Picture Perfect?

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Picture Perfect?

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

Out Great(x1000) Grandad's were Africans !??? (CH)
Re:

So Theory of Evolution must be false (Interested )
Re:

Clarification (Seeker)
Re:

Hi Seeker.... (edmund)
Re:

Hi Edmund (Seeker)
Re:

Hi Seeker more... (edmund)
Re:

Believing and seeing (Seeker)
Re:

Websites of the articles? (edmund)
Re:

Links (Seeker)
Re:

How about reptile to mammal evolution? (Seeker)
Re:

Much ado about nothing? (Benjamin)
Re:

Maybe, but it's another piece of the jigsaw (Seeker)
Date: 2001, May 30
From: Benjamin

Hi Seeker, Perhaps you are looking at the wrong picture to guide you in fitting the pieces together. ; ) Seeker: It just seems unlikely to me that these scientists, collaborating across two continents, and the organisations backing them will risk their reputations on something that is nothing, or half-baked, or erroneous, or even fraudulent. I guess this illustrates your point about us having the same evidence but viewing it differently. Benjamin: We should not underestimate the strength that a prior commitment to a particular idea has on people’s actions. The history of evolution science is dotted with “facts” that were “nothing, or half-baked, or erroneous, or even fraudulent”. I’m sure you are familiar with some of them. On the other hand, seeing that there are many Creation Scientists whose credentials are no where less prestigious than the scientists you named, would you think it unlikely that these creation scientists will risk their reputations on something (i.e. evidence for creation) that is “nothing, or half-baked, or erroneous, or even fraudulent?” Seeker: I don't think I can answer the technical questions like how they do their dating (radiometric, carbon, etc), or what other prior evidence are already available to support certain assumptions (or givens) in their research. But I do think that the peer review system and the scientific spotlight will expose any faults with their research should they exist. Benjamin: However the problem is that the peer review system is itself committed to propping up evolutionary thinking! Richard Lewontin has said, “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 counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Seeker: One interesting thing though. You asked: How did they know when the animal live? What kind of tests were done and how reliable are they? And How did they know that? These are exactly the same type of questions I asked when thinking about religion's claims about the existence of god(s) and intelligent design. Benjamin: And every good question demands a good answer based on our best knowledge. We are really dealing with epistemology here, the study of how we know what we know. I think of four ways we know something, via (1) experience; I know fire hurts because I’ve been burnt (2) authority; so and so tell me and I believe (3) instincts or gut feel; that’s the woman for me (4) our five senses. These are not hard and fast categories so I won’t be too dogmatic about them. So we need to ask ourselves how we know certain things in regards to origins. Creation is based on revelation from an authority no less than God. Someone who has been there from the beginning has revealed to us what took place in the beginning. Evolution ,however, is based not on revelation but human reason (ignorance might be a better word to use) that is dismally flawed and limited. Ultimately we all find that all boils down to faith. The difference is simply the object of faith: God or man. Seeker: I asked Edmund this before: Do you use the same standards when assessing the "evidence" (if any) for god? Benjamin: So what was Edmund’s answer? For me I will answer “yes” if the evidence can be subjected to testing. Seeker: Btw, if I got the same persons you quoted, Robert Etheridge (1819 - 1903) and William Dawson (circa mid 1800 to early 1900?) are contemporaries of Darwin (1809 - 1882). Quite a lot more evidence have been uncovered since then. Benjamin: They’re the same persons alright. But are their assessments any different from today? Judging from recent works from Michael Behe and Michael Denton, among many others, the situation seems the same now as it was then. In fact, with the jump into the DNA world, all the more it solidifies the judgements of these gentlemen. Indeed more evidence have been uncovered since Darwin, but they are evidence for creation, not evolution. Regards, Benjamin