The Proper Domain of (Natural) Science

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it begging the question as to uniformity or raising the question as to uniformity? I don't see how uniformity is included in the premise of the hypothesis that minerals in the earth configured in shapes resembling creatures are mineralized bones of those creatures, this specifically based on the soft tissue contained within those minerals.

But you can see that the "new discovery" has not led to a fresh examination of all the evidence and the establishment of a new working model. Instead the old model is taken for granted and the new discovery is made to fit within that model. That is what I am looking at with my statement on uniformity. The so-called science is paradigm building, and its experiments are self-fulfilling predictions. There is no critical examination of the evidence to test the original hypothesis.

Yes, I can see that and agree with your analysis.
 
Is it begging the question as to uniformity or raising the question as to uniformity? I don't see how uniformity is included in the premise of the hypothesis that minerals in the earth configured in shapes resembling creatures are mineralized bones of those creatures, this specifically based on the soft tissue contained within those minerals.

But you can see that the "new discovery" has not led to a fresh examination of all the evidence and the establishment of a new working model. Instead the old model is taken for granted and the new discovery is made to fit within that model.

That is not because it can't be done because of some failure of the system of scientific theory. It is nothing more than rebellion against uncomfortable facts that point to a Creator who is also Lawgiver and Judge.
 
In other words, the problem is not with any and all forensic inquiries, as if the fact that secular evolutionary conclusions, in conflict with the facts being received, rejecting the Biblical truth, somehow means that the actual facts, rightly interpreted, do not confirm the Biblical truth. I think several of the esteemed gentlemen commenting here indicated that they think that scientific endeavor into determining what happened in the past is completely futile, and that is not a justifiable position. I would not expect you to take such an approach when secularists deny that the Resurrection happened. You don't say "study of history is a moot point," and conclude that "the rejection of the Bible by secularists shows that textual criticism and historical study are invalid systems." Perhaps that's because it is more obvious how dismissively ceding the ground to the secularists in this case directly undermines the Gospel. Well, ceding the field to secularists and claiming that any attempt to do science with regard to fossils is pointless, is the same manner of failure to defend the Gospel--albeit more removed. The secular attack on Genesis is not an attack on essential salvation doctrines, but it is an attack on fundamental doctrines which are key to the comprehension and validity of the essential doctrines*. And of course, it is an attack on the trustworthiness of God's Word, and as such is fundamentally the same sort of conflict. Why we should respond differently -- confident defense in one case, and passive resignation in the other -- is beyond me, and I challenge everyone reading this to consider that "science" as understood either by board members or by secularists, is not nearly so narrowly limited and impotent -- or invalid as a tool for the defense of truth -- as it has been asserted to be.

*this can be elaborated upon later
 
Last edited:
Would this constitute reasonable evidence that these fossils are remnants of living beings?

The processes involved must have been non-uniform. Now the evidence begs the question as to uniformity.

Given that you imply that you expect non-uniformity, in your first sentence, I surmise your second means that you don't know for sure if the evidence includes a variety of fossilization and decay across specimens? I would simply reply that yes, this evidence does exist, and it's very exciting to see! It is what we would expect, statistically, given a natural curve: most dead specimens would have rotted, but those on the extremes of conditions -- buried rapidly with the right chemical environment -- would result in some degree of fossilization, with some exhibiting more or less decay depending on how quickly they were buried. Those which were completely decayed would break apart and as such would not form fossils, so a limited amount of decay in existing fossils is expected.

Imagining a natural curve, the lower extreme consists of animal bodies that were completely destroyed by water/rock activity. The 4 standard deviations of graph in the center would represent bodies that were not destroyed, but due to chance did not encounter contexts which allowed for fossilization. The vast majority of dead creatures would be eaten, decomposed by bacteria, or liquefied by chemicals. On the upper extreme, where catastrophic activity did not destroy the bodies, but where they were not exposed to the elements so as to see decay, organic matter would be buried and some of it subject to fossilization.

It is a natural mechanism, and the results are not uniform. The fact that there are so few complete fossils found testifies to the rarity of preservation.
 
Would this constitute reasonable evidence that these fossils are remnants of living beings?

The point is, that all these proposals--every last one--belongs to the realm of hypothesizing, and not unto testable (i.e. scientific) results, but unto historical conjecture. Neither the evolutionaries nor the creationists--in terms of what science is--are doing anything other than making claims about "what happened," based on fragments of data accessible in the present, including written records.

In that case (in answer to the OP), scientific inquiry is completely outside the bounds of history. Since any claim to "what happened" is conjecture. Two archaeologists dig up a skull in eastern China and neither one can even claim scientifically that it was once a living human?
 
Is it begging the question as to uniformity or raising the question as to uniformity? I don't see how uniformity is included in the premise of the hypothesis that minerals in the earth configured in shapes resembling creatures are mineralized bones of those creatures, this specifically based on the soft tissue contained within those minerals.

But you can see that the "new discovery" has not led to a fresh examination of all the evidence and the establishment of a new working model. Instead the old model is taken for granted and the new discovery is made to fit within that model. That is what I am looking at with my statement on uniformity. The so-called science is paradigm building, and its experiments are self-fulfilling predictions. There is no critical examination of the evidence to test the original hypothesis.

How would you critically examine evidence to test uniformity? It's an assumption and not testable that I can tell.
 
There is no critical examination of the evidence to test the original hypothesis.


What would your hypothesis be of what those things be that they dig up. I take it you believe that those things are remains or fossils of animals Our Lord made on the fifth or sixth day, correct?
 
Last edited:
Vox, you said,
"I would not expect you to take such an approach when secularists deny that the Resurrection happened. You don't say "study of history is a moot point," and conclude that "the rejection of the Bible by secularists shows that textual criticism and historical study are invalid systems." Perhaps that's because it is more obvious how dismissively ceding the ground to the secularists in this case directly undermines the Gospel."

True to a degree, but there is indeed a valid comparison to be made here to creation science. There are also "biblical archeaologists" who attempt to prove biblical events by archaeological discoveries. This also tends to be poorly done and diminishes the Bible's unique place as infallible revelation from God. In my view the fundamental problem is not merely guessing that fossilization may have occurred due to the flood (I think it probably did in many cases) or that such-and-such location near the dead sea with a lot of salt may have been Sodom and Gomorrah. Honest speculation is only natural. The trouble is when the speculations are more or less elevated to the status of "truth" akin to being Scripture themselves. The end result is that hermeneutics, science, and archaeology are all compromised.
 
Vox, you said,
"I would not expect you to take such an approach when secularists deny that the Resurrection happened. You don't say "study of history is a moot point," and conclude that "the rejection of the Bible by secularists shows that textual criticism and historical study are invalid systems." Perhaps that's because it is more obvious how dismissively ceding the ground to the secularists in this case directly undermines the Gospel."

True to a degree, but there is indeed a valid comparison to be made here to creation science. There are also "biblical archeaologists" who attempt to prove biblical events by archaeological discoveries. This also tends to be poorly done and diminishes the Bible's unique place as infallible revelation from God. In my view the fundamental problem is not merely guessing that fossilization may have occurred due to the flood (I think it probably did in many cases) or that such-and-such location near the dead sea with a lot of salt may have been Sodom and Gomorrah. Honest speculation is only natural. The trouble is when the speculations are more or less elevated to the status of "truth" akin to being Scripture themselves. The end result is that hermeneutics, science, and archaeology are all compromised.

Why is there a different standard for how to consider claims and evidence regarding Genesis and antiquity, than there is for how to consider other fields? There is no such allegation of "trouble" about the "truth" of, say, mathematics, engineering, etc, even though secularists predominate in those fields as well. I think the claim that people doing science in palaeontology and using the Bible to aid them is "compromising hermeneutics," is no less silly than the claim that designing building projects like bridges and highways somehow "compromises hermeneutics."

All truth is God's truth. Further, not all that is claimed to be "true" actually is. Secularists obviously have the capacity to discover some truth, so the idea that Christians shouldn't have anything to do with palaeontology, astronomy, geology, history, etc because secularists are in it is something I reject. If there is truth to be found in those fields, then there is worth in the endeavor by believers. And should we engage in any field WITHOUT first rooting our reason in the Bible? The idea that inferring consequences from the Bible is disallowed would invalidate all of the theology of Church history. Biblical Christians absolutely should do science and use the Bible to form hypotheses that they then test. No one doing this will elevate truth to inerrant inspired doctrine any more than a pastor would when expositing a sermon. Both extrapolate what is true from the Bible. Neither claims that their own words are divine. Both assert that what is true is true by virtue of the fact that it is God's will to inform others through the medium of the believer.

I defy that any field of inquiry ought to be superstitiously avoided or divorced from the Bible.
 
Vox, I think you're at least somewhat misunderstanding Rev. Winzer and probably the other commenters you mentioned, but I am not articulate enough to explain it. I'm only just now grasping what he and others are saying about our apologetics and the way we go about it. I see the truth of this in my interactions with my two unbelieving and very intelligent daughters. Reverend Winzer, would you mind posting a paragraph or two briefly summing up the position you're speaking from- and if there are any other resources you can pass along, it would be helpful, as all this discussion already has been to me, though I still am a bit dim on it. I have read many old threads where apologetics, including touching on YEC, evolution, etc. have been discussed. I begin to see the issues, but need a bit more plain spoken help.
 
I defy that any field of inquiry ought to be superstitiously avoided or divorced from the Bible.
Agreed.

Per Oliphint:

If Christianity alone is true, then it would follow that any position opposed to Christianity is false. Would it not be of some force, therefore, particularly given the presence in every person of the sensus divinitatis, if an argument were presented that showed the bankruptcy of an opposing view? Granted that every view could never be presented, and thus shown to be false, couldn’t an argument showing the self-defeating character of a particular position, based on that position’s own construct , serve to show the strength of the Christian position? I can’t see why not. (K. Scott Oliphint, Epistemology And Christian Belief, WTJ 63:1 (Spring 2001))​

All truth is God's truth. Further, not all that is claimed to be "true" actually is.
Yes.

Facts are God’s, and are therefore not religiously neutral, and facts are misinterpreted by those who have unbelieving presuppositions (i.e. “God does not exist”). Facts only (legitimately) have meaning within the proper framework of interpretation.
 
Vox, I think you're at least somewhat misunderstanding Rev. Winzer and probably the other commenters you mentioned, but I am not articulate enough to explain it. I'm only just now grasping what he and others are saying about our apologetics and the way we go about it. I see the truth of this in my interactions with my two unbelieving and very intelligent daughters. Reverend Winzer, would you mind posting a paragraph or two briefly summing up the position you're speaking from- and if there are any other resources you can pass along, it would be helpful, as all this discussion already has been to me, though I still am a bit dim on it. I have read many old threads where apologetics, including touching on YEC, evolution, etc. have been discussed. I begin to see the issues, but need a bit more plain spoken help.

Rev. Winzer has been very helpful to me on this topic in the past too. Here is a related quote from him that I printed out several years ago and have kept taped to my desk:
Epistemic Limitation of Scientific Discovery
 
Vox, I think you're at least somewhat misunderstanding Rev. Winzer and probably the other commenters you mentioned, but I am not articulate enough to explain it. I'm only just now grasping what he and others are saying about our apologetics and the way we go about it. I see the truth of this in my interactions with my two unbelieving and very intelligent daughters. Reverend Winzer, would you mind posting a paragraph or two briefly summing up the position you're speaking from- and if there are any other resources you can pass along, it would be helpful, as all this discussion already has been to me, though I still am a bit dim on it. I have read many old threads where apologetics, including touching on YEC, evolution, etc. have been discussed. I begin to see the issues, but need a bit more plain spoken help.

Rev. Winzer has been very helpful to me on this topic in the past too. Here is a related quote from him that I printed out several years ago and have kept taped to my desk:
Epistemic Limitation of Scientific Discovery

A helpful quote and thread, thanks.
 
I think several of the esteemed gentlemen commenting here indicated that they think that scientific endeavor into determining what happened in the past is completely futile, and that is not a justifiable position.

It is not that the endeavour is futile. The point is that there are no ultimate answers from an evidential and empirical viewpoint. You might find that the people who come to this position have immersed themselves in history and know it only too well.

The Christian witness should not be associated with the transient theories of an ever changing world and thereby be discredited. Its witness is higher than men. Nor should "data" be squeezed into paradigms which only serve to filter the information the paradigm is comfortable with.

The resurrection is a fact. Why do I believe it? The witness of God in special revelation. No amount of evidence-hunting will make a fact of revelation to be any more or any less a fact. Evidence-hunting might actually be indicative of a lack of belief in the fact of revelation, and a reliance upon natural evidence might end up destroying the supernatural element in the fact.

This also applies to creation. It did not come about by natural causes. So why should an individual who believes in creation seek to explain it by an appeal to evidence which could only suggest it came about by natural causes?

Creation science creates a praeternatural world in which the supernatural and natural are mingled together. The scientific theory is patronised by "biblical authority," so that it becomes impossible to evaluate the theory by a scientific process without calling into question the authority of special revelation. This virtually sets up creation scientists as prophets who deliver the infallible will of God with respect to every thing that is dug up from the earth.

If dinosaurs existed I have no difficulty in accepting it, but I would like to know on what basis I am obliged to accept it when special revelation does not require it and general revelation contradicts it.
 
What would your hypothesis be of what those things be that they dig up. I take it you believe that those things are remains or fossils of animals Our Lord made on the fifth or sixth day, correct?

From what I understand of the state of the question there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. The scientist is free to hypothesise within the realm of common sense but the "evidence" does not demand a verdict. And it is pseudo-science to make all new "evidence" referential to the original hypothesis without being open to the possibility that the cumulative evidence suggests a new hypothesis. For myself, I don't see any need to refer anything that is found to any day of creation when it has not yet been determined what has been found.
 
How would you critically examine evidence to test uniformity? It's an assumption and not testable that I can tell.

Then the induction should reflect the ratio of probability and not be stated as "fact."
 
What would your hypothesis be of what those things be that they dig up. I take it you believe that those things are remains or fossils of animals Our Lord made on the fifth or sixth day, correct?

From what I understand of the state of the question there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. The scientist is free to hypothesise within the realm of common sense but the "evidence" does not demand a verdict. And it is pseudo-science to make all new "evidence" referential to the original hypothesis without being open to the possibility that the cumulative evidence suggests a new hypothesis. For myself, I don't see any need to refer anything that is found to any day of creation when it has not yet been determined what has been found.

I think I see your point, though I think that the eyes we have determine that what they find buried in the ground came or resulted from some living thing that died and was buried.
 
Reverend Winzer, would you mind posting a paragraph or two briefly summing up the position you're speaking from- and if there are any other resources you can pass along, it would be helpful, as all this discussion already has been to me, though I still am a bit dim on it.

I hope Nate's link answers the first part. On the second part any work which discusses scientific revolution should be helpful for showing the nature and limits of science. Thomas Kuhn's Structure is very helpful in this respect. An outline may be found here: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html
 
I think I see your point, though I think that the eyes we have determine that what they find buried in the ground came or resulted from some living thing that died and was buried.

I think if you were an innocent man on trial for murder you would not like the jury to jump to these kinds of conclusions. :)
 
I think I see your point, though I think that the eyes we have determine that what they find buried in the ground came or resulted from some living thing that died and was buried.

I think if you were an innocent man on trial for murder you would not like the jury to jump to these kinds of conclusions. :)

You would not want the jury to conclude from the body that a real man had died in some way?
 
You would not want the jury to conclude from the body that a real man had died in some way?

That he was killed by the man standing over him, that he was killed by the man holding the gun, etc.
 
You would not want the jury to conclude from the body that a real man had died in some way?

That he was killed by the man standing over him, that he was killed by the man holding the gun, etc.

Right. So it would be analogous to say we should not assume dinosaurs were killed by a flood, a meteor, etc. I do not think there is anything to be gained by disputing whether they lived. Sure, it is the type of "fact" that belongs to the realm of empirical uncertainty, but so is the fact that I read your post. Fundamentally, I agree with your position that this sort of thing should not be mixed into a hybrid set of information with Scripture and made a pseudo-science (or worse, a pseudo-hermeneutic). But I am not sure what is to be gained by disputing that bones are bones.
 
Sure, it is the type of "fact" that belongs to the realm of empirical uncertainty, but so is the fact that I read your post.

We can trust sense-perception for the reasons it was given us. So you should have certainty there. The fact you are equating a low-ratio probability model with sense perception is a sign too much is being invested in the science.
 
Sure, it is the type of "fact" that belongs to the realm of empirical uncertainty, but so is the fact that I read your post.

We can trust sense-perception for the reasons it was given us. So you should have certainty there. The fact you are equating a low-ratio probability model with sense perception is a sign too much is being invested in the science.

I do not think I have gone far beyond sense perception. All I have done is observe that there is a structure that looks unmistakably like the bones of an animal, and I have concluded that, probably, it was an animal at one point. I have not moved into the realm of historical conjecture about timeline, the manner of fossilization, etc.
 
All I have done is observe that there is a structure that looks unmistakably like the bones of an animal

Where are you observing this?

The objects found in one location bear re-arrangement into a shape similar to skeletons of living animals with a degree of symmetry and organization that is very unlikely to be random. I grant it is a matter of probability and not certainty, but I do not think it is low-ratio probability.

Ultimately I agree with your overall points here, so it is probably not worth disputing this example. I just think the matter of dinosaurs living is not the ideal example to make the point.
 
All I have done is observe that there is a structure that looks unmistakably like the bones of an animal

Where are you observing this?

The objects found in one location bear re-arrangement into a shape similar to skeletons of living animals with a degree of symmetry and organization that is very unlikely to be random. I grant it is a matter of probability and not certainty, but I do not think it is low-ratio probability.

So you are not observing this. That is what I thought. Your parallel with sense perception is the reason why "the science" gains so much traction in the first place.
 
All I have done is observe that there is a structure that looks unmistakably like the bones of an animal

Where are you observing this?

The objects found in one location bear re-arrangement into a shape similar to skeletons of living animals with a degree of symmetry and organization that is very unlikely to be random. I grant it is a matter of probability and not certainty, but I do not think it is low-ratio probability.

So you are not observing this. That is what I thought. Your parallel with sense perception is the reason why "the science" gains so much traction in the first place.

But we draw conclusions like this all the time and function accordingly. As long as we do not mix them with supernatural events recorded in Scripture - or Darwinistic commitments on the other hand - it is a normal part of life. It is akin to concluding that a parking ticket most likely came from a security officer, and there is ordinarily no reason to spend much energy disputing it. This is not where the trouble begins, as long as the limitations of the process are acknowledged from the outset.
 
But we draw conclusions like this all the time and function accordingly. As long as we do not mix them with supernatural events recorded in Scripture - or Darwinistic commitments on the other hand - it is a normal part of life. It is akin to concluding that a parking ticket most likely came from a security officer, and there is ordinarily no reason to spend much energy disputing it. This is not where the trouble begins, as long as the limitations of the process are acknowledged from the outset.

No, we don't draw conclusions like this all the time, at least not rational ones. And you have determined it is a "parking ticket" so you have already drawn the valid conclusion that it comes from the authorising agency. And the idea of things which defy the laws of science being accorded the scientific status of "fact" is one of the contributing factors to society's abandonment of the normal in favour of the abnormal on the say-so of science, which has massive implications for ethics. And the limitations are erased by equating it with sense perception as if it deserves that degree of trust.
 
And the idea of things which defy the laws of science being accorded the scientific status of "fact"

Ironically, this is to treat the laws of science as though they were final and not subject to reconsideration under additional evidence. It is perfectly normal in experimental (not historical) science for something to be observed which defies previously understood laws, which may lead to modification of the laws. I think you are reasoning backwards in the case of the bones. One does not reason, "Bones cannot fossilize to this degree so quickly; therefore these are something besides fossilized bones." It makes more sense to say, "These look pretty convincingly like bones, so our assumptions about fossilization must need tweaking." None of this should be treated as "fact." And I am not in any way, shape, or form saying it should be.

I may have gotten this conversation off to an imprecise start. I was never trying to say that the existence of dinosaurs should not be disputed in the sense that it should be regarded as infallible fact. I was saying I do not think there is much value in being personally skeptical about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top