We agree on that, but I'm not sure you also acknowledge there can't be theistic science, either. That subject is beyond the reach of science.
Real Science Friday: Baraminologist Dr. Roger Sanders on RSF
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Frayed Knot
New member
Sure, I'll acknowledge that. You say you brought it up in a debate, and I had not heard that debate, just your radio show (via podcast).
What I don't really understand, then, is why you bother with trying to find evidence on the RSF shows. I think of evidence as the stuff we seek to show us the path to what we accept. If you start off with the presupposition, then I don't get the point of the evidence you present, such as it is.
Are you just trying to give other people reasons to accept what you presuppose?
I don't see any difference in my story about magical leprechauns being necessary for logic, and your story that a god is responsible. They're both non-sequiturs - why would a human construct such as logic be dependent on invisible magical beings?
And how can science validate its use of logic? In the words of Stephen Hawking, "science works." Maybe we can't construct a formal system proving it so (and I think this is a manifestation of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem), but it seems to be pretty useful.
The validation of any rational thought, scientific or otherwise, requires that it be founded on the presupposition of the existence of the God of Truth. There is only theistic science. Otherwise, someone is simply being arbitrary, which is the antithesis of science. There is no neutral ground. For the atheist scientist's worldview cannot validate his use of reason. All science is faith-based.
-Bob
I don't see that. Most atheists work out logic puzzles the same way I do. God is never a part of it. Indeed, a computer can be used to do that without any thought at all.
Can't be. Science is completely unable to test the supernatural.
It is certainly provisional, if that's what you mean. Science makes no claim to being "true" in the logical sense. It is merely useful in learning about things. No theory is thought to be "true" in the sense that mathematical proofs are true.
Science is unable to be anything but neutral. That's how it works.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Assumption-based. On uniformitarianism. So far, so good.
The New Testament says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. That is, faith is the appropriate response to the evidence. Accumulating evidence both helps strengthen the faith of believers, and brings millions of unbelievers to salvation in Jesus Christ, all by humbly acknowledging the the evidence for the God of Truth.
Frayed Knot, since you don't believe in your leprechauns, then you are left with the challenge of justifying your claim that logic is valid.
Without logic and intelligibility, his claim that science works is arbitrary.
I think you can see easily that Hawking didn't answer the question. He committed another logical fallacy. By changing the topic, he is diverting the attention from the fact that he hasn't answered the question. Creationists agree that logic is valid. We are not arguing that it is invalid, nor that it cannot be justified. We point out that only a presuppositional affirmation of the God of Truth validates logic. Stephen Hawking probably recognized that he would be making a circular argument to answer the question, so he changed the topic.
Frayed, what you can't do is also pretty useful. That's what led Kepler to discover his three laws of planetary motion.
-Bob
Last edited:
Bob, the bottom line is that science doesn't have the kind of solid grounding that faith in God has. Just doesn't. It's a very pragmatic exercise, requiring no faith, just the assumption that nature is understandable and consistent.
It is completely different than religious belief (because that depends on a revelation from God) or mathematics (because in math, we make the rules and can therefore prove things).
Science is out there on its own. If it works, we keep it. If it doesn't, we toss it for something that does.
What's amazing is that it works better than almost anything else humans do. As Einstein said, the most incomprehensible thing about nature is how comprehensible it is.
Thanks to God, even if science can't tell us that.
It is completely different than religious belief (because that depends on a revelation from God) or mathematics (because in math, we make the rules and can therefore prove things).
Science is out there on its own. If it works, we keep it. If it doesn't, we toss it for something that does.
What's amazing is that it works better than almost anything else humans do. As Einstein said, the most incomprehensible thing about nature is how comprehensible it is.
Thanks to God, even if science can't tell us that.
Barbarian, even if atheists disagree or just don't think about it, if there is no God then all of their efforts to logically and intelligently observe reality are arbitrary nonsense, whereas if there is a God, then their use of logic and reason and their intelligence can produce some results that are actually valid.
There is only theistic science.
I think that people who resist God's creation become so esoteric that they confuse themselves.
I think it's a relativistic cop out for evolutionists to insist that special creation is false, that evolution is a fact (just Google whether evolution is fact or theory), and then say that science makes no claims of absolute (or logical) truth.
There is no neutral ground.
For the atheist scientist's worldview cannot validate his use of reason.
All science is faith-based.
-Bob
They are like people who say that they don't exist, all the while talking only because they exist; or those who deny that there is oxygen, all-the-while breathing oxygen while they are talking. Just because an atheist ignores the foundation of logic doesn't mean that logic has no foundation. Someone can fly on an airplane while denying the physics that keep it in the air.
There is only theistic science.
I think you are putting the horse after the cart. Regardless of what science can test or not (say, whether time can go backwards), science cannot function without logic and intelligibility, and atheistic assumptions cannot justify these; so when an atheist scientist is working, he is assuming truths that only the creationist's worldview can justify; when he stops working and starts posting on TOL, he's merely being inconsistent.
Do mathematical proofs exist?
I think that people who resist God's creation become so esoteric that they confuse themselves.
I think it's a relativistic cop out for evolutionists to insist that special creation is false, that evolution is a fact (just Google whether evolution is fact or theory), and then say that science makes no claims of absolute (or logical) truth.
There is no neutral ground.
I agree that science works. Although with all the relativistic qualifiers put on that by evolutionists, I'm not sure that they can consistently or meaningfully claim that science works. The reason that science works is because there is truth.
For the atheist scientist's worldview cannot validate his use of reason.
Because his worldview cannot validate even the foundation of his entire undertaking, before he meets an undertaker he should find the courage to either admit his life's work is meaningless, or to reconsider his worldview.
All science is faith-based.
That assumption is faith. And that faith cannot be justified by atoms, but only by the creationist's worldview that a God of truth placed us in the orderly universe He created so that we can comprehend it.
-Bob
Last edited:
That assumption is faith, and it is only justifiable if based on the God of Truth.
Nature is revelation from God. It is general revelation. It reveals the existence and some of the attributes of the Creator.
No man (nor scientist) is an island. Science lives and breaths the Creator's thoughts, regardless of whether it recognizes it or not.
That statement can only make sense if there is absolute truth.
That too.
Barbarian, I'm sure you know these quotes from Einstein, but perhaps you can consider again what this all means. Let me just copy this from AmericanRTL.org/Einstein (with links there):
In the collection in Out of My Later Years, Einstein wrote that, "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be," necessarily excluding from its domain "value judgments of all kinds." Thus science could not even prove that the Holocaust or slavery were wrong. And on wondering why mathematics corresponds so well to the universe, in 1921 Einstein asked, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" And in 1936 Einstein famously wrote that, "the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." Then in 1944, remarking about atheist Bertrand Russell, he described the ability to get from matter to ideas as a "gulf–logically unbridgeable," which some scientists and linguists refer to as Einstein's Gulf. For while matter can be arranged to represent data, information itself is not material.
Why Could Einstein Not Comprehend? The universe is the product of the mind of God. And God created man in His image. This is why human thought can do such a great job describing reality. Einstein could not understand this because he described himself as an agnostic and claimed to believe only in "Spinosa's God," by which he seemed to mean the laws of nature. Beyond Einstein's grasp then was the reason why mathematical thought could describe the physical world, Albert Einstein, perplexed because the mathematically beautiful formulas that the Great Mathematician conceived in His mind He then implemented in the creation.
Thus E=mc2. Because he was rejecting the God of Abraham, Einstein made it impossible to understand. "How could it be," as he would ask, that non-physical ideas should elegantly describe the physical realm? His rejection of the personal Creator also explains Einstein's inability to understand how ideas could arise from matter. They cannot. Ideas are not physical. But believing only in nature, Einstein was vulnerable to an extreme materialism. However, because a personal God created man with body, soul, and spirit, we can operate in the non-physical (i.e., spiritual) realm, of ideas.
Why Could Einstein Not Comprehend? The universe is the product of the mind of God. And God created man in His image. This is why human thought can do such a great job describing reality. Einstein could not understand this because he described himself as an agnostic and claimed to believe only in "Spinosa's God," by which he seemed to mean the laws of nature. Beyond Einstein's grasp then was the reason why mathematical thought could describe the physical world, Albert Einstein, perplexed because the mathematically beautiful formulas that the Great Mathematician conceived in His mind He then implemented in the creation.
Thus E=mc2. Because he was rejecting the God of Abraham, Einstein made it impossible to understand. "How could it be," as he would ask, that non-physical ideas should elegantly describe the physical realm? His rejection of the personal Creator also explains Einstein's inability to understand how ideas could arise from matter. They cannot. Ideas are not physical. But believing only in nature, Einstein was vulnerable to an extreme materialism. However, because a personal God created man with body, soul, and spirit, we can operate in the non-physical (i.e., spiritual) realm, of ideas.
-Bob
Last edited:
Could you enlarge on that a bit? It would be great if God could be logically obvious to everyone, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Barbarian observes:
Most atheists work out logic puzzles the same way I do. God is never a part of it.
The difference is, we can unambigously demonstrate physics by scientific methods.
Can't be. Science is completely unable to test the supernatural.
Seems to me you're putting Descarte before the horse.
Show us that.
Barbarian observes:
Science makes no claim to being "true" in the logical sense. It is merely useful in learning about things. No theory is thought to be "true" in the sense that mathematical proofs are true.
Yes. The difference is, in math, we make the rules and can therefore deduce the truth or falsehood of a proposition. In science, the rules aren't given to us, and we use particulars to infer the rules. This makes science totally unable to claim absolute truth, or to consider what might be beyond the physical universe.
Maybe so.
It's a fact. Directly observed, in fact. But it is also a theory, which is the strongest thing in science. Only after a hypothesis is confirmed by evidence does it become a theory. Laws are like theories, but weaker things, because they only predict, while theories predict and explain.
It's true.
Barbarian observes:
Science is unable to be anything but neutral. That's how it works.
Can you show us one of those?
Barbarian observes:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Most atheists I know, say you have to make your own meaning. This seems to satisfy them. But a meaningless universe can still be logical and predictable.
Barbarian observes:
Assumption-based. On uniformitarianism.
Inference. All evidence shows it to be true. It's like walking over an old bridge. You just saw someone no heavier than you do it, so you make the inference that it will hold you, too.
If that's faith, then uniformitarianism is based on faith.
I believe with all my being that He did. Did you know that Stephen Jay Gould once speculated in an essay that God made us because He wanted someone with whom to share it?
Still, that faith is not required to do science.
Barbarian observes:
Bob, the bottom line is that science doesn't have the kind of solid grounding that faith in God has. Just doesn't. It's a very pragmatic exercise, requiring no faith, just the assumption that nature is understandable and consistent.
It's based on previous evidence. It's always held up, but we have no proof that it will.
Barbarian observes:
[Science] is completely different than religious belief (because that depends on a revelation from God)...
To those who know Him. Those who don't, miss it completely. That is what St. Paul was saying in Romans 1:20, which indicates that His truth and authority are found in nature from the beginning of the world. An interesting rebuttal to the idea of sola scriptura.
Science can't comment on God. But scientists can. Thanks be to God.
I wonder what Einstein would have thought of the findings of neurobiology. Those findings have made it clear that consciousness will remain a mystery for a very long time. Maybe we'll never properly understand it, or the relationship between the brain and our thoughts.
It doesn't trouble me at all. Whatever and however God chose to do creation is fine with me. It seems unwise to produce doctrines not explicit in scripture and tradition; that way one does not have to back down later.
Bob, the bottom line is that science doesn't have the kind of solid grounding that faith in God has. Just doesn't. It's a very pragmatic exercise, requiring no faith, just the assumption that nature is understandable and consistent.
It's based on previous evidence. It's always held up, but we have no proof that it will.
Barbarian observes:
[Science] is completely different than religious belief (because that depends on a revelation from God)...
To those who know Him. Those who don't, miss it completely. That is what St. Paul was saying in Romans 1:20, which indicates that His truth and authority are found in nature from the beginning of the world. An interesting rebuttal to the idea of sola scriptura.
Science can't comment on God. But scientists can. Thanks be to God.
I wonder what Einstein would have thought of the findings of neurobiology. Those findings have made it clear that consciousness will remain a mystery for a very long time. Maybe we'll never properly understand it, or the relationship between the brain and our thoughts.
It doesn't trouble me at all. Whatever and however God chose to do creation is fine with me. It seems unwise to produce doctrines not explicit in scripture and tradition; that way one does not have to back down later.
Barbarian observes:
Bob, the bottom line is that science doesn't have the kind of solid grounding that faith in God has. Just doesn't. It's a very pragmatic exercise, requiring no faith, just the assumption that nature is understandable and consistent.
It's based on previous evidence. It's always held up, but we have no proof that it will.
Barbarian observes:
[Science] is completely different than religious belief (because that depends on a revelation from God)...
To those who know Him. Those who don't, miss it completely. That is what St. Paul was saying in Romans 1:20, which indicates that His truth and authority are found in nature from the beginning of the world. An interesting rebuttal to the idea of sola scriptura.
Science can't comment on God. But scientists can. Thanks be to God.
I wonder what Einstein would have thought of the findings of neurobiology. Those findings have made it clear that consciousness will remain a mystery for a very long time. Maybe we'll never properly understand it, or the relationship between the brain and our thoughts.
It doesn't trouble me at all. Whatever and however God chose to do creation is fine with me. It seems unwise to produce doctrines not explicit in scripture and tradition; that way one does not have to back down later.
BTW, I'm often blunt as a rock. And you've been as courteous as you have been direct, so I hope I haven't offended you by my bluntness. I'm enjoying the exchange, and do not intend to offend you.
Bob, the bottom line is that science doesn't have the kind of solid grounding that faith in God has. Just doesn't. It's a very pragmatic exercise, requiring no faith, just the assumption that nature is understandable and consistent.
It's based on previous evidence. It's always held up, but we have no proof that it will.
Barbarian observes:
[Science] is completely different than religious belief (because that depends on a revelation from God)...
To those who know Him. Those who don't, miss it completely. That is what St. Paul was saying in Romans 1:20, which indicates that His truth and authority are found in nature from the beginning of the world. An interesting rebuttal to the idea of sola scriptura.
Science can't comment on God. But scientists can. Thanks be to God.
I wonder what Einstein would have thought of the findings of neurobiology. Those findings have made it clear that consciousness will remain a mystery for a very long time. Maybe we'll never properly understand it, or the relationship between the brain and our thoughts.
It doesn't trouble me at all. Whatever and however God chose to do creation is fine with me. It seems unwise to produce doctrines not explicit in scripture and tradition; that way one does not have to back down later.
BTW, I'm often blunt as a rock. And you've been as courteous as you have been direct, so I hope I haven't offended you by my bluntness. I'm enjoying the exchange, and do not intend to offend you.
Frayed Knot
New member
You keep saying this, but it's just nonsense. To my ear it's like saying "the reason mathematics works is because mothers love their children." What? You're starting off your "logical" argument with a false presupposition.
The word "truth" is overloaded with semantic baggage, so I don't think it's very useful. We start with the idea that there is an external reality; that this external reality is not just a product of our imaginations, that it's the same for everyone. It's also apparent that humans have some capacity to observe this external reality, although our observations are not complete and our brains commonly make errors.
This assumption about an external reality seems to work. We'd jettison it if it didn't, but at this point in our experience it seems to be the right approach, and no one has come up with a better idea.
Since our brains commonly make errors, we've figured out the common categories of errors and came up with a set of methods to help us avoid those. That set of methods is called "science."
One of those common errors that science tries to avoid is our tendency to start with presuppositions and bias our conclusions based on those presuppositions. Science requires that you start with a clean slate.
He is logically obvious to everyone. But men "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18). And, "...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them...so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:19-20).
Yes! Atheists can work logic puzzles. But they are inconsistent with their worldview. An atheist who believes that only matter exists, can't justify his use of logic IN HIS WORLDVIEW. He is using laws of logic (which are not physical) to argue that only the physical exists. In doing so, the atheist shows theism to be true and atheism to be false.
And it's true that computers can work the same puzzles. But, the computer does not know it is working puzzles.
If God did not exist, you could do nothing and know nothing. Before one can use science, he must assume a few things:
A rational worldview must provide the Preconditions of Intelligibility. These are conditions that must be accepted as true before we can know anything about the universe. We must accept that our memory is reliable. We must assume that our senses reliably report the details about the universe we live in. If we are created by God, then theists have a reliable and rational foundation to trust our memories and senses. In a random chance chemical universe, why should we trust our memories or senses. When an atheist trusts his senses, he is being inconsistent with his worldview.
Before we can do science, we must assume the law of logic are true and we can trust them to govern our reasoning. In a creationist worldview, the laws of logic make sense because they come from the mind of a logical God. How can a theist explain how laws of logic come from chemicals and molecules? He can't. He has no foundation. The atheist does use the laws of logic, but he is inconsistent with his worldview.
There is Uniformity in Nature. In order to do science, we take for granted that the universe is understandable--that it can be quantified in a way the mind can comprehend it. We assume that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time. Because of this Uniformity in Nature, scientists can do science. The problem for atheists is that this Uniformity makes sense only in a creationist worldview. Why? Because God made all things (Gen. 1:1) and has imposed order on the universe. He upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3). And He guarantees that the laws of nature will not change arbitrarily (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20-21). A creationist has a foundation on which to stand when doing science. An atheist has none.
The atheist assumes that the physical laws will be the same in the future as they have been in the past, but in doing so, he is using circular reasoning. When an atheist is asked why will the future be like the past, he will respond that "It always has, so I expect it always will." But how does he know that there will be uniformity unless he reflects the past (i.e. uniformity). The atheist is trying to justify uniformity by assuming uniformity. One should never assume that which he is trying to prove.
Why can Barbarian know that the bridge will hold him? Because in the past, the bridge held another man without breaking. But unless Barbarian receives special revelation from God, he can't assume the bridge will not collapse.
Without the Supernatural, the universe and all that exists could not exist. There would be no science.
But if my life depended on it, I would rather have a horse pulling rhe cart than Descarte. Ha ha.
Without logic, no science could be possible. It's true that the earth orbits the sun and does not orbit the sun at the same time in the same way. Is this logically possible?
Learning that things are true or not true?
Is your theory above true?
In an atheistic random chance universe, with chemicals and molecules as the only foundation, why should there be science, mathematics or rules of any sort? Without our ability to reason and use logic, no truth can be known. If our thinking is the result of random chance chemicals, we can't possibly know that our reasoning is true--not even that our brain is composed of chemicals.
What is beyond the physical universe? For the atheist, nothing. But I submit that no atheist can honestly imagine nothing beyond the universe. God placed eternity in our hearts.
Physical laws describe the physical universe. Before you can have a theory or an hypothesis, you must assume that these laws are reliable (uniformity). This is only possible in a theistic worldview.
I took a closer look at the Baraminology model from one of my husbands Creation Science books. In short, though, the branches on each tree in the orchard are the result of loss of genetic information, not the gaining of information.
Take the dog tree from example. The dogs started out as one kind of dog. Populations of dogs became isolated and through breeding certain characteristic were lost while others became dominant. Some of this was deliberately done through human intervention. Chihuahuas are on the shallow end of the genetic pool. They are not capable of branching off and forming new dog kinds. A mutt is on the deep end. The trunk of the dog tree according to this model was a mutt with all the genetic information packaged to branch off and produce the canines we know today. No new information is created in this process. The branching happens in a rather short period of time as population groups are isolated. Most species in a baramin can interbreed. If a branch become too isolated then it loses its ability to interbreed--Donkeys and Horses for example--but they still produce a sterile offspring. Most of the isolating probably happened post flood. Most of our familiar species of animals we know today developed post flood.
The term Baramin is just a another word for kind. There is the dog kind, the horse kind, the apple kind etc. This model is definitely six day creation, young earth based.
Take the dog tree from example. The dogs started out as one kind of dog. Populations of dogs became isolated and through breeding certain characteristic were lost while others became dominant. Some of this was deliberately done through human intervention. Chihuahuas are on the shallow end of the genetic pool. They are not capable of branching off and forming new dog kinds. A mutt is on the deep end. The trunk of the dog tree according to this model was a mutt with all the genetic information packaged to branch off and produce the canines we know today. No new information is created in this process. The branching happens in a rather short period of time as population groups are isolated. Most species in a baramin can interbreed. If a branch become too isolated then it loses its ability to interbreed--Donkeys and Horses for example--but they still produce a sterile offspring. Most of the isolating probably happened post flood. Most of our familiar species of animals we know today developed post flood.
The term Baramin is just a another word for kind. There is the dog kind, the horse kind, the apple kind etc. This model is definitely six day creation, young earth based.
Thanks for your thoughts IK. And I'm looking forward to reading Tom's post! But back to Barbarian:
Barbarian: "Nor does science require any presuppostions than the obvious one:
Nature is consistent and knowable..."
Bob: "That's two."
Barbarian: "We think of it as one."
The very act of opposing a creationist worldview pushes people into confusion. Two is not one, and two should not be thought of as one. Especially when considering such an important matter as the existence of presuppositions, we should try to be rigorous.
So Barbarian, even if you've thought of that as one presupposition, don't you now agree that it is two different pre-suppositions?
-Bob
Barbarian: "Nor does science require any presuppostions than the obvious one:
Nature is consistent and knowable..."
Bob: "That's two."
Barbarian: "We think of it as one."
The very act of opposing a creationist worldview pushes people into confusion. Two is not one, and two should not be thought of as one. Especially when considering such an important matter as the existence of presuppositions, we should try to be rigorous.
So Barbarian, even if you've thought of that as one presupposition, don't you now agree that it is two different pre-suppositions?
-Bob
:mock: No fear
Alate_One
Well-known member
And a creation science book can claim that, except it is *wrong*. Firstly, as I keep telling you and Bob you need a *population* to hold genetic diversity/information. You can't get to lots of different organisms from TWO individuals in 4000 years without miracles being invoked. Even if wild animal species had the genetic diversity of dog breeds (which they absolutely do not) You still couldn't do it in 4000 years starting with two.
That is because, according to the laws of genetics, a single organism can carry exactly two different copies of any one particular gene. That means that a population of 2 can have exactly FOUR alleles for any one particular gene. In humans there are genes that have HUNDREDS of alleles, and wild animals (that haven't been reduced to a few individuals) have hundreds of alleles also. Reducing any species to two individuals is massive, unrecoverable in the short term, genetic loss.
There is a species alive today with 4 different forms of most every gene in it's entire population. It is the cheetah and they are so genetically similar they can give skin grafts to one another. They are essentially clones of each other. If a recent flood were true, EVERY animal (and plant) on earth should have that level of genetic diversity. And little to no evolution at all would be possible in such a short period of time.
If you haven't figured it out by now, a global flood, killing all organisms except two and those spawning huge numbers of diverse creatures is absolutely ridiculous from a scientific perspective.
Oh so you think that the "horse kind" including, donkeys, horses and zebras all evolved from two individuals in the 4000 years since the flood? You realize that there are many species of zebra which have different chromosome numbers (anywhere from 32 - 46)? Horses and donkeys have 64 and 62 respectively. So you're accepting that chromosome number change is apparently easy and can occur in a mere 4000 years? That ain't dog breeding Inzl, that is ridiculous hyperevolution.
- Status