Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence Of God?

For thousands of years, this has been a debated topic. More so in the modern information age than ever before! Some claim, it can’t be proven nor disproved while others claim science is unable to prove the existence of God but it surely can disprove it. And lastly, science can confirm the existence of God which is the theme of this blog!

The Bible says, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21). If it wasn’t possible to prove God’s existence then this text would not be in the Bible. We are going to take a look at various evidences but before we begin, let’s keep in mind that speculation is not valid, because it goes into the realm of alleging multiple miracles of improbability which cannot be verified through traditional means, neither are superstitious myths or traditions based on ignorance!

The definition of ‘science’ has been quite a challenge for philosophers since the 20th century because of growing complexity within evolution’s framework. Prior to that, Bacon who was an English philosopher during the middle ages, known to have popularize the concept of empiricism, was very straight forward with the definition of science which goes like this…

1) Observation 2) Induction 3) Hypothesis 4) Test Hypothesis 5) proof/disprove 6) Knowledge

In creationism the philosophy of life comes from the Bible rather than the data  which is atheism such as adopting a lifestyle of polygamy because of animal behavior as advocated in Live Science, but philosophy is brought to the data and used for interpretation! The establishment within the scientific community (which are evolutionists) have boxed in its own particular ideas for advancement purposes as well as indoctrination. Even if those ideas have naturalistic causes in their explanations, it is still not allowed in the boxed area. It is so tightly boxed in, there are assigned theories that get treated as though it cannot be falsified which means it’s not science!

The reason why they box science in like this is mainly because they want people to have faith in it which in turns brings more money to continue the research. This is why new ideas usually come from up and coming scientists rather than from the establishment itself.

Stephen Jay Gould who is was known to be a strong proponent for evolution once said…“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social perceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective scientific method with individual scientists as logical robots is self-serving mythology.”

Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time, conducted science without excluding a creator. He believed God created all things! Newton was all about operational science. Unlike evolution which tells so-so stories where proponents confuse operational science with origins. It is interesting to note that philosophy of science is being under taught to students in the Universities today while focusing on blending experimental, historical and origin sciences all together into one big happy family!

Creationism loves operational science because the evidence drives it! For example, it doesn’t matter what background or nationality you are or what you believe in, using a slow cooker will eventually cook your food to a satisfactory level!

We are living in a day in age where there is an enormous wealth of scientific research being conducted all over the world! Billions of dollars are being spent by governments and private industry. New discoveries in science have been brought to light, containing sufficient evidence for a creator while adding to the complexity of evolution that continues to plague its explanation.

The likes of Stephen Hawkings who is regarded as one of smartest men that ever lived, denies God’s existence. Because he relies on so much of his own rationality, he is not only at odds with a creator, but the philosophy of science as well (often times attacking philosophers) by proposing such things as M theory to explain how the universe came into being from nothing. Hawkings postulates that natural laws were responsible for the creating the universe out of nothing.

We know that physical laws are a description of what happened, not the cause of the act itself. Physicist, Paul Davis once said, “There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing.” One of the most scientific laws known to man is, The first Law of Thermodynamics which says, Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. What does that mean? It means that there is no new matter coming into existence, nor new matter going out of existence. So when Hawkings postulates natural laws are the cause of something being created out of nothing, he is wrong!

It is interesting to note, the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who seem willing now to ignore it for the sake of their own worldview. The law demonstrates, the universe had to come from a source and that source is God! Let’s go deeper into that proposal! Bill Dembski from the modern intelligent design movement which has it flaws (see here), but valid arguments against evolution, gives his proof from a scientific prospective for the existence of God.

Since new energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what about claims that the universe is evolving into a more complex order? This can be addressed with an observable fact, The Second Law of Thermodynamics! The concept of the universe evolving into a more complex order goes against the second law of thermodynamics which can be best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy! 

We have seen the second law in action even with nature with experiments on mutations concerning fruit flies where after many generations were created in an ideal setting, the fruit flies become resist to change rather than more open to change and begin to go in reverse which surprised many evolutionists who were seeking to expand their knowledge on how new information was created through errors! When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics suggests its winding down, rather than up! Have scientist discovered such evidence in their research?

Yes! Energy cannot recycle itself. There is evidence from decaying stars like exploding stars such as a supernovae. Black holes are another which takes free energy out of the system (the universe). The sun will not provide heat forever, it will eventually cool off. The universe is wearing out and winding down! It like your hot cup of coffee or hot chocolate, the heat winds down to whatever environment you’re in. For example, you outside in 32 degrees, that hot coffee will become that temperature. Something cold doesn’t increase without adding outside energy to it such as a stove providing that outside energy!

Can an intelligent cause (God) be detected with traditional scientific means? Yes! Engineering is certainly detectable. We see it all around us, our houses, cars, where we work, and so on. People who work on improving technology for example, working on improving the design of a car to fit our needs, the tech guy doesn’t apply principles based on evolution to build a better car! He uses intelligent information that helps him build or improve the car. Without information no car can be built nor improved!

It’s a concept that many evolutionary scientists tend to overlook when exploring the origin issue with their conclusions of the experiments. Recently, scientists did an experiment that was able to get RNAs called CA and TAP to self-assemble in a lab. Normally they clump together causing it not to assemble but researchers gave TAP a tail that transformed it into chemical which allows it to assemble with CA in water but no double helix or paired bases emerged!

The experiment made headline news with a lot of hype (except from nature), but one very important things is lacking in the experiment. And that is, information or code! Much like building a car, you need information to build one, it is the same for building a living cell! There is so much information contained in a human cell that it is able to store all 30 volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica! Not just one copy of the 30 volumes but up to four copies of the 30 volume set!

If it wasn’t possible to detect intelligent design in nature, would you think SETI whose mission is to discover alien life forms on other planets would exist? The detection of design, rather than a mindless process through picking out random acts which are considered errors, relies upon “specified complexity.”

If you were to read letters like this…YJZOEQ, this would mean to be a random act, no order that makes sense. But if you read letters like this…SCIENCE, this is specialize complexity that has order to it along with giving you information! In a living cell with all its machinery requires not random errors, but specified information!

If you create errors (known as mutations), the information will breakdown, for example, SIENCE. which no longer gives you specified information, the word now becomes random which doesn’t make any sense. Not only does a living cell require information, but particular information to fit its needs! You can’t build an empire state building with information that only builds cars! Likewise you can’t build a living cell without specified information for that cell!

To Be Continued…

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence Of God?

  1. . . . . . Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence Of God?

    No. The writ of scene extends only to natural phenomena. By definition, God is supernatural. Another reason is that “God” has not been defined precisely enough to study by scientific methods, and mostly likely cannot be so defined.

    Even the theologians agree that their methods cannot logically prove or disprove the existence of God. This is a matter solely of faith, not reason.

    .

    It is ironic—even laughable—that the evidence Michael[1] advances for the existence of God is the very same type of circumstantial evidence that he abhors in science. Let’s apply a few of Michael’s complaints about “historical” science to this question:
    (a) No one actual witnessed the creation of the universe in six days.
    (b) There were no eyewitnesses to the changes in the speed of light and atomic decay rates that special creation requires.
    (c) There are no witnesses to dinosaurs living at the same time as people,[2] as required by all-at-once creation.

    It is also ironic that Michael invokes the first and second laws of thermodynamics in support of special creation. These are scientific theories, and Michael believes (hopes!) that science is an unreliable guide to the world. If so, then these laws should also be suspect in his worldview.

    .

    Proving God’s existence has occupied many minds far better than yours[3] for a thousand years, and have managed to render only a Scotch verdict.

    ====================

    [1] Or, much more likely, an unnamed source that Michael does not attribute, in his continuing saga of intellectual unethical behavior. The organization is focused and coherent, whereas Michael rambles with little direction, and, recently at least, usually changes subjects in a the same post.

    [2] Certainly at least a few cavemen would have drawn them as wall decorations, as they did other, much more boring, animals extant at the time.

    [3] This is not a high criterion. But see note 1.

  2. It all depends on your definition of “God”, which usually is sufficiently vague to escape any kind of testing …

  3. Oh, and Michael’s discussion on the second law of thermodynamics is the usual nonsense that creationists have come up with for years – utterly misunderstanding this law, and the conditions under which it applies.

    And entropy is NOT a condition, Michael. You completely fail to grasp basic stuff in physics.

    Hopeless.

  4. Michael will be interested to learn that the current issue of the peer-reviewed journal Cell Reports includes a bevy of papers on evolutionary biology, in honor of Darwin Day.

    The subjects range from whole-genome duplications of early vertebrates, to convergent evolution of sodium-ion neuronal signaling, to recent evolution of brain genes in fruit flies. This journal is open-access. All you have to do to scoop up some new knowledge is to go to their special-issue page and click on whatever paper strikes your fancy. Of course, only glancing at this material will not enhance your understanding. You must inhale deeply.

    In case you had forgotten, Darwin Day is tomorrow, Feb. 16. You are just in time to get out your long white beard, put a model of the good ship Beagle in your front window, and fire up a CD of “He Sailed the Ocean Blue.”.

  5. The Bible says, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21). If it wasn’t possible to prove God’s existence then this text would not be in the Bible.

    There are truly no quote-miners that can hold a helmet lamp to creationists. We see that Michael is an ignoramus even as to the Bible.

    Other translations say “TEST all things; hold fast to that which is good.” Still others say “EXAMINE everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.” And “EXPLORE everything and hold what is excellent.” The word in the original koine Greek, “δοκιμάζετε,” refers to the assaying of metals to determine the true composition and value of a metal object.

    The whole purpose of this verse (taken with the preceding one) is Paul’s exhortation to judge prophecies by reason and the word of God. We should neither accept nor reject proposed doctrines out of hand. Rather we should examine them, and then hold fast to those that pass the smell test

    Liberty University presents a number of parallel commentaries on this verse. All of them reject Michael’s grotesque interpretation of this passage.

    Not even a nice try, Michael. As to your biblical studies skills, one could justifiably say
    MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA; snorf; chortle, kahui.

  6. The whole purpose of this verse (taken with the preceding one) is Paul’s exhortation to judge prophecies by reason and the word of God.

    There are multiple meanings to verses even if their interpretation is to a certain issues at certain times. Thus while you are correct (as in this certain instance at a certain time), your interpretation is one dimensional and simplistic. As far as I am aware, bible.cc is not affiliated with Liberty University. Paging Eelco, Olorin just personally attacked Michael as an “ignoramus,” give him an online scolding.

  7. There are multiple meanings to verses even if their interpretation is to a certain issues at certain times.

    Excerpt that none of those meanings can, by any stretch of a febrile imagination, be taken to imply that the existence of God can be proven scientifically. Michael just made that up, as he does so many things.

    I selected the bible.cc[1] reference over others because it contains a considerable number of independent commentaries on the verse. All of them agree on the central meaning. NONE of them have so much as a scintilla of support for any interpretation within the same galaxy as Michael’s.

    your interpretation is one dimensional and simplistic

    It’s not my interpretation. It’s the interpretation of Barnes, Clarke, Gill, Vincent,People’s New Testament, Wesley, Fausset-Broewn, and Henry. I guess they are all one-dimensional and simplistic.

    Despite their claims to be biblical literalists, Michael and Chazlng seem to be prone to flights of fancy that would do Icarus proud..

    =========================

    [1] Yer right, bible.cc seems not to be affiliated with Liberty University, but is sponsored by a privately owned project. LU has an ad on the bible.cc home page, which is so prominent that it could be mistaken for sponsorship.

  8. Excerpt that none of those meanings can, by any stretch of a febrile imagination, be taken to imply that the existence of God can be proven scientifically. Michael just made that up, as he does so many things.

    Agreed, science does not deal with definite proof. And no, you can’t tell if Michael made that up. The letters he originally typed could have punctuated equilibrium into something else. Be consistent.

    It’s not my interpretation. It’s the interpretation of Barnes, Clarke, Gill, Vincent,People’s New Testament, Wesley, Fausset-Broewn, and Henry. I guess they are all one-dimensional and simplistic.

    Duh, they are dead and theology advances every day. Get with the program grandpa. Pretty sure first century theology wasn’t quite like your Lutheranism.

    Despite their claims to be biblical literalists, Michael and Chazlng seem to be prone to flights of fancy that would do Icarus proud..

    Perhaps you are a god of sorts and I would guess you are speaking to your gentle readers again. I have not claimed to be a biblical literalist. That I would use the term “multiple meanings” should imply to any sane person that I am not a literalist. But then again, no one is. The most fundamentalist of fundamentalists isn’t a strict literalist either. Is it that senility acting up again? For someone with glaring stakes in both eyes, you should not be correcting Michael.

    LU has an ad on the bible.cc home page, which is so prominent that it could be mistaken for sponsorship.

    Yup, senility. You poor dear!

  9. The joys of HTML coding.

    Especially if, like me, you are too cheap to go out and buy an editor. Actually, I started out 40-plus years ago in GML (from which HTML was derived). I was infected with it by hanging around tech editors and writers at IBM.

    —————————————-

    We had a birth here yesterday. Mama threw her 6-foot baby into the air, and then carried it around on her back. An entire pod breached and dived and slapped their tails on the water. Quite a show. They come in close to shore,to avoid sharks, who think that baby whale is the height of cuisine.

    Mother whales make 150 gallons of milk every day. Well, it’s actually more like cottage cheese — more than 90% fat. Because there’s not much to eat in the tropics. They come here to avoid predators while calving, then return to the arctic where food is much more plentiful.

    Whales, like other fully aquatic mammals, are born breech first, rather than head first, to avoid asphyxiation until they are fully out.

    So that’s what we do for entertainment.

  10. Olorin, do you believe that a supernatural God created the universe billions of years ago and guides the path of evolution?

  11. My religious beliefs are and always will be a work in progress. In any case, I certainly would not trust them to your tender care..

    You may think that I am bent on denigrating your beliefs. I do so only to the extent that you twist and distort science in order to justify them. Augustine, Origen, and other church fathers warned against this.

    One interesting aspect of science is that people of all religions or none can agree on a scientific theory, whereas people of different religions have god(s) that differ, that enforce different, sometimes contradictory, beliefs about their attributes, about what they require from their followers, and how their followers should interact with each other. (For example, Judaism has an income tax, while Islam has a wealth tax.)

  12. Well, the problem is that if you are a church going Lutheran, then you believe in God unless you are there for the company or tradition. Unless you are an atheist, you are some sort of creationist so that you would be contradicting yourself every time you smear the broad tent IDers.

  13. True, the “creationist” line can be drawn very fuzzily—all the way from frothing-at-the-mouth genesis literalists to “theistic evolutionists,” whatever that means. I myself would draw the boundary at old-earth science denialists. North of that line, one is a creationist, south of it one is a rational human being. The broad-tent IDers are—well, first of all, they are frauds—on the creationist side. Kitzmiller v Dover in 2005 pretty well established that with their smoking gun “cdesignproponentists”.

    Besides, does one who believes in God necessarily believe that the Bible presents a historical narrative of creation. No. 1.2 billion of them just elected a new leader last night; he started out as a chemist, and probably has not much sympahy for science denialists.

    Here’s something to ponder. Genesis II, the Bible’s original creation story, could easily be read as the creation of the human mind, of self-consciousness, rather than as a creation of the physical universe. When we first became aware of God and of our own nature. Put that in your nargilah and smoke it for a while.

  14. True, the “creationist” line can be drawn very fuzzily—all the way from frothing-at-the-mouth genesis literalists to “theistic evolutionists,” whatever that means.

    Unless you are an atheist, you are a creationist of sorts. Even the atheists get that. I am sure there are frothing-at-the-mouth atheists too, “child abuse” Dawkins anyone?

    I myself would draw the boundary at old-earth science denialists. North of that line, one is a creationist, south of it one is a rational human being.

    Why is the age of the earth so important? Is someone who questions uniformity in dating methods non-rational? Isn’t science about questioning everything and following the evidence where it leads?

    The broad-tent IDers are—well, first of all, they are frauds—on the creationist side.

    Frauds? How so? I would say they are simplistic because their design detection methods need work but many science endeavours start like that. What’s fraudulent about them? And they clearly hate creationism if you have read their articles.

  15. Kitzmiller v Dover in 2005 pretty well established that with their smoking gun “cdesignproponentists”.

    The law is not a good marker of what is true or proper. Unless of course, you would have slavery re-instituted?

    Besides, does one who believes in God necessarily believe that the Bible presents a historical narrative of creation. No.

    What’s the point? YECs aren’t stating otherwise.

    1.2 billion of them just elected a new leader last night;

    “F”1.2 billion people did not elect anyone, a select group of cardinals did that.
    “F” They elected yet another ethnic European so it is blatantly clear that 1.2 billion people did not have a say in the process.
    “F”Many Catholics are nominal so the 1.2 billion figure is very inflated.

    he started out as a chemist, and probably has not much sympahy for science denialists.

    What exactly does it mean to be a science denialist? It is clear that YECs, IDers, OECs, TEs and BioLogos-ians use, appeal to and value science. Lay out your thought process for us.

    Here’s something to ponder. Genesis II, the Bible’s original creation story, could easily be read as the creation of the human mind, of self-consciousness, rather than as a creation of the physical universe. When we first became aware of God and of our own nature. Put that in your nargilah and smoke it for a while.

    I don’t want to play “could” games. By what method would you divine the author’s intent? Help your gentle readers become more scientific.

  16. The law is not a good marker of what is true or proper.

    Kitzmiller did not make or change any law. The “law” in this case is 200 years old–the US Constitution. Kitzmiller found, as a factual matter, that the evidence showed overwhelmingly that ID is purely a religious belief. This is the holding of the case. The legal consequence of these facts is that, teaching it as “science” in a public school runs afoul of the the Frst Amendment clause concerning establishment of a religion.

    “F”1.2 billion people did not elect anyone, a select group of cardinals did that.
    “F” They elected yet another ethnic European so it is blatantly clear that 1.2 billion people did not have a say in the process.
    “F”Many Catholics are nominal so the 1.2 billion figure is very inflated.

    > Sorry. I had forgotten that fidures of speech lie beyond your comprehension. Literate people call this one a “metonymy” (meh-TAH-nih-mee).
    > Then why does everyone refer to him as a South American, and why do the Latino Catholics consider him as a Latino? Argentina is the same as the Canada in this regard–especially around Buenos Aires. If you walk down a street there, you will hear Spanish, English, Italian, and German spoken. (Many Germans fled to Argentina during and shortly after WWII.) But they are all Argentinians. So the new pope is about as “erthnically European” as Queen Elizabeth II is ethnically German.
    > One hears a lot about the “nominal” catholics, but they are mostly in Eurtope (and to some extent the US), and they are a distinct minority.. Latin Americal and Asian Catholics are fervent. Phillipino Catholics have everyone else beat by a country mile.

    What exactly does it mean to be a science denialist? It is clear that YECs, IDers, OECs, TEs and BioLogos-ians use, appeal to and value science

    To repeat myself yet again, MWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA These groups do not “value” science. (Except BioLogos. Who would lump Francis Collins in the same group with creationists?) To scientists, science is a way to understand the physical universe so that it can be employed to better the world. This is done by formulating theories from physical evidence, theories that can predict future events. Creationists “appeal” to science, but merely as a tool whose sole purpose is to verify one preconceived theory, a theory that has no physical evidence whatever, and which contradicts evidence from a number of other scientfic fields. Scienitists fit theories to the facts; creationists make facts conform to their theory. (It is humorous that, until the 1920s, creationists had more problems with heliocentrism than with evolution.)

    A science denialist is one who denies scientific evidence and well-established theories on the basis that they violate a preconceived belief. The OED says “Denialist (noun): a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier:”

    I don’t want to play “could” games. By what method would you divine the author’s intent? Help your gentle readers become more scientific.

    The pont is that alternatives to treating Genesis as a historical narrative are possible.. That particular alternative is pure speculation on my part.

    Intent is always derived from circumstantial evidence— In this case, historical context. But this “higher criticism” is what caused fundamentalists to break away from the mainstream in the first place

    There is one specific reader, although not a gentle one, who needs help in thinking scisntifically—but he seems to have already driven far beyond the last exit to reality.

  17. Oops. The “driven far beyond the last exit to reality” is also a figure of speech. I don’t actually think that you hopped on your scooter and saw a roadsign that said “Reality – 500 metres ahead”. Or that Reality is a real village, with a Reality Square and a Reality Church and a Reality Estate Agency.

    Just to be clear.

  18. Kitzmiller found, as a factual matter, that the evidence showed overwhelmingly that ID is purely a religious belief.

    Does said judge have any hard science qualifications? Does one judge’s opinion settle a matter?
    Does one judge’s opinion settle facts?
    Didn’t that judge accept a humanist (religious) award?
    Are you saying that it would be a FACT that Africans are sub-human if ONE lowly US district court judge stated such?

    The legal consequence of these facts is that, teaching it as “science” in a public school runs afoul of the the Frst Amendment clause concerning establishment of a religion.

    And evolution has clear humanist implications so by that standard, evolution is religious and should not be taught as science.

    Sorry. I had forgotten that fidures of speech lie beyond your comprehension

    “Fidures of speech” are indeed quite beyond my comprehension.

  19. Literate people call this one a “metonymy” (meh-TAH-nih-mee).

    I see. So it does not matter one bit that the average Catholic has no say in the elections, he elects by proxy of being Catholic.

    Now while the new ‘pope’ is South American and Latino in that he has a Hispanic culture, he is ethnically European while most Catholics are not ethnically European. I don’t think there has even been one pope which has not been ethnically European. A ‘German’ is a sub-clade, ‘European’ is the major clade. You cannot compare a sub-clade with a major clade.

    Even if “Latin Americal[sic] and Asian Catholics are fervent”, this means nothing since most staunch Catholics do not know their own theology or find themselves in church on a Sunday.

    Who would lump Francis Collins in the same group with creationists?

    Um, atheists who are by default, evolutionists.

  20. To scientists, science is a way to understand the physical universe so that it can be employed to better the world.

    Really? Natural scientists are engineers?
    Science: knowledge for the sake of knowledge
    Engineering: application of knowledge for human benefit
    Is science THE ONLY WAY to understand the universe?

    Creationists “appeal” to science, but merely as a tool whose sole purpose is to verify one preconceived theory, a theory that has no physical evidence whatever, and which contradicts evidence from a number of other scientfic fields. Scienitists fit theories to the facts; creationists make facts conform to their theory. (It is humorous that, until the 1920s, creationists had more problems with heliocentrism than with evolution.)

    Well that’s a great message pastor Olorin, care to give some examples of creationists doing what you assert above? And while you’re at it, list the plethora of physical evidence for evolution.

  21. A science denialist is one who denies scientific evidence and well-established theories on the basis that they violate a preconceived belief. The OED says “Denialist (noun): a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier:”

    With such a stupid definition, Darwin was a science denialist and so were/are most of the people who were/are pioneers in science. Again, you don’t seem to give the issues of truth and epistemology any thought. It’s all about parroting what the masses believe, an argumentum ad populum.

    Intent is always derived from circumstantial evidence— In this case, historical context.

    Excellent, now lay out the historical context as you have done and then show how by a scientific process, how you whittled all the options down to the one you presently hold.

    Notice gentle readers, I am going the extra mile to give Olorin every opportunity to explain himself in detail and provide workable and plausible alternatives since his stated mission on this blog is to educate.

  22. Excellent, now lay out the historical context as you have done and then show how by a scientific process, how you whittled all the options down to the one you presently hold.

    Another failure of reading comprehension. I didn’t say that I hold that interpretation, but only that it could be one of a number of possibilities.

    Here’s another possibility: Genesis II is a glimmer through the Matrix into the mind of the Cosmic Operating System. Or how about: I was told by Murgatroyd L. Chazing that he had received a tablet by UPS that purported to have been sent from Ahura Mazda his own self, averring that said M .L. C. would vouchsafe the One True interpretation.

  23. how you whittled all the options down to the one you presently hold.

    Who says there is ne I currently hold? Remember that “It is the mark of a great mind to hiold two completely contradictory ideas, without having to decide in favor or either.” (Thoreau)

  24. With such a stupid definition, Darwin was a science denialist and so were/are most of the people who were/are pioneers in science.

    I much prefer my definition to the OED one. In order to be a denialist, one must not only go against the prevailing theory, but one must do so for a reason that is extraneous to the theory—such as religious faith or self-interest or cultural mores.

    show how by a scientific process, how you whittled all the options down to the one you presently hold.

    I said I would not trust you with that, remember? Those matters are only for our church’s Tuesday night “Theology on Tap” where we discuss theological issues over beer and calzones. (Once we spent the evening finding out how Apple’s Siri would answer theological questions.)

    Besides, why must I hold any one particular view? Remember that the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, without having to decide in favor of either. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

    .

    Olorin, care to give some examples of creationists doing what you assert above?

    The “Wedge Document” asserts that the goal of ID is to “defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” Since science by definition is naturalistic, their goal is to defeat science.

    Michael does this in almost every post. Since he denies that the world is more than a few thousand years old, he denies reports of “soft tissue” being preserved for millions of years. (Citing old references, before new techniques were discovered.) He denies annual ice rings in glaciers, which have been counted, one by one, back for 700.000 years. Creationists claim, with no evidence whatever, that the speed of light was different in the past, that atomic decay rates were faster, or slower, or something.

    And while you’re at it, list the plethora of physical evidence for evolution

    Why do you require that someone spend a lot of time holding your hand on this? You knowwhere it is, you just refuse to look. U. California has an excellent introductory site on the subject. Neil Shibin’s Your Inner Fish is readable, and probably simle enough for you. That one covers anatomical evolution. There is another on on morphology (evo-devo), and one on genetic mechanisms. I can’t remember their names right now, not having access to my library at home. But I’m sure I’ve mentioned them to you before.

    It will require some effort on your part. Quit demanding that others to babysit you all the time.

  25. In order to be a denialist, one must not only go against the prevailing theory, but one must do so for a reason that is extraneous to the theory—such as religious faith or self-interest or cultural mores.

    Hence, I stated: “care to give some examples of creationists doing what you assert above?”

    I said I would not trust you with that, remember?

    But you don’t have to. You are been given the opportunity to have your impeccable logic displayed to the world. Why would one be afraid of that? I can’t edit your HTML code.

    Remember that the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, without having to decide in favor of either. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

    Sure it isn’t Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” instead of Thoreau or Fitzgerald? Show how he is correct using science. I’ll grade you too.

  26. The “Wedge Document” asserts that the goal of ID is to “defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” Since science by definition is naturalistic, their goal is to defeat science.

    MWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA. The DI is not a creationist organization as I have stated before. They have YECs in their midst yet they disparage them online. Jason Rosenhouse in his ‘Among the Creationists’ also state as much. ID is a big tent approach. Johnson had to tell his IDers when the movement began (and the Wedge document was formulated) to chill it or they would scare away the YECs. As long as they have atheists in their organization, they are not creationists, they are compromisers who want to marry evolution with their version of Christianity. I suspect you are one of them too, despite your protestations. And who made science by definition naturalistic? Their goal is not to defeat science, but to defeat the Darwinian interpretation of evolution which is clearly, not all of science.

    Michael does this in almost every post. Since he denies that the world is more than a few thousand years old, he denies reports of “soft tissue” being preserved for millions of years. (Citing old references, before new techniques were discovered.) He denies annual ice rings in glaciers, which have been counted, one by one, back for 700.000 years.

    One person does not a trend make.

  27. Creationists claim, with no evidence whatever, that the speed of light was different in the past, that atomic decay rates were faster, or slower, or something.

    No evidence whatsoever? So they spent thousands of $$$ for RATE and that constitutes no evidence? If all they do is assert, then their websites could possibly be a single front page listing their assertions. And using your own ‘could theology’, the speed of light COULD have been slower in the past, right?

    Why do you require that someone spend a lot of time holding your hand on this?

    It does not have to be a lot of time. You should be able to prattle them off easily. A list of 5 will do.

    You knowwhere it is, you just refuse to look. U. California has an excellent introductory site on the subject. Neil Shibin’s Your Inner Fish is readable, and probably simle enough for you. That one covers anatomical evolution. There is another on on morphology (evo-devo), and one on genetic mechanisms. I can’t remember their names right now, not having access to my library at home. But I’m sure I’ve mentioned them to you before.

    It for the sake of your gentle readers and your mission to raise them out of simplistic ignorance into the glorious light of evolution.

  28. It does not have to be a lot of time. You should be able to prattle them off easily. A list of 5 will do.

    My present rate for private mentoring is US$200.00/hour. (If it involves legal opinions, then it’s $350.00/hour.) How much time would you be willing to pay for? I have two other mentoring projects going just now, and I’m on vacation in a tropical paradise. Besides, the people I mentor–my telemachuses—want to learn; you do not.

    .

    No evidence whatsoever? So they spent thousands of $$$ for RATE and that constitutes no evidence?

    Thousands! did you say THOUSANDS? As opposed to the billions spent in nuclear physics, astronomy, and cosmology that shows the opposite. Now, science is not a potlatch. But the “experiments” made for RATE are so limited and full of assumptions that they would never pass muster for publication. Apparently the ICR felt the same way, because they never submitted them to any peer-reviewed journal for actual scientific critique.[1] Instead, this project, which purports to overturn the foundations of several major branches of scientific thought, published a 600-page book directed toward a general audience of those least qualified to judge it on its merits.

    The RATE results have been refuted many times by actual scientists. Some of them are referenced in <a Research Comes Up Empty (Nov. 7, 2005). Dr. Humphreys’ Young-Earth Helium Diffusion “Dates” (Nov. 24, 2005) takes apart one aspect. “‘Polonium Haloes’ Refuted” is part of a long line of refutations of this hoary claim. I’d list a lot more, but Michael FRowNS upon >3 links in a comment. Besides, I’m sure you have heard of them before.

    The important point is that the ICR refuses to defend their work to their peers. They appeal only to the faithful, not to the knowledgeable.

    ====================

    [1] And hold it with the they’re-biased against-us soft-shoe routine. Even Science and Nature publish papers critical of evolution and geology.

  29. I stated that it was for your gentle readers though you seem latched onto my intent for some reason.

    The term “No evidence whatsoever” simply cannot be sustained even if their work is/was poor. Once again, if all they do is assert, then it is very possible for their entire list of postulates to be accurately represented by a single page website.

    Many people do not defend their work. Some high quality journals don’t even have the decency to reply to your emails and some PhD researchers are the same. ICR does not have to defend their work. And just because there is a rebuttal, that does not mean that the rebuttal is correct. You seem to think that when you state: “The RATE results have been refuted many times by actual scientists.”

    Actual scientists believe in many things like the inferiority of certain people.

    Even Science and Nature publish papers critical of evolution and geology.

    Which papers would this be? And are they critical of all of evolution and all of geology or only certain aspects of it while holding true to naturalistic evolution?

    Humphreys said a letter to the editor was blanked and that he thinks some scientists in cahoots with an editor stole one of his ideas. Behe has also complained that in journals critical of his work, he was not allowed to respond. With such stories, you really think they would waste the effort after spending many years on RATE to a process which is biased?

    I don’t think it is Michael’s issue with 3 links per post. There is a WordPress option which causes such posts to be automatically placed into moderation.

  30. The term “No evidence whatsoever” simply cannot be sustained even if their work is/was poor.

    Yer right. The evidence was laughably flawed and deceptively presented. A middle-school science-fair project would have had more skill, and much higher ethical standards, than the alleged PhD twerps on the RATE project.

    ICR does not have to defend their work.

    Obviously not. All they have to do is confirm the preconceived belief of the ignorant faithful. They’d like to have scientific approval, but that’s not their primary goal. That’s why creationism is not science. Scientists must convince their peers. They have to put their theories on the wall with bull’s eyes painted on them.

    Sometimes gaining acceptance is easy, somertimes it’s long and difficult. Boltzmann’s atomic theory took a couple of decades—and the watershed evidence came not from physics but from a biologist’s observation. Wegner’s continental-drift theory languished for 40 years as only an interesting idea until plate tectonics came along and provided a mechanism sufficient to power it. Darwin’s concept of common ancestry was accepted quickly, but natural selection did not pass muster among all biologists until almost half a century after he proposed it—when Mendelian genetic “particles” provided a plausible vehicle.

    Humphreys said a letter to the editor was blanked and that he thinks some scientists in cahoots with an editor stole one of his ideas. Behe has also complained that in journals critical of his work, he was not allowed to respond. With such stories, you really think they would waste the effort after spending many years on RATE to a process which is biased?

    YES! That’s what Wegner did through decades of derision. That’s what Boltzmann did, even after vicious attacks by leading physicists of his day, until he committed suicide. That’s what Marshall & Warren did for their bacterial theory of gastric ulcers—a theory that contravened long-accepted dogma, and led to some editors banning their work. Many creationists compare themselves to Galileo; however, as one scientist said “In order to claim the mantle of Galileo, one must not only be persecuted, one must be correct.”

    As to stealing ideas, many creationists are paranoid abiut a lot of things; it seems to go with the territory. In Behe’s case, he got it backward. Behe co-opted the idea of irreducible complexity from a 1918 paper by Henry Muller in Genetics 3:422-499.

    As to Michael’s policy on links, he knows about the option, but has not turned it off.

    —————————————–

    So we’re off tonight to a St Patrick’s day dinner at the local Catholic church. The corned beef, cabbage, and green beer will bust my low-sodium diet, but they have been delicious in previous years. Besides we go with a bunch of friends, and the priest, Father Watanabe, is a jovial host. (Yes, a full-blooded Japanese Catholic priest. Only on Maui.) One hears 5 languages spoken on the street here—English, Japanese, Hawaiian, Portugese, and Tongan. On O’ahu, Chinese and Pidgin are also common.

    But not to worry; you only need to know two words in Hawaiian—so that you will know which restroom to go to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s