What does “science” prove? As Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., shows, science is not the same as naturalism and can prove nothing without interpretation.
In response to “Dinosaurs and the Bible”
I do not intend this as an attack on any of you, I simply wish to comment on many of the flawed accusations you throw at “evolutionary scientists” Evolution is not a belief...it is a fact. Religion is a belief. While good science offers us a way to study the natural world and our surroundings in an objective imperical way...religion is a great partner (not alternative) to explaining our lives spiritually. There is no need to attack evolution as false when the most well acclaimed scientists and associations such as the National Academy of Science is doing nothing to dismantle the foundations of religion. And the reason for that is because science is not able to enter the realm of the meta-physical and anyone who says they can is not practicing science. There is no conflict between science and religion. period. I would appreciate that you read more literature and get your information from less biased sources. Science will never be able to explain empirically religion. And on the other foot religion is not science and creationism is not science because it is not based on scientific fact. If you do not “believe” in evolution you should do some research on anti-biotic resistence and let me know how to explain what happens. I won’t hold my breath.
Just wanted to say how much I love your site. I’ve spent half my life studying apologetics and using that information to present the gospel to friends, family, and co-workers, with mixed results.
Your site has been a constant source of inspiration and edification. Your use of logic, coherent arguments, and abosolute commitment to the infallability of God’s Word is second to none. My faith is strengthened every time I visit your site.
Please continue to wear the full armour of God, as I’m sure you know the attacks will go on. Stand firm in His Word and keep your hearts inclined toward Him and you will prevail.
Bless you all and your ministry. In His honour and for His glory.
Let us know what you think.
I do not intend this as an attack on any of you, I simply wish to comment on many of the flawed accusations you throw at “evolutionary scientists”
Such as? What accusations are you referring to and where are the references?
Evolution is not a belief...it is a fact. Religion is a belief.
Considering that evolution is a subset of the religion of humanism as clearly outlined in Humanist Manifesto, this puts you in a predicament. How can evolution be a belief and not a belief at the same time and reference? This violates basic logic. But more importantly, your definitions are skewed. Religion is a system of practices based on beliefs about the world and the past. Evolution is a framework about the past that can never be repeated or tested and must be accepted by interpretation and authority. That is, by all measures, a belief.
It also seems that you labor under the misconception that beliefs cannot be facts. So, if someone believes that computers exist, does that negate the existence of computers being a fact? Who determines what is “factual” and what is not? If something violates the laws of nature that we know but is accepted by most people, does that make it factual or not? (Evolutionary belief violates some basic laws of nature.) Christians accept fact because they believe in an objective Creator who does not lie. Where, then, does the humanist find a basis for fact?
While good science offers us a way to study the natural world and our surroundings
Creationists agree here, and this methodology was developed by a creationist named Francis Bacon. But note that good science is observable and repeatable—unlike evolution and its historical postulates.
in an objective imperical way
But for objectiveness to be valid requires a correct worldview with which to interpret empirical facts. There are two worldviews competing here. Science is a useful tool for examining the universe, but humans are not objective. We all have basic foundational concepts through which we interpret evidence—some starting with the Bible and some assuming naturalism. Few realize that the evolutionary/humanistic worldview must borrow from the biblical worldview to even begin its case. So, this undermines an evolutionary position right from the start.
Also empiricism (that all knowledge must be obtained by experience), is self refuting. In other words, empiricism can never be proven empirically.
. . . religion is a great partner (not alternative) to explaining our lives spiritually.
Creationists would agree as well, as correct religion is foundational to looking at any aspect of the world around us. Your argument here is self-refuting. That is, you define science naturalistically and then claim that naturalism and supernaturalism (religion) are partners. This is impossible, as naturalism does not allow supernatural beings or causes and supernaturalism requires them. On the other hand, science (as in, observational science) is truly a partner in understanding the world—when we begin with God’s Word, since science is predicated on Christianity. So, for good science to even be a possibility is further confirmation of the truth of the Bible.
There is no need to attack evolution as false
But it is false. It contradicts Scripture in Genesis and Christ Himself and leads many astray from the truth of Scripture:
“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:6)
See also Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11. Also, Christians are commanded to demolish these false arguments:
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Third, we are warned not to succumb to such false beliefs:
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
when the most well acclaimed scientists and associations such as the National Academy of Science is doing nothing to dismantle the foundations of religion.
First, this is the fallacy of appeal to majority. The majority of Germans at WWII either allowed or participated in the persecution of the Jews—but this doesn’t make it right.
Second, the NAS has aligned itself with the religion of humanism and has a history of attacking the truthfulness of the Bible. They promote the religion of secular humanism and naturalistic philosophies that deny the power of God through numerous articles and publications. This is hardly “nothing.” In addition, the president of the NAS openly recommends a leading humanist organization called the NCSE.1
And the reason for that is because science is not able to enter the realm of the meta-physical and anyone who says they can is not practicing science.
And yet, evolutionists claim to transcend the metaphysical millions of years in the past to know for a “fact” what happened? This means evolutionists are not practicing science according to their claimed worldview. Scientific methodology cannot repeat the past. Evolutionary thinking is unrepeatable historical science, not operational science:
For more, see “What Is Science?”
Let’s face it: there has never been a single experiment run over millions years—not even one—nor is this possible. Where is the science here? And scientists look for “God spots” on the brain and alternate universes to explain away how finely tuned our universe is, and the “evolutionary history” of religion. All of these are attempts to explain the metaphysical aspects of the universe (poorly) using naturalistic assumptions.
There is no conflict between science and religion. period.
You would be surprised to know that we agree, but I suggest you have tried to use a bait-and-switch fallacy here by calling science “evolution.” Evolution is not science. We all have the same science. The difference is the worldview by which we interpret scientific facts.
I would appreciate that you read more literature and get your information from less biased sources.
This is the pretended neutrality fallacy. You are assuming that you and other humanists are less biased, i.e., neutral, all the while trying to argue for the evolutionary worldview. By “less biased,” do you mean scientific sources that agree with naturalism? We do, in fact, get a great deal of our news and information from mainstream journals and media sources. One of our goals is to reveal that there is no neutrality and that there are underlying assumptions upon which such papers and articles are written.
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.” (Luke 11:23)
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:50)
God makes it clear in His Word there is no such thing as neutrality. You are either for Christ or against Him. I want to encourage you to reconsider the claims of Christ and what it means to be saved.
Science will never be able to explain empirically religion.
Science doesn’t explain things; this is the fallacy of reification. Science is a methodology to determine observable and repeatable facts and is predicated on biblical Christianity. In other words, it would be impossible to do science without the Bible being true.
And on the other foot religion is not science
With this statement, you have no choice but to agree that interrelated religions like humanism, naturalism, and evolutionism are not science. Additionally, belief in the One true God of the Bible who is logical and cannot lie means that scientific inquiry makes sense. Science is possible because the universe exhibits uniformity. There is no reason to divorce exploring the world around us from the eye-witness account of the Creator and Sustainer of all things.
and creationism is not science because it is not based on scientific fact.
Science in its strictest sense means knowledge. Creation and evolution have little to do with scientific facts because we all have the same scientific facts! Creation and evolution are both subsets of religions; biblical Christianity and secular humanism, respectively. The worldview of biblical Christianity, from which creation comes, is the same worldview by which science is possible. I suspect that what you mean is that creation science is not based on naturalistic assumptions about how the universe and life came to be. In that case, you’re correct. Facts are not in debate.
If you do not “believe” in evolution you should do some research on anti-biotic resistence and let me know how to explain what happens. I won’t hold my breath.
Perhaps if you did some research, you’d see that we’ve shown how antibiotic resistance fails the test as evidence for evolution (see “Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?” and “Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?”). Here’s an example: how is H. pylori changing into defective H. pylori support for the general theory of evolution? First, the resistance is moving in the wrong direction for evolution (losses), and second, changing these bacteria into the same bacteria is not evolution!
I want to encourage you to reconsider your faith in the evolutionary worldview. That philosophy is a dead end logically, morally, scientifically, and obviously religiously. I encourage you to re-consider the claims of the Bible, particularly Christ because that is what it is all about—we are all sinners and all have fallen short—even me. But by the grace of God, Jesus Christ, the infinite Son of God, took the infinite punishment from an infinite God, to make a way of salvation. Jesus is calling all people everywhere to repent. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). It doesn’t matter how many steps you’ve taken in the wrong direct, it is only one step back.
With kindness in Christ,