# The Proper Domain of (Natural) Science



## Justified

I have a couple questions with regard to the proper domain of science. First, is "creation science" a contradiction in terms? Once we allow the supernatural into the _natural_ sciences, doesn't it cease to be what it is?

The next question is, are the historical sciences a valid endeavor? It's difficult to know, despite their usefulness, how well certain models comport with reality.

One last thought, though I haven't worked it out myself: does creation science and intelligent design arise from a conflation of the distinct categories of creation and providence?

Disclaimer: This thread isn't necessarily about the various exegetical merits of various positions on the interpretation of Genesis; this is merely about science as such.


----------



## Afterthought

Justified said:


> First, is "creation science" a contradiction in terms? Once we allow the supernatural into the natural sciences, doesn't it cease to be what it is?


I think it is a contradiction in terms because I understand science to be an empirical, natural discipline. However, there is no contradiction if one uses the term "science" the way practitioners of "creation science" use the term. For them, special revelation provides extra data for the natural discipline to work with; hence, their "creation" models are superior to "evolution" models (which gets its historical data from fallible human reasoning). Sometimes, this can get a bit odd, e.g., I have seen a Flood model where they set bounds on particular, possible miracles in order to get the model to work. I don't have a problem with using special revelation to make an hypothesis provided the model is tested in a strictly, empirical fashion and not held to dogmatically if the data simply does not support it. It seems backwards to simply assume the data must support Creation ex nihilo in the space of six days, since really anything could happen in a miracle (and natural science assumes ex nihilo nihil fit, anyway).



Justified said:


> The next question is, are the historical sciences a valid endeavor? It's difficult to know, despite their usefulness, how well certain models comport with reality.


If a divide is made between science and special revelation--accepting all the limitations that come to the science from doing that (including its ability to uncover "truth"), as I would favor doing, then the historical sciences must be judged by their empirical usefulness or their moral end (ultimately, the glory of God). It seems to me some uses are (a) showing how much effort and complexity the universe would need to get to its current state if God fashioned it according to ordinary providence, (b) advancing the wonder of how God could have created all this in the space of six days, (c) providing a counter to evolutionary naturalistic theories, and (d) probing to some degree the miracle of creation.

Allow me to elaborate on (d) for a bit. Having made a separation between empirical science as a discipline and special revelation as historical truth, we have no idea what facts we might miss in the explanation of a phenomenon if we simply assume God performed a miracle. Furthermore, we have no idea what natural processes God may or may not have used while creating. Further still, there is the possibility of the universe being created in a mature state that naturally coheres (not intentionally using Poythress's vocabulary) with itself; it is possible that the universe supernaturally made is consistent with itself that probing possible historical reconstructions could allow for finding new physics or testing current theories. The fact is though: we simply don't know, which is why the empirical discipline continues to press onward. The thing that is known though is that the "historical sciences" do not necessarily give literal historical truth, and we must acknowledge that limitation in our historical reconstructions (unlike with the evolutionary historical reconstructions).

I think the above could justify a Christian development of the historical sciences. The scientist, at the end of the day, is interested in making a model that fits the data. This doesn't change just because the data is thought to be from the past and an historical reconstruction is required to explain the data. However, I do grant that the historical sciences are much more speculative than their present day counterparts. I'm not sure that funding to these sciences is ideally as important as developing our other sciences, but I do see some potential value coming from their study.



Justified said:


> does creation science and intelligent design arise from a conflation of the distinct categories of creation and providence?


I'm not as familiar with ID to know whether they are simply using a more sophisticated version of the teleological argument. So far as "creation science" goes, I think it is more of a combination of creation and empirical observation (a subcategory of providence) believing that they both give the same truth and so that combining both will give us more knowledge overall.


----------



## ZackF

I don't know where it is but a while back Pastor Winzer and some others had a very helpful thread related to this.


----------



## Justified

KS_Presby said:


> I don't know where it is but a while back Pastor Winzer and some others had a very helpful thread related to this.


Yeah, I actually have read most of them. These were some further questions I had after reading them.


----------



## Vox Oculi

I'll go point by point. Full disclosure: I have a biology degree and am sufficiently educated on the subject of evolutionary biology, genetics and molecular biology to be quite immune to any charge that I'm "ignorant" or "uneducated" on the subject matter. Don't take my word as if my authority makes it true. Take my word because I am truthful and that there is no reason to doubt that I know what I'm talking about.

"First, is "creation science" a contradiction in terms?"

Nope. Not unless you define them in opposition to each other. As I define them, 
creation: the subject matter of the origin of the universe or some part thereof
science: the procedure by which competing hypotheses are analyzed by replicable experiments and evaluated with statistical confidence.

There is no contradiction if these definitions are accepted. Generally, atheists will define "creation" as "supernatural intervention at all times everywhere" and "science" as "study of the natural mechanisms which operate at all times everywhere," and only if defined this way, is there a contradiction.

2. "are the historical sciences a valid endeavor?"

Could you explain? At base, your question is simply, "is it worthwhile, or possible, to attempt to understand what happened in the past?" It must be, because the Message of the Gospel comes through a record of events that took place in the past, so no Christian can really deny this. That is why I wonder if you don't mean something else, but haven't clarified your question yet.

3. "does creation science and intelligent design arise from a conflation of the distinct categories of creation and providence?"

Does Mercy and Grace arise from a conflation of the distinct categories of Love and Justice?

Those are not meant to be 1-to-1 substitutions. The question is simply to illustrate that the fact that we can identify two major disciplines of study re: theology does not mean that they are mutually exclusive to each other, any more than God's love and justice are. His love for us is expressed _through_ His use of Himself as a substitute to bear our just punishment. 

Why should creation and providence be mutually exclusive? To be fair, I can't understand the background reasoning that would result in this being a question that causes problems for someone. You're evidently incorporating assumptions into those definitions which I don't recognize. I can answer better if you clarify and make those assumptions explicit.


----------



## Justified

Afterthought said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, is "creation science" a contradiction in terms? Once we allow the supernatural into the natural sciences, doesn't it cease to be what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a contradiction in terms because I understand science to be an empirical, natural discipline. However, there is no contradiction if one uses the term "science" the way practitioners of "creation science" use the term. For them, special revelation provides extra data for the natural discipline to work with; hence, their "creation" models are superior to "evolution" models (which gets its historical data from fallible human reasoning). Sometimes, this can get a bit odd, e.g., I have seen a Flood model where they set bounds on particular, possible miracles in order to get the model to work. I don't have a problem with using special revelation to make an hypothesis provided the model is tested in a strictly, empirical fashion and not held to dogmatically if the data simply does not support it. It seems backwards to simply assume the data must support Creation ex nihilo in the space of six days, since really anything could happen in a miracle (and natural science assumes ex nihilo nihil fit, anyway).
> 
> 
> 
> Justified said:
> 
> 
> 
> The next question is, are the historical sciences a valid endeavor? It's difficult to know, despite their usefulness, how well certain models comport with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a divide is made between science and special revelation--accepting all the limitations that come to the science from doing that (including its ability to uncover "truth"), as I would favor doing, then the historical sciences must be judged by their empirical usefulness or their moral end (ultimately, the glory of God). It seems to me some uses are (a) showing how much effort and complexity the universe would need to get to its current state if God fashioned it according to ordinary providence, (b) advancing the wonder of how God could have created all this in the space of six days, (c) providing a counter to evolutionary naturalistic theories, and (d) probing to some degree the miracle of creation.
> 
> Allow me to elaborate on (d) for a bit. Having made a separation between empirical science as a discipline and special revelation as historical truth, we have no idea what facts we might miss in the explanation of a phenomenon if we simply assume God performed a miracle. Furthermore, we have no idea what natural processes God may or may not have used while creating. Further still, there is the possibility of the universe being created in a mature state that naturally coheres (not intentionally using Poythress's vocabulary) with itself; it is possible that the universe supernaturally made is consistent with itself that probing possible historical reconstructions could allow for finding new physics or testing current theories. The fact is though: we simply don't know, which is why the empirical discipline continues to press onward. The thing that is known though is that the "historical sciences" do not necessarily give literal historical truth, and we must acknowledge that limitation in our historical reconstructions (unlike with the evolutionary historical reconstructions).
> 
> I think the above could justify a Christian development of the historical sciences. The scientist, at the end of the day, is interested in making a model that fits the data. This doesn't change just because the data is thought to be from the past and an historical reconstruction is required to explain the data. However, I do grant that the historical sciences are much more speculative than their present day counterparts. I'm not sure that funding to these sciences is ideally as important as developing our other sciences, but I do see some potential value coming from their study.
> 
> 
> 
> Justified said:
> 
> 
> 
> does creation science and intelligent design arise from a conflation of the distinct categories of creation and providence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not as familiar with ID to know whether they are simply using a more sophisticated version of the teleological argument. So far as "creation science" goes, I think it is more of a combination of creation and empirical observation (a subcategory of providence) believing that they both give the same truth and so that combining both will give us more knowledge overall.
Click to expand...

Thanks. What do you think about instrumentalism (anti-realism) and scientific realism? I know Gordon Clark was an instrumentalist.


----------



## Vox Oculi

I highly recommend this book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Science-Christian-Philosophy/dp/0891077669


----------



## Justified

Vox Oculi said:


> 2. "are the historical sciences a valid endeavor?"
> 
> Could you explain? At base, your question is simply, "is it worthwhile, or possible, to attempt to understand what happened in the past?" It must be, because the Message of the Gospel comes through a record of events that took place in the past, so no Christian can really deny this. That is why I wonder if you don't mean something else, but haven't clarified your question yet.


 My concern is that creation as such is an article of faith (cf. Heb. 11:3). Science, as an empirical endeavor, has tentative conclusions that cannot yield for us an absolute certainty-- which is not necessarily bad. In science we make and construct models to fit the data; we don't create models to fit our pre-conceived-- although perhaps correct-- notions about what is the case. The second our models are not based on the empirical data we are no longer doing science, for it ceases to be an empirical science.

My thoughts above are predicated on the premise that science is not always about finding out about absolute reality. Much of science is about utility. Are heliocentric models of the solar system more useful for constructing functions that help us predict orbits? Then let's use them, regardless if they are correct. In science we often adopt models because they are easier to use or simpler, but it does not follow from this that we are closer to reality.

I hope that helped clarify my thoughts. Again, I'm not attacking the young earth/mature creation view; in fact, I'm thinking about adopting it in place of my current OEC views. However, I've always been leary of creation science so-called.


----------



## Justified

Thanks for the book recommendation.


----------



## Ed Walsh

Justified said:


> I've always been leary of creation science so-called.



I agree. Are not those two words together an oxymoron? I think so. Even if a scientist was witness to the dividing of the loaves and fishes, all he could do with the scientific method is make scientific assumptions. E.g., The fish, was spawned, and say, four years old, caught and then cooked over a man-made fire. And he would be right as far as science is concerned. Creation just doesn't reveal itself to the scientific method. I think creation scientists try to prove too much.


----------



## Justified

Ed Walsh said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been leary of creation science so-called.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Are not those two words together an oxymoron? I think so. Even if a scientist was witness to the dividing of the loaves and fishes, all he could do with the scientific method is make scientific assumptions. E.g., The fish, was spawned, and say, four years old, caught and then cooked over a man-made fire. And he would be right as far as science is concerned. Creation just doesn't reveal itself to the scientific method. I think creation scientists try to prove too much.
Click to expand...

 I concur with your concurrence. Once we begin to allow the supernatural in our study of _natural_ sciences, we are no longer doing either theology or science, but rather some _tertium quid_.

Personal question: What is you're position, Ed, on the creation day?


----------



## Vox Oculi

Ed Walsh said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been leary of creation science so-called.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Are not those two words together an oxymoron? I think so. Even if a scientist was witness to the dividing of the loaves and fishes, all he could do with the scientific method is make scientific assumptions. E.g., The fish, was spawned, and say, four years old, caught and then cooked over a man-made fire. And he would be right as far as science is concerned. Creation just doesn't reveal itself to the scientific method. I think creation scientists try to prove too much.
Click to expand...


I think this is a bit simplistic. Even things which occur through non-natural means leave behind evidence. The Resurrection was decidedly non-natural, yet we employ historical scrutiny to evaluate the facts and determine that this did indeed happen. Likewise, Creation was supernaturally originated but it still has the consequence of leaving evidence which can be scientifically assessed.

It is ultimately not the means by which something occurred that determines whether it's scientifically assessable. It is what our hypothesis predicts the results should be that is the focus of scientific investigation.


----------



## Ed Walsh

Justified said:


> Personal question: What is you're position, Ed, on the creation day?



I am a 6/24 young earther for sure. But, I don't know exactly how young. Genesis 5 does not read like there are gaps in the genealogy. Still, I am not a full blown Ussherite, but I don't know why not. I guess science has made it hard for me to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Maybe twice that old. But then again, I find it hard to trust modern scientists, since they can not, and will not, even consider the possibility of a young earth. It is ruled out from the start.

Imagine that Adam died the day after he was created, and a scientist wants to estimate his age at death. There are certain things he knows in advance. He knows, by simple observation, that the body is around 30 years old. That much he is sure of beyond all question. He can't believe (is unable) to believe anything else. In his study, the scientist might observe certain anomalies like the absence of any sign of tooth decay, scars, basic wear-and-tear, etc. But that would not in the least shake his faith in the powers of his observation. But he would be wrong--dead wrong!

Modern science is sure at the deepest presuppositional level that the earth is very old. He can believe no other. I just find it difficult to trust men that can only arive at one conclusion. See what I mean?


----------



## Vox Oculi

Justified said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "are the historical sciences a valid endeavor?"
> 
> Could you explain? At base, your question is simply, "is it worthwhile, or possible, to attempt to understand what happened in the past?" It must be, because the Message of the Gospel comes through a record of events that took place in the past, so no Christian can really deny this. That is why I wonder if you don't mean something else, but haven't clarified your question yet.
> 
> 
> 
> My concern is that creation as such is an article of faith (cf. Heb. 11:3). Science, as an empirical endeavor, has tentative conclusions that cannot yield for us an absolute certainty-- which is not necessarily bad. In science we make and construct models to fit the data; we don't create models to fit our pre-conceived-- although perhaps correct-- notions about what is the case. The second our models are not based on the empirical data we are no longer doing science, for it ceases to be an empirical science.
> 
> My thoughts above are predicated on the premise that science is not always about finding out about absolute reality. Much of science is about utility. Are heliocentric models of the solar system more useful for constructing functions that help us predict orbits? Then let's use them, regardless if they are correct. In science we often adopt models because they are easier to use or simpler, but it does not follow from this that we are closer to reality.
> 
> I hope that helped clarify my thoughts. Again, I'm not attacking the young earth/mature creation view; in fact, I'm thinking about adopting it in place of my current OEC views. However, I've always been leary of creation science so-called.
Click to expand...


I'm a little uncertain how best to respond to a portion of what you wrote (and so will desist rather than make an assumption) because you seem to at once treat 'science' as a method and then as a general word to refer to a broad field of contemporary research, in the same breath. Neither usage of the word is wrong, but it's difficult to offer a clear insight if you can't be sure which sense I'm addressing. 

Creation as well as not(Creation) are articles of faith, and the belief that the world began a certain way should not be contrasted with a mechanism of inquiry into the way the world works; that is a false comparison. Creation should be contrasted with an alternative view on origins. Science should be contrasted with a different method of inquiry -- textual criticism, anecdote, etc (here using 'science' to refer to the empirical method).

Scientists have long had beliefs about what their experiments will yield, before performing the experiment (it is a large part of what drives the decision to make and pursue any _specific_ experiment). Being confident of the answer before observing it empirically does not invalidate the method--provided the answer has not simply been assumed and that the method therefore suffered from it.

Both YECs, OECs, atheists etc have preconceived ideas about how the universe began, and they form hypotheses based on those views. That is not inherently fallacious. It is fallacious to think that a certain kind of belief is by nature disallowed from being referred to in the formation of hypotheses. It is fallacious to alter the method of inquiry to attempt to 'hedge one's bets' and ensure that a favorable result is achieved.

None of these positions does this by logical necessity. So there is no reason to treat any of them unequally.


----------



## Vox Oculi

I'll consider testing the waters here to see if linking is better received than it is with incorrigible atheists.

Here is a sampling from a reputable site (PhDs on staff in technical fields, including a certified genius) which lists a number of problematic evidences that make believing in an old earth difficult.

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


----------



## Vox Oculi

The technical term for Young-Earth Creationists used to be _Scientific Creationists,_ I believe. Not without reason


----------



## Ed Walsh

Vox Oculi said:


> I think this is a bit simplistic.



That's me all right. You got my number.  See my post (#13) for a better idea of how I view the miracle of Creation and science.



> Even things which occur through non-natural means leave behind evidence.



I would say sometimes Yes, and sometimes No. An example of "No" might be the coin in the fishes mouth. Evidence? Where? However, I think special Creation left some evidence. I don't believe God was dishonest and made Creation 100% void of evidence. My argument is that modern science is blinded by their own presuppositions. They know that the earth is old despite any evidence to the contrary. They can't explain everything they see, but they are positive of that.



> It is ultimately not the means by which something occurred that determines whether it's scientifically assessable. It is what our hypothesis predicts the results should be that is the focus of scientific investigation.



I agree. Modern science "predicts" an old earth. But it is more than a prediction. They are certain of it. Below _is one response from an e-mail discussion thread that had perhaps 300+ posts. It's a little dated and written in hast, so be kind. For some reason few interacted with my line of reasoning. Why was that? See what you think… It's called *Creation as Miracle*. (The URL says a lot. The file name is called: *blind_fools.html*)

_


----------



## Vox Oculi

Ed Walsh said:


> Even things which occur through non-natural means leave behind evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say sometimes Yes, and sometimes No. An example of "No" might be the coin in the fishes mouth. Evidence? Where?
Click to expand...


I would define _evidence_ as anything with tangible existence that can be used to assert a premise in a logical proof. In this case, the evidence is not scientific because it isn't present and it isn't repeatable. But it is a textual evidence. We can't know about it if it didn't leave behind any information. To whit, that comes in the form of the inspired writers of Scripture. It's not useful in a scientific setting, to learn about how fish or coins work, but it's knowable because it left behind traces of its occurrence in the form of witness testimony.



> However, I think special Creation left some evidence. I don't believe God was dishonest and made Creation 100% void of evidence. My argument is that modern science is blinded by their own presuppositions. They know that the earth is old despite any evidence to the contrary. They can't explain everything they see, but they are positive of that.



No disagreement. 



> It is ultimately not the means by which something occurred that determines whether it's scientifically assessable. It is what our hypothesis predicts the results should be that is the focus of scientific investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Modern science "predicts" an old earth. But it is more than a prediction. They are certain of it. Below _is one response from an e-mail discussion thread that had perhaps 300+ posts. It's a little dated and written in hast, so be kind. For some reason few interacted with my line of reasoning. Why was that? See what you think… It's called *Creation as Miracle*. (The URL says a lot. The file name is called: *blind_fools.html*)_
Click to expand...


Phew; I'll have to return to that at a later date.


----------



## MW

Young earth scientism is not plausible because the mass scale of creation defies evidential particularisation on a small scale. Old earth scientism is not plausible because the small scale evidence does not support the probability of mass scale developments.

God spake and it was done! I expect small scale experimentation to prove long periods of time would have been required for any act of creation to become a reality by natural processes. The evidence in fact suggests that natural processes would have required an infinite amount of time to produce what we see since natural processes could not have produced anything that we see.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Young earth scientism is not plausible because the mass scale of creation defies evidential particularisation on a small scale. Old earth scientism is not plausible because the small scale evidence does not support the probability of mass scale developments.
> 
> God spake and it was done! I expect small scale experimentation to prove long periods of time would have been required for any act of creation to become a reality by natural processes. The evidence in fact suggests that natural processes would have required an infinite amount of time to produce what we see since natural processes could not have produced anything that we see.



Seems you used the term 'scientism' for a very specific reason? I can understand and affirm your last sentence, but it gives the appearance of being inconsistent with your statement implying that YEC is not scientific -- unless that's not what you're saying.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> Seems you used the term 'scientism' for a very specific reason? I can understand and affirm your last sentence, but it gives the appearance of being inconsistent with your statement implying that YEC is not scientific -- unless that's not what you're saying.



Yes, I use scientism specifically to distinguish the doctrine from the science. And yes, I cannot regard YEC as scientific because it is bound by its doctrine to read the evidence in a non-scientific, praeter-natural way.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you used the term 'scientism' for a very specific reason? I can understand and affirm your last sentence, but it gives the appearance of being inconsistent with your statement implying that YEC is not scientific -- unless that's not what you're saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I use scientism specifically to distinguish the doctrine from the science. And yes, I cannot regard YEC as scientific because it is bound by its doctrine to read the evidence in a non-scientific, praeter-natural way.
Click to expand...


Why conclude this? Is there something unique about YEC that does not apply to OEC or to evolutionism?
If not, it's not the doctrinal impetus of YEC that is the issue of contention but I suspect, disagreeable conclusions.


----------



## Afterthought

MW said:


> Young earth scientism is not plausible because the mass scale of creation defies evidential particularisation on a small scale. Old earth scientism is not plausible because the small scale evidence does not support the probability of mass scale developments.


By "mass scale," are you referring to "large scale"/"large things separated by large distances" or do you mean "the size of everyday matter that we see"? I'm not entirely sure what is being said here; would you be willing to explain again? It sounds like you are saying that (a) we only have evidence made on a small scale, (b) we cannot find a way to make the things we know on a small scale to grow into the things that are on a large scale, and (c) we cannot find a way to break the things we know on a large scale to the things we know on a small scale? I'm not sure how YEC/OEC fits into these.



Justified said:


> Thanks. What do you think about instrumentalism (anti-realism) and scientific realism? I know Gordon Clark was an instrumentalist.


It's been a while since I looked at those things carefully and precisely, so take what I say with that in mind. I like scientific realism. I've often debated with myself whether my own position is realist or instrumentalist. It's definitely not antirealist. Scientific realism makes sense of the fact that we are able to make predictions with our theories: even predicting real things simply because they must exist for the theory to make sense or be complete. I know instrumentalists argue that this sort of argument for scientific realism is strictly speaking logically fallacious, but for some reason, it is hard to shake the compelling power of certain predictions in order to say that the concepts are all in our head or refer only to the operations that an experimenter performs. In reply to the instrumentalist, I would say that while some parts of our theories are inherently conceptual, the concepts nevertheless represent either real entities or some part or aspect of real entities; hence, the ability for theoretical prediction is plausible while maintaining the valid concern that theoretical entities have been conceptualized to some degree. Maybe an "electron" as a "fundamental particle" does not exist, but there is some aspect, object, slice, or part of reality that behaves as the mathematical object and "fundamental particle" that we call an "electron." I think this allows for realism in some sense.

I remember finding a useful definition of "functional explanation" that I liked, but I cannot find it. If one viewed scientific explanations as ultimately "functional" in nature, then the theories are ultimately descriptive, even though in relation to themselves and the things themselves the theories are explanatory. The realism is in the relation between the things the theories describe, the relation of the description to reality, and in the relation of the foundation of the theory to reality (i.e., experimental or observational data). Explaining exactly where the realism lies is tricky for me, which is why I sometimes wonder if this is still a form of instrumentalism, not realism.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> Why conclude this? Is there something unique about YEC that does not apply to OEC or to evolutionism?



I called OEC scientism as well. Reason: because doctrine is driving the conclusion, not experimental science.



Vox Oculi said:


> If not, it's not the doctrinal impetus of YEC that is the issue of contention but I suspect, disagreeable conclusions.



I hold to a young earth from a doctrinal point of view. I will even go as far as Ussher for 4004 BC in chronology and calculating the genealogies, and I regard the genealogies as intending to give literal time spans. So there is no problem with the conclusion. The problem is with the methodology -- attempting to give a unified and ultimate explanation to variegated evidence.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> I'm not sure how YEC/OEC fits into these.



What has been created now only comes before our observation as a "product." The act of creation as a "process" is beyond human investigation. We only come to understand the process by divine testimony. On the other hand, the sciences are observing processes. In either case, whether young earth or old earth is the hypothesis, the attempt is to convert the "process" into a "product" which cannot itself be investigated. Hence the "ism." The young earther is beginning with the "process" as he understands it from special revelation, and trying to reduce it down to smaller pieces of evidence. The old earther is beginning with the smaller piece of evidence and building up to a larger process without any evidence that the larger process could take place naturally.


----------



## Afterthought

Thanks, that is very helpful!



MW said:


> What has been created now only comes before our observation as a "product." The act of creation as a "process" is beyond human investigation. We only come to understand the process by divine testimony. On the other hand, the sciences are observing processes. In either case, whether young earth or old earth is the hypothesis, the attempt is to convert the "process" into a "product" which cannot itself be investigated. Hence the "ism."


If what has been created comes before our observation as a "product," how is it unable to be investigated? Or do you simply mean the product as an entire whole cannot be investigated?



MW said:


> without any evidence that the larger process could take place naturally.


To make absolutely sure I am understanding this correctly(I hadn't considered before that old earth creationism held doctrinely driven conclusions in the same way young earth creationism does): this is the doctrine the OEC holds and is driving the conclusion?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> this is the doctrine the OEC holds and is driving the conclusion?



Yes. There is an assumption that what is observed in smaller units could take place by the same processes on a mass scale when there is no evidence for it.


----------



## Justified

MW said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why conclude this? Is there something unique about YEC that does not apply to OEC or to evolutionism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I called OEC scientism as well. Reason: because doctrine is driving the conclusion, not experimental science.
> 
> 
> 
> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not, it's not the doctrinal impetus of YEC that is the issue of contention but I suspect, disagreeable conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hold to a young earth from a doctrinal point of view. I will even go as far as Ussher for 4004 BC in chronology and calculating the genealogies, and I regard the genealogies as intending to give literal time spans. So there is no problem with the conclusion. The problem is with the methodology -- attempting to give a unified and ultimate explanation to variegated evidence.
Click to expand...

Rev. Winzer, would you say doctrine is driving the evolutionists, as well?

Also, do you think historical science is a legitimate enterprise?


----------



## MW

Justified said:


> Rev. Winzer, would you say doctrine is driving the evolutionists, as well?



Macro-evolution, definitely, yes. We observe micro-evolution within species, but I suppose that could be called something other than evolution as well, or at least it has to be regarded as a different kind of thing to what is claimed for macro-evolution.



Justified said:


> Also, do you think historical science is a legitimate enterprise?



I think any science is legitimate as long as it remains within its own domain, recognises its own limitations, and does not impinge on other domains of science.

From one point of view, all sciences fall within the domain of historical investigation because they assume principles and facts that are supposed to have been tried and proven, and that trial must be open to historical investigation. Even our different "departments" of research are the result of an historical process and adapt to the predominance of different ideas.


----------



## Justified

Afterthought said:


> It's been a while since I looked at those things carefully and precisely, so take what I say with that in mind. I like scientific realism. I've often debated with myself whether my own position is realist or instrumentalist. It's definitely not antirealist. Scientific realism makes sense of the fact that we are able to make predictions with our theories: even predicting real things simply because they must exist for the theory to make sense or be complete. I know instrumentalists argue that this sort of argument for scientific realism is strictly speaking logically fallacious, but for some reason, it is hard to shake the compelling power of certain predictions in order to say that the concepts are all in our head or refer only to the operations that an experimenter performs. In reply to the instrumentalist, I would say that while some parts of our theories are inherently conceptual, the concepts nevertheless represent either real entities or some part or aspect of real entities; hence, the ability for theoretical prediction is plausible while maintaining the valid concern that theoretical entities have been conceptualized to some degree. Maybe an "electron" as a "fundamental particle" does not exist, but there is some aspect, object, slice, or part of reality that behaves as the mathematical object and "fundamental particle" that we call an "electron." I think this allows for realism in some sense.
> 
> I remember finding a useful definition of "functional explanation" that I liked, but I cannot find it. If one viewed scientific explanations as ultimately "functional" in nature, then the theories are ultimately descriptive, even though in relation to themselves and the things themselves the theories are explanatory. The realism is in the relation between the things the theories describe, the relation of the description to reality, and in the relation of the foundation of the theory to reality (i.e., experimental or observational data). Explaining exactly where the realism lies is tricky for me, which is why I sometimes wonder if this is still a form of instrumentalism, not realism.


 The problem for me is that utility does not necessarily imply correspondence to reality. For example, Ptolemy's geocentric model and the heliocentric model both are able to make predictions, such as the orbit of planets. Why did we abandon geocentricism? Because heliocentricism, as it stands now, is easier to work with; it's simpler. However, does it being simpler imply the truth of it? No. Perhaps reality is actually very complicated and not simple. We don't know.

I know what you are saying, though. And it's tough to think through these things. The above is why I have a hard time accepting realism. At the same time, something really intuitive tells me that realism is true.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how YEC/OEC fits into these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has been created now only comes before our observation as a "product." The act of creation as a "process" is beyond human investigation. We only come to understand the process by divine testimony. On the other hand, the sciences are observing processes.
Click to expand...


Well, empirical sciences do this. But historical/forensic science, which involves both Creation and Evolution as origins theories, do not observe the processes being investigated. Experiments can be performed, sure, but not on the process in question, only on a process one substitutes as being (one thinks) quite like the one in question, and then extrapolating the results. You're quite right that the only way to be fully confident about what happened in the past is if someone told us. History does an adequate job of this through human writers. But before there were any humans alive to record what happened (Day 1-5), another witness is necessary--and only God satisfies this for us, giving us unquestionable hard data that can be used to formulate further hypotheses and investigate how subsequent events may have unfolded and yielded the tangible evidences we observe today.



> In either case, whether young earth or old earth is the hypothesis, the attempt is to convert the "process" into a "product" which cannot itself be investigated. Hence the "ism." The young earther is beginning with the "process" as he understands it from special revelation, and trying to reduce it down to smaller pieces of evidence. The old earther is beginning with the smaller piece of evidence and building up to a larger process without any evidence that the larger process could take place naturally.



I would say that this is only really the case for nonChristians without a witness, and practically speaking, the OECs who don't take God's Word seriously and therefore can't appeal to His witness to bolster their hypotheses. Given what I said above.


----------



## chuckd

MW said:


> God spake and it was done! I expect small scale experimentation to prove long periods of time would have been required for any act of creation to become a reality by natural processes. The evidence in fact suggests that natural processes would have required an infinite amount of time to produce what we see since natural processes could not have produced anything that we see.



Dinosaur fossil evidence suggests large reptile creatures roamed the earth 100+ million years ago (based on radioactive carbon dating) well before man. Do you deny this conclusion or do you believe they were living creatures created in the first days of earth?


----------



## MW

chuckd said:


> Dinosaur fossil evidence suggests large reptile creatures roamed the earth 100+ million years ago (based on radioactive carbon dating) well before man. Do you deny this conclusion or do you believe they were living creatures created in the first days of earth?



You say the evidence "suggests" a certain hypothesis and then ask if I "deny" or "believe" the hypothesis. A rational man does not form beliefs based on suggestions. At most he could entertain it as something requiring further investigation.

This reveals a problem with the way people tend to respond to the scientific process. Science changes, and even has its own forms of revolution, but people treat it as if it intends to speak finally and infallibly.

My answer is, I "deny" the conclusion has sufficient evidence to support it.


----------



## Vox Oculi

chuckd said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> God spake and it was done! I expect small scale experimentation to prove long periods of time would have been required for any act of creation to become a reality by natural processes. The evidence in fact suggests that natural processes would have required an infinite amount of time to produce what we see since natural processes could not have produced anything that we see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaur fossil evidence suggests large reptile creatures roamed the earth 100+ million years ago (based on radioactive carbon dating) well before man. Do you deny this conclusion or do you believe they were living creatures created in the first days of earth?
Click to expand...


Note: this is not to put down your intelligence or education, but to make an instructive point.

1. Carbon dating is specific to only material containing the element Carbon. Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. That means that if the whole earth's mass was solely C-14, within 1 million years, all of it would decay to N14. Therefore, the presence of measurable C14 in a sample indicates the sample must absolutely be younger than 1 million years. Actual levels of C14 in actual samples tested show they must be younger than 80,000 years (the upper limit for AMS instrument detection, corresponding to roughly 1 in 12 Trillion atoms of C14 to C12.

2. Radioisotope or radiometric dating are the generic terms to refer to all forms of radioactive dating, not just C-14 but potassium-argon, uranium, etc.

3. I would like to challenge you to consider the possibility that because you incorrectly characterized the scientific method of age determination of fossils over 100,000 apparent years of age, and because the conclusion therefore either rests on someone else's misconception forwarded to you and accepted uncritically, OR rests on your misconception of someone else's assertion about the dating of dinosaur fossils, 
THAT therefore,
you are missing information necessary to make an appropriate judgment on the matter and therefore stand to have your mind changed about what is the true age of dinosaur fossils if you have an open mind to the possibility that what you believe now is based on incorrect data.

Fun fact: dinosaur fossils are routinely found in rock layers ABOVE cenozoic-mammal-fossil containing rock layers (e.g. mammoths, rabbits, etc). In secular geology, this is termed "overthrusts" (because the only way to salvage an old earth belief is to suppose that older layers somehow were pushed over top of younger layers). If you take the evidence at face value, the dinosaur fossils were deposited after the mammal fossils and are therefore more recent. This does not coexist peacefully with a 65-Ma extinction date.

For your consideration.


----------



## Vox Oculi

Another educational point: the fallacy of reification is ascribing human like intent to inanimate or abstract entities. Evidence does not "suggest" anything. Evidence is interpreted within a framework. 

It's not wholly inappropriate to use the term 'the evidence suggest' -- so long as you implicitly recognize that what you are really saying is that the evidence is incorporated into and inferred to suggest some thing _according to one interpretive mechanism._ It does not mean something _on its own,_ and other mechanisms can interpret it to mean something else, possibly more conclusively.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> Another educational point: the fallacy of reification is ascribing human like intent to inanimate or abstract entities. Evidence does not "suggest" anything. Evidence is interpreted within a framework.



Precisely; and there may be more than one filter through which to sift the data.


----------



## chuckd

Vox Oculi said:


> Another educational point: the fallacy of reification is ascribing human like intent to inanimate or abstract entities. Evidence does not "suggest" anything. Evidence is interpreted within a framework.
> 
> It's not wholly inappropriate to use the term 'the evidence suggest' -- so long as you implicitly recognize that what you are really saying is that the evidence is incorporated into and inferred to suggest some thing _according to one interpretive mechanism._ It does not mean something _on its own,_ and other mechanisms can interpret it to mean something else, possibly more conclusively.



Poor wording I admit. I meant scientific consensus. What mechanism do you interpret it? Do you believe the dinosaurs were created living and became extinct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chuckd

MW said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaur fossil evidence suggests large reptile creatures roamed the earth 100+ million years ago (based on radioactive carbon dating) well before man. Do you deny this conclusion or do you believe they were living creatures created in the first days of earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say the evidence "suggests" a certain hypothesis and then ask if I "deny" or "believe" the hypothesis. A rational man does not form beliefs based on suggestions. At most he could entertain it as something requiring further investigation.
> 
> This reveals a problem with the way people tend to respond to the scientific process. Science changes, and even has its own forms of revolution, but people treat it as if it intends to speak finally and infallibly.
> 
> My answer is, I "deny" the conclusion has sufficient evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


Well put. I mean to say that scientific consensus, albeit secular, has concluded that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Like you said earlier, you would expect the earth to show evidence of age (even infinite).

Prior to the latest scientific revolution, how would we interpret the dinosaur fossil record? That they lived among men and became extinct? Or that they are part of an earth that would show an infinite age (they never lived)?

I believe young earth creationists attempt to prove the former, but it becomes pseudoscience. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MW

chuckd said:


> how would we interpret the dinosaur fossil record?



I would begin by pointing out there is no "record," and whatever we have it is not singular. The plan of systematisation has an agenda, and this agenda has no science to support it.

While there were a few fossils to support the myth of prehistoric creatures they were able to hold people on the edge of their seats waiting for more discoveries to prove the "record." As each piece came to hand it kept filling out the "record," but the "record" itself had never actually been substantiated. The evidence has not been researched to prove a "record," but is merely added to the "record" in a schematic way so as to give the impression of undeniable evidence.

The dinosaur fascination is a little like the bearded lady at the circus. That some scientists use the fascination to bolster their theories is unimpressive from a rational point of view.

The YEC's are at least keeping some of the paleontologists honest by offering critique which forces them to be more stringent. But yes, it is pseudoscience when the behemoths and dragons of the Bible are turning up in the so-called "fossil record" when there is nothing in the fossils to demonstrate it.


----------



## Vox Oculi

Aristotle was a huge influence on natural philosophy during the Renaissance and the Church unfortunately did then what many in it are attempting to do today -- marry theology subserviently to a naturalistic, secular belief system about natural history. It was Aristotle who promoted the idea that life forms are immutable and thus it was not because of Biblical reasons but because of convenience that the consensus of the Church was to assume that no life forms had ever gone extinct. They neglected to consider the effects of the Fall, and subsumed Aristotelian teleology to the point that the discovery of clearly extinct animal remains rocked their system so much that many in society thereafter tended to atheism.

Faithlessness with the text leads to faithlessness writ-large if uncritically accepted. I submit that accepting the secular, established natural-history belief in an old earth will result and is resulting in the same thing: an undermining of the fundamental doctrines in Genesis which the Gospel roots itself in -- inerrant Scripture, a loving God, humanity made in God's image, the Fall, sin, Adam's headship and Christ as the 'Last Adam,' etc etc etc. It results in successive generations abandoning belief and cultural apostasy.

Biblical Christianity is wholly consistent with -- even implies -- that created lifeforms have existed which do not now, and therefore extinction is a natural conclusion from taking the text at face value. On the contrary, novel creations which did not exist in the past but now do are a violation of natural law as well as a challenge to God's finished act of creation on the 6th Day. He is working even now, said Jesus, yes -- but not "creating" new things out of nothing. The young earth view has a much stronger Scriptural argument in favor of it.


----------



## chuckd

MW said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> 
> how would we interpret the dinosaur fossil record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would begin by pointing out there is no "record," and whatever we have it is not singular. The plan of systematisation has an agenda, and this agenda has no science to support it.
Click to expand...


How would we interpret the dinosaur fossils? Were these bones from once living creatures?


----------



## Vox Oculi

chuckd said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> 
> how would we interpret the dinosaur fossil record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would begin by pointing out there is no "record," and whatever we have it is not singular. The plan of systematisation has an agenda, and this agenda has no science to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would we interpret the dinosaur fossils? Were these bones from once living creatures?
Click to expand...


The "fossil record" is an imaginary ladder of sedimentary rock layers which is not found completely anywhere on the world. In many places whole layers are missing, or are out of order. You can find "young" layers resting on bedrock with supposed billions of years missing. The "record" as MW said, does not exist. There is no "geologic column," as you may have seen it in dinosaur books, going from Cambrian, Ordivician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, etc. 

The idea that such a sequence is actual comes from inferring that layers in one place must fit in somewhere with layers in another place, either side by side, on top, or on bottom. But who says they have to? The inference is not from science but from _necessity_ because it comes from a naturalistic worldview where the layers must represent long ages of sequential time periods. If they are simply sediment deposits from a worldwide flood, there is no reason to assume that global sediments must have been deposited in the same sequence at all locations on the globe. So the missing layers and out of order layers are no problem in a Biblical framework. 

Question the reasons for the assumption of anything you've been told.

There is no evidence that natural means can form fossiliferous rock in the absence of organic material, so there is no reason to question that fossils are the remnants of bones of once living creatures. 

This is no problem at all unless one assumes that the Bible says "there are no such things as dinosaurs." But it does not. That, as well as the "curse of Ham" and many other canards attributed to American Christians are actually originally _*Mormon ideas.*_ The Bible states that God made all land dwelling animals on Day 6, and dinosaurs were evidently land-dwelling animals, so they were made on Day 6 together with Adam, rabbits, mammoths, etc.


----------



## MW

chuckd said:


> How would we interpret the dinosaur fossils? Were these bones from once living creatures?



Vox gives a good answer. I would add that the classification of "dinosaur" has already predetermined that it was a once living creature. Many conclusions are of this kind, which build on categorical assumptions.


----------



## chuckd

Vox Oculi said:


> That, as well as the "curse of Ham" and many other canards attributed to American Christians are actually originally _*Mormon ideas.*_ The Bible states that God made all land dwelling animals on Day 6, and dinosaurs were evidently land-dwelling animals, so they were made on Day 6 together with Adam, rabbits, mammoths, etc.



Thank you for your post. Very informative. I'm not sure I understand this part about the curse of Ham and what that has to do with dinosaurs.


----------



## chuckd

MW said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would we interpret the dinosaur fossils? Were these bones from once living creatures?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox gives a good answer. I would add that the classification of "dinosaur" has already predetermined that it was a once living creature. Many conclusions are of this kind, which build on categorical assumptions.
Click to expand...


The assumption being any bone found is from a once living creature? Is that not a reasonable assumption? I wouldn't think God would create something dead, much less only the bones.


----------



## Vox Oculi

I only brought up the Curse of Ham as an aside (for one, it was Canaan who was cursed, not Ham, and the Mormons disseminated this racist idea to support the belief that slavery was justified because black people were condemned by God. It's understandable how come it spread outside of Mormonism because slavery was so widespread at the time--it was a convenient lie). The idea that Satan buried dinosaur fossils as a deception to test our faith is a Mormon teaching. The Bible has no issue with extinct animals. It was in fact an adoption of Aristotelian belief (that perfection = lack of change, and ignoring the fact of the Fall occurring after God's perfect creation) that led to the problem for mid 18th century christian scientist-philosophers to explain how come extinction could occur since they believed in "fixity of species," a belief they took from the Greeks outside of the Bible.

Basically the point I'm making is that dinosaur fossils are not a problem for Bible believers. It is ONLY a problem for those who abandon clear Biblical truth and take their ideas from pagan sources and mix it with their theology. That was the connection.


----------



## MW

chuckd said:


> The assumption being any bone found is from a once living creature? Is that not a reasonable assumption?



Again, the outcome is determined by the classification. This time it is "bone." As a matter of physical science, the "bones" cannot support the massive physical structures from which they are supposed to have come. This is beside the fact that some of these creatures would have required a massive food intake, and could barely have moved in order to access a food supply according to the laws of mechanics. One might as credibly hypothesise that the bones belong to an alien race which used to visit this planet for some unknown reason, and this would be just as credible in the eyes of those who deny the existence of God.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption being any bone found is from a once living creature? Is that not a reasonable assumption?
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of physical science, the "bones" cannot support the massive physical structures from which they are supposed to have come. This is beside the fact that some of these creatures would have required a massive food intake, and could barely have moved in order to access a food supply according to the laws of mechanics.
Click to expand...


I'm not convinced. There have been numerous cases where something was deemed impossible by known mechanisms given the present understanding of some creature, until further information was uncovered that elucidated the method by which what was observed was accomplished. If pressured, I suppose I can hunt down some examples, but all I have right now is strong confidence but nothing off the top of my head as a case in point. Nevertheless, on my experience, I don't think that the idea that dinosaurs are 'too big to move/feed' is a strong objection. But perhaps this is exactly what you meant? You're appealing to secular 'physical science' but not as an affirmative supporter?

I suppose so, given that the most reasonable inference is that these creatures were at any rate created by God, and He wouldn't needlessly create something that couldn't survive by natural means. Pardon if I didn't catch your drift.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> You're appealing to secular 'physical science' but not as an affirmative supporter?



I am appealing to science as science. If we are awaiting further information it remains a bare hypothesis. It is not a fact of science. I am not required to make a decision as to its factuality until further evidence comes to light, nor can it be formative to my beliefs.


----------



## Vox Oculi

Okay, I'm a little confused. Do you disagree that commonly-termed "dinosaur fossils" are in fact permineralized remnants of the skeletons of once-living animals?


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> Okay, I'm a little confused. Do you disagree that commonly-termed "dinosaur fossils" are in fact permineralized remnants of the skeletons of once-living animals?



How quickly would the "dinosaur" have to be encased before exposure to the environment ruled out permineralisation? How do we account for the speed of encasement on such a widespread scale as indicated by the "fossils?" What law of science has produced such an uniform replacement of skeletal material atom by atom contrary to the ordinary process of deterioration?

Perhaps these "bones" come from outer space. That might explain their extraordinary behaviour under earth's observable conditions.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm a little confused. Do you disagree that commonly-termed "dinosaur fossils" are in fact permineralized remnants of the skeletons of once-living animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How quickly would the "dinosaur" have to be encased before exposure to the environment ruled out permineralisation? How do we account for the speed of encasement on such a widespread scale as indicated by the "fossils?" What law of science has produced such an uniform replacement of skeletal material atom by atom contrary to the ordinary process of deterioration?
> 
> Perhaps these "bones" come from outer space. That might explain their extraordinary behaviour under earth's observable conditions.
Click to expand...


Well, one common sense appeal is to produce fossils that are demonstrably the form of living creatures, and then ask, do we suppose that these fossils are not the remains of these animals?
I would appeal to Occam's Razor, that permineralization is the most parsimonious and least ad hoc explanation, compared to aliens, undiscovered inorganic phenomena, or in situ ex nihilo creation.
Then I would refer to fossilized flour and hats, known recent examples, to show that some degree of fossilization does occur naturally.
Lastly I would defer to Christian geologists who have studied it in more detail and can elucidate the _mechanisms_ of fossil formation.

I would also point out that the inorganic-organic material replacement has not been perfectly uniform, and has occurred to different degrees in different specimens. Specimens also show varying degrees of decay.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> I would appeal to Occam's Razor



My point about aliens was not intended to suggest it as a real possibility, but a rhetorical way of expressing the "extraordinary" factors involved in the dinosaur hypothesis. As OR applies to the theory with fewest assumptions in order to make it more testable, neither aliens nor dinosaurs are present for testing, so it is irrelevant.


----------



## Nate

MW said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would appeal to Occam's Razor
> 
> 
> 
> ...neither aliens nor dinosaurs are present for testing, so it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


It is now recognized that "fossilized" dinosaur bones are not necessarily completely mineralized. Many samples in museums and others currently being collected in the field are now found to have soft tissue still present inside. Analyses of this soft tissue is entirely consistent with what would be expected inside bone at the level of tissue and even down to the molecular level. Would this constitute reasonable evidence that these fossils are remnants of living beings?


----------



## MW

Nate said:


> 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.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nate said:


> 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.

You and I may be convicted that a "creationist" overlay supplies us with a generally reliable explanation (and much more reliable than an evolutionary account) of the remains. But it still is not a "scientific" account, except on the evolutionaries' redefinition of "science;" in other words, a capitulation by us on an elementary point of putative common-ground. Evolutionists must be confronted and refuted about their alleged claim to possessing something other than a "just-so" story.

There is no common ground on that point, from the Revelationist viewpoint. The whole question must be set _*by us*_ on the proper footing. That, I believe, is what Rev.Winzer is getting at.


----------



## Nate

MW said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Nate

Contra_Mundum said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Sure, I agree with this completely. If the research in my field was held only to the same standards of conjecture to which "historical science" is held, publishing our research would be much easier... This is a common gripe of experimental scientists!


----------



## Peairtach

We see the same hypothesising about - apparently - more recent history in the field of archaeology and archaeology connected with the Bible or "biblical archaeology". E.g. unbelieving archaeologists will deny the Exodus, while believing archaeologists will affirm it and other unbelieving archaeologists will affirm it at least in part. 

How much this belief or lack of belief in the Exodus is to do with the empirical artifacts or lack of it or of commitments being brought to the artifacts is a moot point.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

Nate said:


> 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.


----------



## Nate

MW said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Yes, I can see that and agree with your analysis.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Vox Oculi

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


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## chuckd

Contra_Mundum said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## chuckd

MW said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


How would you critically examine evidence to test uniformity? It's an assumption and not testable that I can tell.


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> 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?


----------



## au5t1n

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 Oculi

au5t1n said:


> 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.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

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.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Vox Oculi said:


> 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))​


Vox Oculi said:


> 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.


----------



## Nate

Jeri Tanner said:


> 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


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Nate said:


> Jeri Tanner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


A helpful quote and thread, thanks.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> 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.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> 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.


----------



## MW

chuckd said:


> 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."


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## MW

Jeri Tanner said:


> 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


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> 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.


----------



## au5t1n

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> 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.


----------



## au5t1n

MW said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> 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.


----------



## au5t1n

MW said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> 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?


----------



## au5t1n

MW said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## au5t1n

MW said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> 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.


----------



## au5t1n

MW said:


> 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.


----------



## MW

The law of gravity means a man should not jump off a cliff and think he can fly unassisted. So yes, not only are there laws which we accept as fact, but they have ethical implications. At the same time, accepting things which are contrary to fact, or hypotheses as fact, can be ethically detrimental. I am not sceptical about the hypothesis of dinosaurs and will accept it if it is scientifically proven to be a fact.


----------



## au5t1n

MW said:


> The law of gravity means a man should not jump off a cliff and think he can fly unassisted. So yes, not only are there laws which we accept as fact, but they have ethical implications. At the same time, accepting things which are contrary to fact, or hypotheses as fact, can be ethically detrimental.



Agreed. I would point out that the law of gravity has been adjusted (at least, the equations involved) based on new observations at the microscopic level that did not fit with Newton's equations ("Newton's law of gravity") without overturning the entire law. The same thing might be done with a simplistic model of fossilization that does not account for dinosaurs. But I do not think there is any reason to proceed further with this. I think that this point does not detract from what I was aiming to say in the first place, but I am willing to accept that my own imprecision created the confusion. One thing I have always appreciated about you is that you are able to speak concisely and precisely and still be saying a lot. As usual, this has given me plenty to think about. Thank you for that.


----------



## Afterthought

Justified said:


> The problem for me is that utility does not necessarily imply correspondence to reality. For example, Ptolemy's geocentric model and the heliocentric model both are able to make predictions, such as the orbit of planets. Why did we abandon geocentricism? Because heliocentricism, as it stands now, is easier to work with; it's simpler. However, does it being simpler imply the truth of it? No. Perhaps reality is actually very complicated and not simple. We don't know.
> 
> I know what you are saying, though. And it's tough to think through these things. The above is why I have a hard time accepting realism. At the same time, something really intuitive tells me that realism is true.


Perhaps I should wait until I actually have time to devote to these things, but I'm snowed in right now, so....

(1) We additionally abandoned absolute geocentrism because experiments contradicted the dynamics (as opposed to kinematics) that it required, according to Newton's laws, and the explanation provided by heliocentrism was more universal (i.e., explains more facts/observations without changing the model) than that of absolute geocentrism. We continue to reject absolute geocentrism because our best dynamical theories prevent it (and also absolute geocentrism is not as universal an explanation). Most debatably abandon relative geocentrism in part for dynamical reasons too.

(2) I cannot find the definition of functional explanation that I liked. I think the definition went something like: "An explanation given in terms of how a system or object works." This seems to me to do well with much of science, especially physics, where at the end of the day, we are describing what objects _do_ by mathematics rather than explaining what objects _are_ (well, then we assume we can get down to a fundamental reality that cannot be broken down further and so require no explanation; but these objects are also understood in terms of their behavior, and so are known by their attributes rather than their essence).

(3) Understanding scientific theories as "functional" in the above manner, I think a sort of realism is still allowed. There is not necessarily a 1 to 1 correspondence between theories and reality or theoretical entities and reality. We construct these things in a manner to let us understand, direct, and predict reality. However, this does not rule out that theories and theoretical entities correspond to real things: they just might not be the exact same real thing that our theories say they are. We have abstracted out a portion of reality for our own benefit.

(4) Since this understanding of scientific theories and unobservable entities allows for a realism and thus for a truth (since truth is that which corresponds to reality), the realism vs instrumentalism debate can now take place as it usually does. Having thought some about the point of utility not implying truth, what do you think of the following (hopefully I haven't been too influenced by the methods of "soft sciences" in thinking about this...)? Going along with the realist argument that "It's impossible for the theory to be so successful if it was not true!"...suppose we say that the reason why the theory works at all is because there is truth in it? Yes, a simpler theory might not encompass as much reality as a more complex theory; or a more complex theory might not encompass as much reality as a simpler theory. Nevertheless, the fact that they work shows they have successfully captured and abstracted a piece of reality. Furthermore, the (theoretical) goals of the realist and instrumentalist differ; I would say our goal is to create functional explanations (that is, working descriptions) of reality--a realist goal. Hence, we have answered the objection of the anti-realist and shown there is still a sort of realism remaining in the theory, theoretical entities, and the goal of constructing them.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> 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.



I daresay your belief in the witness of Scripture is subsequent to salvation and not the immediate epistemic warrant for trusting that the Resurrection occurred, at the moment you first believed it. I daresay the Apostles, who urged people to question eye witnesses and made a big deal of the alleged _actual fact_ of Christ's Resurrection, not merely saying "take our/God's word for it, because we're good for it," is a strong challenge to the "anti-evidentialist" perspective you're promoting. We are not like the Muslims, who can't believe anything that isn't written in their Scriptures. _Sola Scriptura,_ not _Solo Scripturo._

"No amount of evidence-hunting will make a fact of revelation to be any more or any less a fact."

Acts 1"...the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs..." 

The fact that they are not included in the canon is warrant enough to conclude that the methods used to prove the truth of God's Word need not be solely constrained to a rote recitation thereof, but can incorporate _*non-inspired*_ information content. If your statement is to be taken in opposition to presenting confirmatory evidence, why did Jesus perform these proofs?



> 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?



Evidence does not "suggest," that is the _Reification Fallacy._ Evidence can only be used to suggest naturalism when interpreted through a naturalistic worldview. It is the responsibility of the Christian as a steward to interpret all available evidence through the Biblical worldview. This will not conclude naturalism. I am not appealing to naturalism. Nor would I appeal to evidence to prove Christianity. I would appeal to the Bible to explain the evidence. The purpose of investigating non-Scriptural truths is to demonstrate the consistency of the Biblical worldview, thus glorifying God and testifying to the unsaved so that they have no excuse.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> I daresay your belief in the witness of Scripture is subsequent to salvation and not the immediate epistemic warrant for trusting that the Resurrection occurred, at the moment you first believed it.



The witness of Scripture is true whether I believe it or not. My epistemic warrant for believing a fact of special revelation is the fact it has been specially revealed. If it were not specially revealed it could not be called a fact of special revelation. The apostles were specifically commissioned to serve as witnesses in this respect. So appealing to them as eye- and ear-witnesses depends upon the validity of their commission as apostles which was established in an extraordinary way.

See John 5-8, and 1 John 5. The idea that the witness of Christ depends upon the testimony of men is contrary to the claims of Christ Himself. It would make the validity of the court dependent on the witnesses who sit in the chair, when the opposite is the case.


----------



## Vox Oculi

" My epistemic warrant for believing a fact of special revelation is the fact it has been specially revealed."

Of course, but what led you to conclude that it was specially revealed? That's what I'm getting at. I believe you're putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> Of course, but what led you to conclude that it was specially revealed? That's what I'm getting at. I believe you're putting the cart before the horse.[/SIZE][/FONT]



If putting God the speaker before man the hearer is putting the cart before the horse then I would suggest that cart is never going to be drawn anywhere and the cart is sure to be drawing the horse.

You could not know the resurrection from the dead apart from special revelation. It requires a miracle. If God did not do it, who did? Since God did it, who is competent to know the mind of the Lord in order to reveal it?


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but what led you to conclude that it was specially revealed? That's what I'm getting at. I believe you're putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If putting God the speaker before man the hearer is putting the cart before the horse then I would suggest that cart is never going to be drawn anywhere and the cart is sure to be drawing the horse.
> 
> You could not know the resurrection from the dead apart from special revelation. It requires a miracle. If God did not do it, who did? Since God did it, who is competent to know the mind of the Lord in order to reveal it?
Click to expand...


Sigh. Rather than belabor this point, I think I'll shelve it for a discussion on epistemology instead. I'm replying to something else in this thread in the meantime, though.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that there are no ultimate answers from an evidential and empirical viewpoint.
Click to expand...


Nevertheless, _there are ultimate answers._ The fact that *merely* depending on one mode of reason or inquiry, be it philosophy, empiricism, sense experience, testimony, etc, one cannot formulate a complete evaluation of some tangible object or abstract relationship between multiple objects is irrelevant to the question of whether one can do so at all, when one does not limit oneself to only one or a few modes of inquiry or reason. Evidence is simply _stuff_. One can use evidence and empirical studies on evidence to arrive at real, not conjectural, truth, because one is not limited to only staring at the evidence, but is allowed to reason about it, using common sense, induction, referencing what one knows from theology, etc.

So then your statement is ultimately not very meaningful.



> The Christian witness should not be associated with the transient theories of an ever changing world and thereby be discredited.



You believe things at this very moment which are likely to change. Maybe you idle your car to warm it up, but it's fuel injected. Maybe you blow on a wound. Maybe you eat, or don't eat, some food because it's 'good' or 'bad' because of just one ingredient in particular. The possibilities are limitless. The fact is that you don't see that as "association with transient theories which discredit me," so one can only assume you mean something different in your above sentence than simply affirming some truth which may change. Why does one hurt your witness and not the other? Or perhaps you think there's a difference because you have the opinion that Christian scientists (not the religion) are a special case, and that by virtue of doing science and being Christian at the same time, they are somehow wedding theology to whatever they might happen to conclude in their research? I don't think that's fair.



> 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.



Respectfully, this is hokey. It seems to me as if you have very strong derisive opinions regarding one particular belief which is for you emotionally charged. I don't know what your personal experience is with it, but it definitely comes across as if you consider your experience to be sufficient to determine what is true in this case. Ironic, considering you've been rejecting the appeal to experience and insisting that Scripture alone ought be used, something you are not here doing in your criticism. It is absolutely a straw man and I would like to simply dismiss your assertions as silly, unless of course you'd care to give strong support via citation of that which you are objecting to.



> 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.



The fossils in the earth are 'general revelation.' So rather than 'contradicting' it, in fact, general revelation is on the side of supporting it. But realistically, I wonder why you would take the default position of rejecting it with extreme skepticism, when I am confident you do not approach all other things in your life with this same extreme skepticism, despite the fact that _special revelation does not require you to believe that_
- you can pay for your gasoline with a credit card
- you are presently in good/bad physical health
- you can wake up before the sunrise if you set an alarm to do so
- the people on PuritanBoard are real people and not robots, or for that matter one person with a thousand profiles, performing an experiment on you.

You take certain things for granted and take the default position of accepting them as true all the time, even when special revelation does not require it -- but have for some inscrutable reason chosen to take the opposite approach with just one specific selection of claims about the world.

This is incredulous to me and is not at all accepted as a reasonable default. You must have some other reason for rejecting the existence of dinosaurs which has not been specified. Your choice is not quite so simple as you have portrayed it.


----------



## MW

Vox, Do you expect me to read your post after you shrugged mine off with a sigh?

The fossils in the earth are not general revelation. General revelation is needed to examine what they are in the first place.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Vox, Do you expect me to read your post after you shrugged mine off with a sigh?
> 
> The fossils in the earth are not general revelation. General revelation is needed to examine what they are in the first place.



I sighed because from my perspective, your response appeared to miss my point, and rather than simply repeat it, and potentially irritate you by giving you the impression that I'm talking down to you by restating my position with more sentences and different vocabulary, I thought the more charitable thing would be to let it be for another time so that looking at it with fresh eyes might yield more understanding.

I apparently don't understand how you're defining general revelation either. I understood Scripture as special revelation, and Creation and Conscience as general revelation. I doubt you're excluding fossils from creation, since they do exist, but then I don't know why you'd be defining general revelation to not include all of creation, which to me would seem to be at odds with Romans 1.

If you would feel frustrated explaining, I sympathize, and because I'm becoming tired from natural causes anyway, getting rest would be my amicable recommendation for us both. At least, I think I won't try to continue pressing the issue much more in this thread.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> I doubt you're excluding fossils from creation



"Fossils" would be connected with death and dissolution. So yes, I would exclude them from creation. If anything they fall under providence.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you're excluding fossils from creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fossils" would be connected with death and dissolution. So yes, I would exclude them from creation.
Click to expand...


Ok 'cause I would use the term 'creation' to refer to everything that exists. As put forth here http://www.gotquestions.org/general-special-revelation.html


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> Ok 'cause I would use the term 'creation' to refer to everything that exists. As put forth here http://www.gotquestions.org/general-special-revelation.html[/SIZE][/FONT]



I am not sure what you understand sin and punishment to be, because these clearly exist but were not a part of the creation.

That article accurately describes general revelation as something which refers to the knowledge of God. If you accept that I cannot see how you can regard "fossils" as a part of general revelation.


----------



## Vox Oculi

The whole creation groans and travails .... sin has affected all aspects of creation. Sin is not a separate part of the universe that can be distinguished from the universe. All that exists bears at once both the mark of the Creator as well as the corruption of the Fall. The fact that sin was not an 'original creation' does not mean that the effects of sin are not part of the universe (creation). If a man was created, and in sin that man died, is his body not part of creation? It is. The fact that it only died because of the consequences of sin does not remove the dead body from being a sign of the care, power and genius of the Creator.

My understanding of your position is that tangible objects which are in a specific state as a result of sin are not part of general revelation.
My counter to this is that all things that were created are in a specific state as the result of sin, so that if the above is taken to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as general revelation.
This being clearly untenable for you, the alternative conclusion is that all things are part of general revelation. This is my position.


----------



## MW

I can see you are using the word "Creation" broadly, whereas I am drawing a more specific distinction between creation and providence. I would say that creation ("things that are made") should be distinguished from providence in this discussion because creation has been affected by sin and this has an impact on general revelation.

But this is tangential. General revelation is knowledge of God which is "generally" known through natural means. The texts which are used to prove "general revelation" all speak about God's glory and attributes or moral government over man. I take it to be a precondition of natural science since without the knowledge of God man could not know anything, and what unbelieving man knows he knows by suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness; but the scientific enterprise itself is not general revelation in the proper sense of the term. It depends upon general revelation but should not be identified with it.


----------

