something else that bothers me, especially from
arguments made by Mathews. He
has argued that: (1) God ‘did not’ have anything to do with the development
of the earth (BTW, do you
agree with this, Tom?).”
In scanning your recent discussions with David I don’t immediately see
the context of that statement,
so--given the meta-meta-meta-physical character of your exchange--I am
reluctant to say I agree or
disagree. I believe the creation event as described in Genesis 1 describes
an ongoing miracle during which
God formed the heavens and earth. I think David would have to explain his
comment more fully before I
could say I agree or disagree (David and I only share an appendix, not
a cerebellum).
Guys, I’m mentally “out of breath,” and I’m not sure how much more I personally
can contribute after the
last few posts. I’m already beginning to repeat myself. I will again second
David’s suggestion that this part
has been taken as far as it can be, and will turn this discussion over
to you for a few days.
Your brother,
Tom
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/8/00 12:21:36 pm)
Reply
Pious and Humble Investigator
Brothers,
I confess that I have enjoyed engaging in this. It is sometimes frustrating,
always challenging, and always
intellectually stimulating. I didn't figure we'd all end up agreeing, but
now that David has declared victory, I
guess we're hitting an end to this phase.
I think sometimes that Tom and I are on the verge of a breakthrough, but
then at other times that road
seems closed for winter. I appreciate your style, Tom, though of course
I haven't always agreed. You do
indeed come across as pious and humble.
I do not expect answers to these questions, but reading your last post,
Tom, has stirred these up in me
and I have to at least throw them out for ponder (if this were a true debate,
then this would be a no-no
for a last response). Then, if Allan is so willing, I will "strike the
tents" myself, since there is no need in
going on endlessly.
1. Who exactly is a "pious and humble" investigator? What are the perameters
of a pious and humble
investigator?
2. If a "pious and humble" investigator concludes that the earth is relatively
young, does he cease to be
"pious and humble"?
3. Are Darwinists "pious and humble" since they have concluded that the
earth is old based on scientific
studies? Or do their presuppositions about evolution disqualify them from
being pious and humble?
4. Will a "pious and humble" investigator be more impressed with the earth's
age, or with the power and
glory of the creator?
5. Is is possible for a "pious and humble" investigator to conclude that
the earth is old without concluding
that there is a Creator?
6. Will the "pious and humble" investigator include the facts of Scripture in his investigation?
7. Will he factor in the miraculous? Or will he only be impressed with the natural?
8. Will the "pious and humble" investigator conclude that the earth was
miraculously formed over a series of
"days" (whatever they may be), or will he conclude that there was an initial
"big bang" and then continued
forming without any supernatural help? Or is there another option he may
conclude?
These are just a few off the top of my head I've been asking since I read your post.
One more thing: you said, "I hope you’re not saying it should make us give
up on trying to know anything,
or even give up acting on the imperfect knowledge we do have. It doesn’t
make you and me give up on
studying scripture, or of coming to conclusions as a result of our study."
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that there are limits to our knowledge
and understanding of the
natural. There are limits to scientific inquiry; it is not the final determiner
of truth. Again, a Darwinist would
say the same things about his evolutionary theory that you are saying about
the age of the universe:
anyone who looks at the "evidence" will conclude it to be true. (I've been
told that, and you probably have
too.) So, what I am saying, also, is that we better be careful about how
we explain the "facts" of the
universe that we discover from our limited perspective (and I doubt we
can discover them all). God made
the universe so that we can impressed with his power and glory, not so
that we can impressed with its
age.
Oh, and one more thing for David: philosophy is also "theory or investigation
of the principles or laws that
regulate the universe and underlie all knowledge and reality" (Webster).
Though there are distinct "realms"
of science and philosophy, they are not so far apart as you may think;
in fact, they are co-dependent in
many ways. Without philosophy, there would be no "science."
Thanks again, gentlemen. It has been thought-provoking.
brotherly,
Doy
dmathews
Global user
(3/8/00 6:46:05 pm)
Reply
Philosophy & Science
Doy,
Regarding philosophy and science, as you say:
Oh, and one more thing for David: philosophy is also "theory or investigation
of the principles or
laws that regulate the universe and underlie all knowledge and reality"
(Webster). Though there
are distinct "realms" of science and philosophy, they are not so far apart
as you may think; in
fact, they are co-dependent in many ways. Without philosophy, there would
be no "science."
I do not know what you mean when you say "without philosophy, there would
be no 'science.'" Once we
enter into a scientific discussion, the philosophical principles upon which
science is founded are accepted
as axiomatic and therefore not subject to refutation. If questions about
the Earth's age are resolved by
rejection of the philosophical principles underlying science, that must
require the rejection of science
altogether in preference to some alternative manner of thinking.
The philsophical foundation of science is not especially relevant to the
present discussion because
philosophy does not dictate or prefer any age for the Universe or the Earth.
Science and the scientific
method existed before geology, astronomy and cosmology. Discoveries about
the age of the Earth and the
Universe occurred centuries after Science attained it modern form.
As far as philosophy is concerned, our metaphysical conversation is resolved into one proposition:
Actual objects or entities have actual age.
or it may take the following form relative to the topic of our discussion:
The Earth possesses actual age.
Which I am certain is accepted as true by every one involved in the present discussion.
The proposition is transformed into a question available for scientific investigation:
How old is the Earth?
Which possesses two different answers which are the cause of the present dispute:
1. The Earth is billions of years old.
2. The Earth is six to ten thousands of years old.
Participants in the present discussion have already acknowledged that science
does indicate that the first
answer is correct. Science rejected and abandoned the second answer over
two centuries ago after
intense debate was resolved by the accumulation of a tremendous amount
of evidence from a vast number
of locations. Scientific refutation for the Young Earth concept is found
abundantly on the Earth and in the
Universe, and these contrary evidences utilize many different types of
observations who agreement is
remarkable because they are function independently from each other.
Science's answer to the Age of the Earth question is unambiguous: Billions
of years were required to
produce the present crust of the Earth, and different sections of the crust
reveal histories which extend to
the millions, hundreds of millions and billions of years. These time frames
are not derived from any initial
state of the Earth, instead they are measured from some former state which
was itself very much different
from preceding states. Earth's crust reveals the operation and interaction
of creative and destructive
geological forces whose activities continue without pause today.
Everywhere in the continents and the oceans there is a record of history,
of mountains that originated and
then eroded to their bases, of oceans who formed by rifting, attained massive
size and then were
demolished by subduction, of the accumulation of sediments, their lithification
and the subsequent erosion
of sedimentary rocks. If you want to appreciate the history of the Earth,
all you need to do is examine the
ground beneath your feet.
Philosophy precluded the existence of Apparent History as history itself
is an incidental and accidental
property of objects or entities. For that reason, whenever history is found
in the Earth or the sky, we can
know for certain that it is actual history. For that reason, science is
qualified and competent to reveal the
history of the Earth as it is revealed in the rocks and in the crust. Science
has determined that the Earth's
rocks and crust have experienced millions and billions of years of history.
The only manner of preserving a belief in a Young Earth in this age of
Science is to abandon science
altogether. Rejection of the philosophical foundation of science is tantamount
to a rejection of science
altogether. Rejection of science must inevitably lead to regarding the
Earth and the Universe as
incomprehensible. No means would exist to gain any positive, objective
knowledge of anything which exists.
I am certain that none of the participants in the present discussion are
prepared to abandon or reject
science. Given that we all accept science, it would serve little purpose
to reject or modify the philosophy
which underlies science. Philosophy does not care how old the Universe
is -- neutrality precludes
philosophy from participating in any "Age of the Earth" debate.
Thanks,
David Mathews
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/8/00 7:48:06 pm)
Reply
All this, and we still don't "get it."
Oh well, what can we say?
Dave, you have several philosophical presuppositions that you won't hardly
admit to, and I'm not going to
go back over all the material already covered.
I will ask this one thing, based on your position:
"If you want to appreciate the history of the Earth, all you need to do
is examine the ground beneath your
feet." So you said.
Given your position that a) God "did not" have anything to do with the
development of the earth, and b)
that the present earth is so much different than the earth of billions
of years ago, then I ask:
1. How will one's examination of this history of the earth lead one to conclude that there is a God?
2. How do the "heavens declare the glory of God" if God had nothing to
do with the development of these
present heavens?
Oh, I've already asked these questions. But this, along with your unyeilding
dogmatism, are, in my opinion,
the most bothersome aspects of your position. But then that's my opinion
(which, in turn, is based upon my
acceptance of some fundamental presuppositions).
Hey, I thought we were ending this...
Doy
dmathews
Global user
(3/8/00 10:26:30 pm)
Reply
The History of the Earth & the Sky
Doy,
It is a matter of historical fact that the present Earth is different from
the Earth which existed days,
centuries and billions of years ago. Some changes are dramatic and visible
to even casual observers, some
changes are slight and known only to careful observers, and there are other
changes which occur so slowly
that they reveal themselves in the course of thousands and millions of
years.
In answer to your questions I present the following:
1. How will one's examination of this history of the earth lead one to conclude that there is a God?
The history of the Earth does not lead to a conclusion that there is a
God, nor does it lead to a conclusion
that God does not exist. Science is not a tool of philosophical inquiry.
Questions about God's existence
belong to philosophy.
Examination of the history of the Earth reveals only that the Earth has
a history. Strictly speaking, that is
all that it can reveal. Geology does not lead to Theology, nor does geology
resolve matters of theological
dispute.
2. How do the "heavens declare the glory of God" if God had nothing to
do with the development of
these present heavens?
You could just as well ask: How do the heavens declare the glory of God?
The heavens declare God's glory because of the size and magnificence of
the cosmos. The heavens declare
God's glory because God is ultimately responsible for the existence of
the heavens.
Like the Earth, the Universe is in a constant state of motion and transformation.
Galaxies interact, stars are
born, stars die, gravity tears clusters of stars apart, clouds of gas and
dust revolve around the cores of
galaxies, globular clusters escape from galaxies and wonder into interstellar
space, matter is heated to
tremendous temperatures in the cores of active galaxies and expelled into
space at relativistic speeds,
space itself expands ... The Universe is perpetually active with both creative
and destructive forces
operating throughout. For that reason, the Universe which exists today
is not the same Universe that
existed yesterday. Billions of years ago, the Universe was very much different
than it is today.
In conclusion, I can speak with confidence about oceans that existed before
the Atlantic, of mountains
which were demolished, and of islands which collided with continents. I
can also speak about galaxies which
had not yet collided, of stars which have exploded, of dust clouds which
collapsed into star clusters, and of
clouds of gas and dust which trail galaxies in motion.
The Universe of today is not the Universe of yesterday or tomorrow.
Thanks,
David Mathews
allanita
Administrator
(3/9/00 1:25:33 am)
Reply
Getting toward the end.
David,
You argue there are no supernaturally created rocks present on the Earth's
surface. I asked you how you
could be sure and you replied, "I can be certain because the rocks of the
Earth's surface display evidence
of modification, interaction and degradation such as would not exist in
a rock which was created ex nihilo."
That, David, is not an answer until, and unless, you can tell us how this
would differ from the
characteristics of rocks created ex nihilo. Sounds to me like you're assuming
what needs to be defined and
then engaging in circular reasoning. For instance, would all created rocks
need to look exactly alike? For
instance, would they all have to be smooth? If they were smooth, wouldn't
this, according to uniformitarian
assumptions, indicate some modification, interaction, and degradation had
occured? If you think God was
not required to create all the rocks to look alike, then let's assume He
created some to be jagged instead
of smooth, would not these jagged rocks, according to uniformitarian assumptions,
indicate some
modification, interaction, and degradation had occured? Don't you see what
I'm saying? So, although you
won't admit to making any uniformitarian assumptions, it isn't hard for
most of us to know when someone is
assuming that which they are obligated to prove.
You say there are no supernaturally created continents and you make an
affirmation as to why you think
this is true mentioning, once again, a time span of billions of years.
I asked whether this time span was not
based on the assumptions of your uniformitarianism, which is, in turn,
a metaphysical construct. I noticed
you didn't answer the question with a "yes" or "no" but, instead, pontificated
about geology not being a
metaphysical construct, like that had something to do with answering my
question. No one has said that
geology is a metaphysical construct. However, most of us understand that
the billions of years that
geologists claim make up the Earth's history are predicated on uniformitarian
assumptions.
I had asked:
David, how does one date the rocks? Is it by...
their appearance?
their petrologic characteristics?
their mineralogic contents?
their structural features?
their adjacent rocks?
by vertical superposition?
radiometric measurements?
their total fossil contents?
any physical characteristics at all?
You replied, "Yes, these are means by which a scientists may successfully
date rocks both relatively and
absolutely." But isn't it true that a given rock formation's geologic "age"
is determined by the index fossils
contained within these rocks? Isn't it true that the "geologic column"
was in place in the minds of geologists
and paleontologists way before modern radiometric measurements were even
thought of? You mentioned
the absolute dates which geologists claim to ascertain, but such are predicated
on uniformitarian
assumptions, and I'm convinced you know it.
David, you wrote:
I can understand why this issue is so difficult for you: You have not resolved
it in your own
mind yet. When you use words such as "probably" and "possibly" it is evident
that you are
equivocating.
My use of "probably" and "possibly" do not indicate either confusion or
equivocation. Instead, they are
evidence to the fact that I'm trying very hard not to be the dogmatic,
implacable individual you appear to
be. This is not to say you do not, at times, make cogent arguments. However,
too often you seem to be
cloaking your answers with the techniques of obfuscation, quibbling over
and defining away everything that
questions your need to admit to your presuppositions.
The disagreement between us is not superficial, as you assert. Your efforts
to dismiss the Bible as being
chronologically ambiguous is, in my opinion, an unwarranted attack on the
basic credibility and integrity of
God's Word. In arguing your point, you say:
The ambiguity of the Biblical chronology reveals a different attitude towards
time and history
among ancient people. This difference of perspective may allow for alternative
interpretations
of the creation account.
David, the Bible is a product of God, not man. Therefore, the dates recorded
are not a reflection of a
different attitude towards time and history among ancient people, as you
claim. Instead, they represent
the Spirit-breathed Word of God. But, let's follow the force of your argument
as we apply it to something
other than the "eighteenth year of King Jeroboam," which could go like
this: Because, in our present day,
we cannot know for sure whether Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30 or A.D.
33, then the Bible is so ambiguous
that it is not possible to know whether the crucifixion of Jesus took place
1,970 years ago or whether it
really took place 100,000 years ago. David, I know these are not your words,
but such a statement is the
logical conclusion of your argument concerning the Bible's ambiguity and
how this specifically relates to the
age of the Earth question.
On the "True Science" thing, I will once again mention that I did not capitalize
the 't' or the 's' in "true
science," as you did. Denying that there was anything that could be called
true science, you then
proceeded to give us the definition of "pseudoscience." Consequently, as
the definition of pseudoscience
assumes (there's that word again) that there is such a thing as true science,
it appears that you are
arguing with yourself on this one.
Actually, I could find nothing to criticize in your censure of True Science,
or the scientific idolatry that so
many times passes for true (oops!) science today, but I will say that I
almost admire the hubris it took for
you to try snatching the Scientism club out of my hand so you could then
attempt to beat me over the
head with it. That was, indeed, a very bold attempt.
Those American Heritage Dictionary definitions are interesting. The first
definition of "Science" is a
honed-down definition pronounced by philosophers (gasp!) as to what modern
science is. I have no real
problem with such a definition, but I have trouble with the scientists
who argue that they do what they do
without presuppositions. The second definition of "Science" includes the
many "disciplines" involved in
knowing, including philosophy. I really wanted to know YOUR definition,
but that would have required you to
stick your neck out a little. I thought the definition of the scientific
method was a pretty good one, as
dictionary definitions go, in that it was broad enough to encompass a wide
variety of ways of knowing.
Even so, I fail to see how these are the exclusive prerogatives of science.
In other words, I don't think
there is anything which can be identified as the scientific method, as
if there is a particular method that
somehow separates science from other fields of study. In fact, there is
no scientific method, no formula
with five easy steps guaranteed to lead to discoveries about what IS, but
rather there is a cluster of
practices and issues that are used in a variety of contexts that can be
loosely called scientific
methodologies. Various aspects of these methodologies are used in the practice
of disciplines outside
science. However, the modern tendency to compartmentalize knowledge, which
you have clearly imbibed,
dividing religion, philosophy, and science into completely different, hermetically
sealed boxes, seems so
permanently ordained in modern thought that it is beyond question and doubt.
Such thinking is, of course,
the very mantra of Scientism which, like all idolatry, is immoral fundamentally
because it is a deliberate act
of ignorance and denial. I would think that you know all this. Nevertheless,
you refuse to admit to any
assumptions, claiming your proof for an old Earth IS the data (viz., the
hard facts) and not the
interpretation of that data predicated on uniformitarian assumptions. In
my way of thinking, any science
that denies its philosophical underpinnings and insists that it is dealing
with natural processes alone has
effectively eliminated the "God factor" from its "way of knowing" and insures
the scientific idolatry ("True
Science") of which you effectively wrote.
It is unfortunate that the average person today — including a good many
scientists — treats the ideas,
concepts, and theories of science in exactly the same way as the ancients
treated their golden calves.
Some take quarks, black holes, and the big bang theory to be objective
elements in an authoritative
description of an external, independent reality. All scientific concepts
and theories, along with the whole
system and rationale of the fabled and so-called scientific method, clearly
originated in the human mind.
Science is like a vast and intricate game whose rules, playing board, and
pieces were created by human
beings for their own use, benefit, amusement, power, and security. In turn,
some use this way of knowing
to dictate to God what He can and cannot do. There is something wrong with
such a system, and we
ought to know what that is.
David, the territorial disputes you allude to between philosophy and science
are no accident. Philosophy
and science have a common origin in the quest to find meaning and purpose
in life, but it is only fairly
recently in history that a separation has been clearly made between the
empirical knowledge of nature and
the philosophical/religious understanding of existence. Modern science
credits much of its great success to
this separation, but the final judgment has yet to be made on the legitimacy
of this separation and the
price of its success. I would like to go on record as being against this
compartmentalization by asking:
What could possibly be wrong with salting our minds with the "God factor,"
and might not this result in a
better way of knowing?
Allan
re:thinking
Edited by allanita at: 3/9/00 1:25:33 am
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/9/00 12:57:07 am)
Reply
Sorry, but...
I beg to differ...
David said: "The history of the Earth does not lead to a conclusion that
there is a God, nor does it lead to
a conclusion that God does not exist."
Paul's answer: "For since the creation of this world His invisible attributes,
His eternal power and divine
nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been
made..."(Rom. 1:20). Your
statement simply does not square with this. How else can I say it? The
history of the earth includes
creation (indeed, if you are not factoring this into your history, then
you, my friend, are denying the Bible),
which testifies of God. If it does not lead to the conclusion that there
is a God, Paul was all wet in his
argument. If questions about God's existence belong only to philosophy
(or your concept of philosophy),
then what, pray tell, what Paul saying?
David said: "The heavens declare God's glory because of the size and magnificence
of the cosmos. The
heavens declare God's glory because God is ultimately responsible for the
existence of the heavens."
But, David, you are arguing that God had nothing to do with the development
of the present heavens. So
He is responsible for its existence only in a remote sense (he started
the "spec" that got the ball rolling or
something?). In other words, God had nothing to do with "the size and magnificence
of the cosmos." I fail
to see how your position leads to the conclusion that this glorifies God.
It's one thing to be confident that the earth is old. It is quite another
to be so confident about God's lack
of involvement in its development. Either God's existence and power comes
through what "presently" exists,
or it doesn't. I don't see how your position supports what Paul or the
psalmist wrote.
I realize this is getting a little away from the issue of "age," but, frankly,
I think it is finally getting to the
heart of some presuppositions that can affect the rest of the discussion.
brotherly,
Doy
dmathews
Global user
(3/9/00 9:13:12 am)
Reply
History of the Rocks, the Oceans & the Continents
Allan,
In answer to your questions about the rocks:
1. For instance, would all created rocks need to look exactly alike? For
instance, would they all
have to be smooth?
What would a created rock look like? I do not know and I have no way of knowing.
What does a naturally produced rock look like? Igneous rocks formerly were
a liquid (lava) which cooled
slowly (within the crust) or quickly (at the surface). Igneous rocks display
evidence of movement as the
lava moved through the crust, filling cracks and interacting with native
rocks which existed prior to the
volcanic activity. Not only do igneous rocks modify surrounding rocks by
contact metamorphism, the native
rocks may become incorporated into the igneous body. Igneous rocks display
their natural origin because
they display movement, interaction with native rocks, modification of native
rocks and physical activity (in
the process of crystallization from liquid to solid).
What does a naturally produced rock look like? Sedimentary rocks are composed
of sediments which eroded
from mountains and other areas of high elevation. Not only do the sediments
reveal the activity of erosive
forces, the sediments reveal their transportation which eventually resulted
in their accummulation in their
present location. In the process of transportation, sediments are sorted
in accordance with the laws of
physics, meaning that smaller fragments (such as clay) are transported
to different locations than larger
fragments (such as sand). Sediments reveal the environment where they were
accummulated in the form of
fossils from plants and animals which lived in those locations at that
time. Sediments reveal the weather in
the form of ripple marks, dessication cracks, chemical precipitations and
chemical weathering. Sediments
also reveal the transformation of environments as one moves up or down
the strata. Not only do sediments
reveal the transformation of environments, sediments reveal the rate of
change to these environments in a
manner which distinguishes sudden changes from slow and gradual changes.
All rocks on the Earth's surface display evidence of modification, interaction
and degradation. All rocks on
the Earth's surface display evidence of history. There are no rocks created
ex nihilo on the Earth's surface.
While I can demonstrate that a rock has a history, including modification,
interaction and degradation, the
most that you could do is assume that a rock has a supernatural origin.
I know that you cannot prove that
any rock has a supernatural origin because such a rock would function as
an empirical proof of God's
existence.
From a geological perspective, then, it appears that a natural origin of
rocks is suitable for empirical proof
while a supernatural origin of rocks is a matter of theological speculation.
Speculation cannot take
precedence over empirical proof. Geology does not lead to theology, nor
does geology resolve matters of
theological dispute.
2. You say there are no supernaturally created continents and you make
an affirmation as to why
you think this is true mentioning, once again, a time span of billions
of years. I asked whether this
time span was not based on the assumptions of your uniformitarianism, which
is, in turn, a
metaphysical construct.
Continents are large, heavy and brittle objects which are contrained by
the laws of physics to move very
slowly. Geological evidence in the oceans and on the continents confirm
that continents obey the laws of
physics, moving at an exceedingly slow pace which is virtually imperceptible
without the tools of science.
Empirical evidence demonstrates conclusively that in former times the Atlantic
ocean did not exists,
empirical evidence also demonstrates that the inception of the formation
of the Atlantic ocean was a rift
zone extending from North America to South America, empirical evidence
also demonstrates that the ocean
eventually filled the rift zone and this was the beginning of sea-floor
spreading, empirical evidence also
demonstrates that sea-floor spreading has proceeded at a slow and steady
pace for millions of years,
empirical evidence demonstrates that the sea floor immediately surrounding
the mid-oceanic ridge is
younger than the sea floor adjoining the continents on either side of the
Atlantic, empirical evidence also
demonstrates that the continents are presently moving in a manner consistent
with the geological
evidence.
Uniformitarianism in this case is not a metaphysical construct, rather
it is an empirical reality. The Atlantic
ocean formed in the course of hundreds of millions of years, and it will
continue to grow in size for many
millions of years. Before the Atlantic ocean existed, there were other
oceans. These former oceans had a
similar life cycle to the Atlantic's, and their existence is also a matter
of empirical proof. While the Atlantic
is only several hundred million years old, these formerly existing oceans
empirically proof that the Earth's
history includes billions of years.
3. But isn't it true that a given rock formation's geologic "age" is determined
by the index fossils
contained within these rocks? Isn't it true that the "geologic column"
was in place in the minds of
geologists and paleontologists way before modern radiometric measurements
were even thought
of? You mentioned the absolute dates which geologists claim to ascertain,
but such are predicated
on uniformitarian assumptions, and I'm convinced you know it.
It is not true that a given rock formation's geological age is determined
by the index fossils contained within
those rocks. Why? Because that would exclude igneous rocks from consideration.
That would also exclude
non-fossiliferous rocks from consideration. Index fossils are useful only
for sedimentary rocks.
The geological column existed prior to the discovery of radiometic dating.
Modern techniques have served
to validate the efforts of early geologists and paleontologists. The great
benefit of modern techniques is
that geologists now have exact dates (within a degree of confidence) whereas
former generations had only
relative dates or only a sequence.
Absolute dates are derived from radiometic techniques, which are themselves
predicated upon the laws of
physics, not uniformitarianism. Relative dates are derived from stratigraphy,
fossils, superposition and
numerous other evidences. Geology is an empirical science, not a metaphysical
construct.
dmathews
Global user
(3/9/00 9:55:42 am)
Reply
Secondary Matters
4. However, too often you seem to be cloaking your answers with the techniques
of obfuscation,
quibbling over and defining away everything that questions your need to
admit to your
presuppositions.
The task of the philosopher is to quibble and define. That was Plato's technique.
5. Your efforts to dismiss the Bible as being chronologically ambiguous
is, in my opinion, an
unwarranted attack on the basic credibility and integrity of God's Word.
The Bible's chronological ambiguity is a matter of fact, not an accusation
against either the Scriptures or
God. You can verify the Bible's ambiguity by comparing it to the history
of the United States: Even minor
events in American history are dated by their month, day and year, and
more recent events are even dated
by their time down to the minute or the second. The Bible does not use
a uniform chronology, nor does it
date the occurrence of every event, and the dates which it does provide
do not correspond to absolute
dates but only fall within a range of potential dates of occurrence.
6. David, the Bible is a product of God, not man. Therefore, the dates
recorded are not a reflection
of a different attitude towards time and history among ancient people,
as you claim. Instead, they
represent the Spirit-breathed Word of God.
The Bible's different attitude towards chronology reflect a change in human
behavior which has occurred
since Biblical times. Modern people, with their watches, clocks and appliances
with clocks, are preoccupied
with time and the coordination of activities according to time. Ancient
people had no watches, clocks or
calendars. This would seem to indicate a vastly different attitude towards
time.
7. But, let's follow the force of your argument as we apply it to something
other than the
"eighteenth year of King Jeroboam," which could go like this: Because,
in our present day, we
cannot know for sure whether Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30 or A.D. 33,
then the Bible is so
ambiguous that it is not possible to know whether the crucifixion of Jesus
took place 1,970 years
ago or whether it really took place 100,000 years ago. David, I know these
are not your words, but
such a statement is the logical conclusion of your argument concerning
the Bible's ambiguity and
how this specifically relates to the age of the Earth question.
Would you say that is a logical conclusion? I do not share that opinion ...
8. I will say that I almost admire the hubris it took for you to try snatching
the Scientism club out of
my hand so you could then attempt to beat me over the head with it. That
was, indeed, a very bold
attempt.
You admire hubris? Here is hubris for you: The Institute for Creation Research
and other similar,
supposedly scientific organizations, promote and teach pseudoscience. Scientific
creation is necessarily
pseudoscience because theology compels these scientists to modify or abandon
the philosophical axioms
which underlie science. There does not exist any such thing as creationist
geology and anything which
identifies itself as such is pseudoscience. Any scientific organization
which compels its members to sign a
creed or doctrinal statement is actually pseudoscientific, or more properly
termed a theological
organization.
9. Those American Heritage Dictionary definitions are interesting. The
first definition of "Science" is
a honed-down definition pronounced by philosophers (gasp!) as to what modern
science is.
You can argue with the dictionary, if you like.
10. I really wanted to know YOUR definition, but that would have required
you to stick your neck
out a little.
I do not make up my own definitions. Otherwise, I would not need a dictionary.
&nbs