Masquerading as ‘science’?
Published: 24 October 2003 (GMT+10)
This week’s first feedback submittor, answered by Dr Sarfati, CMI–Australia, apparently has some misunderstandings about origins science.
I’m confused as to how this can masquerade as “Science”
For one thing, creation/evolution is more about history than science, or at least a matter for origins science as opposed to operational science. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science. Actually, I’ve often wondered how evolution from goo to you via the zoo can masquerade as science. But I wonder no longer—materialists need evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their atheistic faith. And hijacking the prestige of operational science by adopting the term ‘science’ for their belief system gives it a veneer of respectability.
… when the default answer is, “If it disagrees with faith, it must be wrong.”
When it comes to circumstantial evidence for events in the past, what we really say is ‘If it disagrees with the eye-witness accounts of One who was there and revealed them in Scripture, then it is wrong.’
Scientists change positions and theories constantly.
We sure do, as we scientists showed in articles such as Arguments creationists should NOT use.
This is not a case of being “Wrong,” it is a case of correction. For example:
The Earth is flat
The Earth is a sphere
The Earth is a an oblate sphere
The Earth is a near oblate sphere
Technically, the first three answers are all “Wrong,” yet each one is closer to the current accepted and provable statement.
The flat earth is just wrong, and contrary to Scripture and the almost universal view of church history (see Does the Bible really teach a flat earth?); the others are approximations.
There is no provision within your philosophy to correct obesrvable errors—
Actually, there is. But the theories of evolution involve claims about the unobservable past.
… such errors are forced to fit the Procrustean framework of faith,
Care to give some examples?
… or, faith as it is interpreted by one very small group, who do not speak for all Christians.
We don’t claim to, although it would be nice if all Christians believed the Bible interpreted by the normal grammatical and historical context. See Should Genesis be taken literally?
The attacks upon Galileo, Darwin, Newton and other DEDICATED CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS …
Darwin was certainly not a Christian, but detested Christianity, and came from a family of anti-Christians. His own grandfather proposed a theory of evolution before Charles was born (see next Creation magazine). See Darwin’s slippery slide into unbelief.
… by men of faith are the ultimate failure of religion and so-called “creation” science.
Actually, as we have amply shown in Astronomy Q&A, the attacks on Galileo came first and foremost from the Aristotelian scientists at the universities, dogmatically defending Ptolemaic cosmology. Unfortunately the church made the mistake of interpreting certain biblical passages under the contemporary scientific framework. Now, far too many Christians make the same mistake by reinterpreting passages to fit long ages or evolution.
I find it unfortunate that, while doing research for scientific information, I am forced to examine all site conclusions first, to determine if it is real science, or, “this date disagrees with Creation, …”
Of course, because a rock doesn’t come with a label with the date. Rather, the date is an interpretation of some process that’s supposed to have occurred over time. But it makes more sense to go with the eye-witness data. See also The earth: how old does it look?
“… Therefore we will find a way to doublespeak our way around it.”
So why not produce an actual example of double-speak. Actually, just scour the evolutionary propaganda and you’ll find plenty, e.g. equivocating about the meaning of evolution itself! See Definitions as slippery as eels.
Just once, I would like to find “evidence” on one of these sites that is documented with observable data, rather than undocumented and manipulated pseudo-facts.
I realize it’s hard to find this on evolutionary sites, but you’ll find exactly what you’re looking for all over this site.
However, I will pray for you.
But to whom will you pray? Will it be the true God of the Bible? Let’s hope so …
I firmly believe God created the universe as an evolving, changing entity, so man would have the thrill of discovery, rather than the boredom of authoritarian self-reference.
You must hold this on blind faith, and in contradiction to what God has told us about the order of events, for example. And you must also believe that God called death, bloodshed, suffering and cancer ‘all very good’—see The god of an old earth. I prefer to believe what God has actually told us in His written Word, the Bible.
Has anyone involved in this debate ever been honest enough to even go so far as to say, “No one was alive to make accurate observations at the time, therefore all we are doing is speculating”?
But there WAS someone alive at the time—the Creator. And He has revealed how long ago, over what time frame, and the order of His creative acts. So why close your mind to this in favor of opinions of fallible people who weren’t there?
Because many real scientists have.—
–Mike Williamson, USA
I’m a real scientist by any normal definition, and so are many of my colleagues—see our list.
–Dr Jonathan Sarfati, CMI–Australia