When scientists step beyond the proper limits of science, such as the limit of time in which things have been scientifically observed and recorded, something other than the method of repeatedly observing and testing things will dictate how data is explained. Supernatural events and explanations are by their nature not limited by the limits of nature, so naturally natural philosophers (now called scientists) tend to avoid them. So, whatever we find in nature, most scientists today have to explain without considering what the Bible (or other religious source) says that God (or other supernatural entity) did in the past that might throw off such explanations. Obviously, creating the heavens and the Earth in one swell foop of six days is going to produce things that would take billions of years to form, assuming that natural processes alone could somehow do it.
So there are some things that “Young Earth” scientists have struggled to explain, such as how we can see stars that are billions of light years away. I believe there’s a simple supernatural explanation, but there are a number of (more or less) natural explanations that have been proposed. There are other things that mainstream scientists are struggling to show nature can produce, such as the origin of life. Continue reading Soft Tissues: Hard to stretch over millions of years
A response to “The Creation-Evolution Standoff” by Paul Arnold in “Converge.” ( http://convergemagazine.com/creation-evolution-standoff-14552/ )
For someone hoping to emulate Dr. Denis Lamoureux’s statement about being “as clean and as competent with the data in front of me” in order to “actually learn something from those we disagree with,” it’s sad to see Paul Arnold so badly misrepresenting this situation.
“To atheists, religion is oppressive and ill informed. To religious fundamentalists, science is morally bankrupt. ”
How can someone write something like that, and then bemoan the excessively binary way people look at it? What’s really bad, though, is the misrepresentation of religious fundamentalists as anti-science. The issue is about creation vs evolution, and while the atheists’ view of religion is essentially immaterial to that, the portrayal of religious fundamentalists as anti-science rather than anti-naturalistic philosophy is a symptom of the central problem. As it comes down to, later in the article, the question is, do we put our faith in God and his ability to communicate with us, or in men and their ability to divine the past from circumstantial evidence, and re-interpret what the Bible plainly says? Continue reading There’s no standoff if you think clearly
We’ve all seen the depictions of the “Tree of Life” with humans at the top (older versions had some races closer to the top than others), but as leading evolutionists have pointed out, that’s a misleading view of evolution. Indeed, it was held by a number of leading evolutionists in the past, who saw evolution as just such a progression of increasingly superior or “fitter” organisms leading up to us (and someday to descendants of ours so advanced we would look little different from chimps in comparison).
The more popular view these days is to emphasize that humans are nothing special in evolutionary terms. After all, look at the microbes that today leave traces (stromatolites) that appear identical to fossils dated billions of years old. How’s that for surviving? Humans are just the latest fad in this view, our tiny twig on the tree of life not being any more special or favored than any of the others. The perch we may eat for supper is seen as just as evolved in its own way as we are, and from the same fishy ancestor. For that matter, I might just as easily have titled this post, “Are we just colonies of specialized microbes?” However, it was inspired by a recent report a lot closer to home in evolutionary terms. Continue reading Are we just cousins of gibbons?
So, having disposed of the knee-jerk reaction to “Fundamentalist” and the expectation that I’m going to say that real science is creationist science, I may as well confirm that this isn’t about treating science as a religion itself. After all, there are people who do take science, or scientism and evolutionism, as a sort of substitute for religion. They look to “Science” for answers to the great philosophical and ethical questions. Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I behave?
Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, is famous for having admitted this occurs. I will take as my reference, however, the article in the Huffington Post in which he defends himself from the over-enthusiastic response of creationist reporting: “Is Darwinism a Religion?” (Posted: 07/21/2011 8:26 am EDT Updated: 09/20/2011 5:12 am EDT, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html) I encourage you to check it out for yourself if you’d care to judge for yourself exactly what he was trying to communicate. Continue reading And Another Thing … this site is not
Normally when I comment on a new article, I simply have some doubts and questions and a different way of looking at things, but sometimes I see articles that seem so funny to me I’m afraid my response will offend some people… but please excuse me if I can’t help it in a case like this:
“Life Started On Earth 300 Million Years Earlier Than We Thought”
This is the title of an article from the Huffington Post ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/earth-age-carbon-study_562688dfe4b02f6a900e2320?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 )
It’s based on a scientific report that isn’t so funny itself, but this presentation for public consumption has this side-splitting subtitle or lead-in quote: “Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously. With the right ingredients, life seems to form very quickly.” Yup, just throw a bunch of cosmic dust around a baby star until it balls up into a planet, maybe has some of those basic amino acids, the “building blocks of life” mixed in, and POOF! there’s your life for you! Just like magic! Practically a miracle… whoops, I mean, perfectly natural, of course. Must be happening all the time… well, somewhere, out there with all those other planetary systems forming. Of course, in this context, “almost instantaneously” and “very quickly” refers to several hundred million years. Then again, the processes taking place in most of that time could be said to have little direct relevance to the formation of life. If you’re going to believe that raw chemicals came together and became a living thing all on their own, you may as well believe it happened quickly. But what’s behind this bold pontification? Continue reading Life is funny — I mean, the way some evolutionists think about life is funny.
It is the website of a creationist, but that’s not the same thing. My goal here is not so much to promote creationism as it is to point out that evolutionism should not be part of science, although (unofficially) it is. Don’t be surprised if I get around to pointing out that creation science theories are also outside of the natural realm of science as well. I will be lampooning (or mildly questioning, depending on the case) evolutionism mostly, mostly because it’s the biggest (in many ways) transgressor of the proper limits of science.
It’s true that I see this as just a first step, the recognition of the difference between the kind of science that can be demonstrated and truly can’t be denied without direct consequences in cases where it is applicable, and the newer sciences that include claims (hypotheses, theories, and sometimes pontification) which can’t be demonstrated to be true and can be denied without any problem — unless it gets you censored, blacklisted, or fired. And believing in creation rather than evolution is just a step toward eventually acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah/Christ, God manifest in the flesh, repenting of your sin and receiving eternal salvation by calling on the Lord in faith, being redeemed by His sacrifice and justified by His resurrection. Continue reading Seriously, this is NOT a creation science website.
Here’s a news story regarding human evolution, or rather, the old-
Earth saga of the wanderings of modern humans. It’s claimed that a
bunch of teeth found in a cave prove that humans left Africa behind
long ago, moved to China, and then spread out from there.
Hmmm, seems there have been a lot of fossils coming out of China with
claims to being the first and best. Several of the key dino-bird
fossils showed up with stories of having been dug up by farmers, and
nobody has found another of the same species since. Is there something
fishy here? Could the Chinese be up to something for the prestige?
There certainly seems to be a note of pride in this quote:
“Our discovery, together with other research findings,
suggests southern China should be the key, central area for the emergence and evolution of modern humans in East Asia,” the study’s co-lead author, Wu Liu, of China’s Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, told Live Science.
Continue reading Chinese teeth claimed to alter “Out of Africa” story