Sunday, August 05, 2007

Scientific American - 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

I came across an article with this title while surfing the net today.

It is interesting that science pretends to be objective and dispassionate and yet shows a passionate bias against the possibility of God's existence. Of the 15 arguments I read, I found none to be persuasive. The writer was open to the possibility that aliens from outer space may have introduced life on earth -- that would be OK -- but not God.

Why?

Because modern science works within a closed system or box called naturalism. All that is and came to be exists through natural (as opposed to supernatural) means.

Here's an extract from the article:

"Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved."

Note the phrase very carefully: "those forces must be natural".

Why?

Because we are scientists, and natural means are the only things we are capable of checking.

Fine. But by saying this, they are saying, "we are closed-minded". It is important to note what they do not say. They do not say, "God may well exist, and it is good to believe in him, but he is beyond the scope of scientific investigation". No, rather, they say, "God cannot exist, and it is foolish to believe in him, because he is beyond the scope of scientific investigation." Do you see the difference? "We do not believe in God because it is an impossibility or even an improbability that he may exist, we do not believe in him because we cannot put him under our microscopes and verify his existence. We cannot control him, therefore, he cannot exist". It's like scientists in a primitive society saying, "radio waves cannot exist because we cannot detect or measure them".

I wonder what scientists think of love. Can its existence be scientifically proven? Can it be detected, measured? No, but I suspect that there are few scientists who would deny that it exists. The point is, there is more than one way to know something, and scientists overstretch their bounds with their unverifiable, unproven assumption that science is a sufficient means for knowing all things.

Back to God.

It is understandable that scientists have a personal, subjective interest in the non-existence of God. If there is a God, he de-thrones scientists from their present god-like status as arbiters of reality, and they would have to bow before His infinite wisdom and power and acknowledge that He is Lord, they are not, and their brains, as brilliant as they may be (created in his image!) are as ants in his sight.

Much preferable to "be as gods".

As for me, I enjoy beholding God with the eyes of faith, and contemplating his wonderful attributes. As a human being, I have made my choice. I am a worshipper of the Most High God.

Like love, this cannot be proven, but it is just as real.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good analysis, Richard. They are very close minded. It appears they are getting a bit on the defensive as well.

Anonymous said...

Most scientists don't care about God, and no scientist would ever state they are 100% certain of anything. But you are missing the point here anyway. Many things are possible, but without evidence they are all equally possible and thus all equally useless.

You have compartmentalized your thinking but saying some things go over here in the rational box, and somethings go over here in the box of no proof, but you give them equal value. Who is living in a closed system?

RkBall said...

"Many things are possible, but without evidence they are all equally possible and thus all equally useless."

There is much evidence for God, including rational, philosophical, moral, and physical. There is much evidence for Jesus Christ, including testimony of those who followed him.

I never mentioned a "box of no proof", so please do not put words in my mouth.

One of my points is there are different ways of "knowing" things -- epistemology -- and scientists have given science an all-encompassing role it does not deserve.

A little humility is in order, instead of the dead-certainty that life on earth must have initiated and developed through purely natural processes.

Brian in Calgary said...

Who is living in a closed system?

Actually, human nature being what it is, people can be closed minded no matter what their position on the issue of Darwinism vs Intelligent Design. Don't believe me? Here's what Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University said, in part, in his January 9, 1997 article "Billions and Billions of Demons," which is a review of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Lewontin sounds quite closed-minded to me.

RkBall said...

Brian in Calgary,

Thank you for an excellent post. Modern science is based on the philosophy of atheistic materialism rather than honest scientific investigation.

It's like using a stethoscope to look for love, then saying "it's unprovable by our methods and therefore irrelevant to our studies" -- actually that might be an honest response -- what they actually say is "it's unprovable by our methods therefore it cannot exist and it is foolish to suggest it might."

At heart, this is a spiritual issue, and dark forces have a stranglehold on the intellect of western man, dressed up as good science.

Of course, scientists would poo-poo the notion of there being dark, immaterial forces at work on the planet. But that doesn't stop them from being in their clutches.

St. Peter said, "he has delivered us out of darkness, into his glorious light". Christians have an experiential knowledge of this light, and have a way of "knowing" that goes beyond the scientists and their stethoscopes.

As for me, I know my Redeemer lives.

Thanks again, Brian.

Anonymous said...

anon @1:48You mention 'without evidence' and then go on to imply that the theory of evolution is on the same level as intelligent design.Science and historical archeology(evidence) support Intelligent Design, but there is no evidence to support the assumptions of the theory of evolution.
You are free to make a choice on what to believe. That in itself is evidence that supports Scripture.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"