This was my face earlier today when I read a bold-faced lie concerning my gender. It was less a reaction of anger and more one of utter astonishment that anyone could post such an easily-refuted statement about another human being.

Keep in mind that the arguments proposed by Dart come from a person who feels like a woman and dresses like one even though his precious science has told him he is not a woman. So his position on science is based upon whatever benefits him and not the truth. Oh and we do not need science to determine what gender a person really is, we just have to use our eyes and look between the legs.

Yup, someone really did write that about me. To see the context behind it, you should look here

So, what’s the issue here? Well, given the discussion was about whether or not science can be considered ‘evil’ (and therefore dismissed when it comes to explanations of our origins), I would say the chief issue is an obvious poisoning of the well fallacy. This particular fallacy involves discrediting an argument by attacking the person who made it. The idea is to say ‘look, that person endorses or indulges in behaviour X, therefore their theories are wrong’. It’s a lazy method of debating that is also a tacit admission of defeat – at least in my view.

My gender, my orientation and indeed anything about me personally aren’t relevant to the discussion. For the record, I am not transgender, and I don’t wear women’s clothing, but even if I were transgender, it would only be an issue if there was an underlying bigotry driving the argument. It’s aimed at being an insult because the person making the suggestion would consider it an insult – but it fails because I am not offended, only annoyed that the party involved makes the suggestion in order to avoid answering my points. It’s an evasion technique, and not a very good one. It’s an outright lie, from someone who likes to claim the moral high ground.

Having declined to post my final comment (which as mentioned in prior posts, is his right) TA has written a page ‘answering’ some of the points I raised. He has stated I am free to reply, but from previous experience I doubt my replies will get by unless they meet his rigid criteria.

If you are following this, you may wish to check out the comment train. I should point out that TA has since published my most recent comment, so in fairness he has opted to tackle it head on.

You might also want to look at my original rebuttal to some of his claims, and my follow-up too. The direct links to his articles are within those pages.

That being said, let us address what he said in what can be considered an ‘open reply’ by him. His comments will be in pink, and where he has quoted me, my comments will be in blue.

Darthtimon has provided us with a couple lengthy comments under the Secular Science & the Believer post so we have decided to reply in a post to make things a bit easier. We will skip duplicate comments by him.

#1. I urge you to take a look at your first sentence and consider that it is in fact, you who is distorting science.

We took another look at our first statement and we did not distort anything. Science is responsible for a lot of evil that takes place in the world and we only have to go as far bask as the angel of death, to see that medical science is not as pure as Dart. makes it out to be. As you will see in his comments, people distort what secular science does for many reasons and they choose not to include the negative items that field of research produces.

I will simply refer people to my previous posts. I believe it is clear that TA has repeatedly distorted science and what it aims to do. He also (as I put it in a comment to him) ‘throws the baby out with the bathwater’ when it comes to what we’ve accomplished thanks to scientific research. He accuses me of considering medical science as being ‘pure’. I never claimed anything of the kind. The human element of how our knowledge is applied defines whether something is ‘good’ or ‘evil’. The raw science itself is neither. Science is neutral. The application… That varies.

Having talked with many scientists over the years and many science supporters their thinking is that technology and medical research/application is science only when it benefits their arguments and as soon as you point out the negatives they get all upset and start crying foul. They do not like the reality that comes with secular science.

I wonder if TA understands both the irony and hypocrisy in his position. He has been quick to dismiss the benefits of scientific achievements, in favour of the negative implications. When it was pointed out that thanks to science, we have medicines that have saved literally millions of lives, he retorted with a strawman about the costs of procedures and the ethical dilemma of keeping someone alive via a machine. These issues are not to the scientific processes that led to the development of these machines and the development of medicines. It’s an attempt to conflate the issue. 

Likewise with the issue of pollution. TA claims science is responsible for this, and for the depletion of natural resources. Once again I must point out that it’s not science itself, but rather it’s application, and once again TA ignores the benefits of our pursuit of knowledge. I am at a loss to understand how he can call science evil, and yet simultaneously use a computer and the internet, which we wouldn’t have if not for research into computing. I don’t know whether TA drives or uses public transport, but cars and trains are the result of the development of technologies we wouldn’t have without study. 

#2.In the original post, you adopted examples that have nothing to do with science and tried to use those examples to disprove the scientific method. This demonstrates horrible ignorance of the scientific method. You are also ‘painting a partial picture’ of science (I imagine this means you too are lying, no?). Plus, once AGAIN you conflate science with other fields.

This is a good example of what I was just talking about. In one of his original replies Dart mentions the following items

Also, we wouldn’t have cars, trains, planes, the Internet, refrigerators, advanced farming, or power for our homes without science

Cars, trains, planes pollute so pollution is from secular science. Advanced farming also includes pesticides, products like Round-up DDT etc., as well as tractors which use up natural resources like gas and oil. The internet helps ISIS so science has contributed to that tragedy as well. I could go on but what is the point, Dart is going to close his eyes and just say that is not true. I will only say that medical science produces medicine with side effects that are sometimes worse than the disease.

Where I referred to him conflating scientific methods with other ideas, I was pointing his erroneous example of a couple seen leaving a hotel room when he discussed the principle of observation, and his injection of criminal investigations into a discussion of prediction. The examples and the manner in which they were given were misleading. TA doesn’t acknowledge this, and instead attacks my arguments for presenting only a partial picture of science, whilst going on to do exactly the same.

Nowhere is this more true than in his paragraph above. Pollution is a byproduct that wasn’t understood when cars, trains and planes were first developed. Since then, the rapid proliferation of these products and their impact upon our environment has far more to do with consumerism than science. In his rush to refer to pesticides and such, he ignores our ability to feed people far more easily than we could before. In his haste to criticise medicine for side effects, he completely overlooks how many lives have been saved by it. To declare that science has contributed to IS is a stretch beyond belief, not only straining for credibility but completely snapping the elastic. Once again – science is neutral – it is the application of it can be defined as good or bad.

Notice he uses the words ‘scientific method’ but no one was talking about the scientific method just science. He tries to change the subject in order to defend his position even though his position was shown to be erroneous. Oh and those same scientists I have talked to include all the fields of research as part of science. Dart. changes the scope of science to ensure he is not exposed as wrong.

I’m not even sure what he’s talking about here. It was TA whose first article started out by breaking down the scientific method! In any event, this is a meaningless paragraph – it doesn’t change the fact that science is neither good nor bad – it’s how that knowledge is used that defines it – and TA himself is happy to take full advantage of it, regularly, when using the internet, driving his car, using electricity, and buying frozen food from supermarkets. He doesn’t realise just how it influences his own life, and actually makes it better.

#3.The cost implications of medical treatment have nothing to do with the science behind those treatments. You are using the strawman argument (yet again). The cost (or lack thereof) of medical treatments varies from one country to the next, and is based on a variety of factors, none of which are to do with the actual procedure itself. Trying to mislead with false statements about ‘science ruining lives’ is a deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of what we’re discussing.

If the cost factor has nothing to do with science then why are not the pharmaceutical companies offering their products for free or at a drastically reduced cost? I am not using a straw man argument because the cost of those scientific advances do ruin people and science is responsible for their existence. But like I said in the previous point, we do not have to worry about the cost factor for the medicine Dart so proudly touts is not as healthy as he claims.

TA denies using a strawman then repeats the same strawman. The development of life-saving drugs through research has nothing to do with the policies that businesses enact when it comes to charging for these products. The cost of medical treatment varies around the world and depends on a variety of factors from country to country. TA has not addressed this, he has ignored it.

In Korea doctors routinely prescribe medicines to go with the medication you need for your ailment just to counter the side effects the drugs you need bring. Science ha snot provided people with good medicine and they cannot even cure the common cold, cancer, TB, malaria, and a host of other diseases.

If TA wishes to understand the beneficial impact of the development into medicine, he can take a look at the following:

The World Health Organisation’s evaluation of vaccination.

The PRB’s article on the same.

He will also want to look at how improvements to medical care have saved lives and helped prolong lives.

Finally, he can take a look at another, similar article.

Medical science, like all sciences, is a process that continues to develop – we may not have the cure for cancer yet, but we’ve advanced our treatments to the point where less people are dying from it. I’d call that a good thing.

#4.Likewise your comment about the Hippocratic oath. You do know what this oath is don’t you? It’s first rule is to do no harm. Letting someone die might be considered the ultimate harm – but obviously letting people suffer in pain is doing harm as well. It’s an ethical dilemma, but it’s NOT a scientific dilemma. This is once again a wilful and misleading statement from you.

we will give him that this is an ethical dilemma but the oath doe snot allow for harm to be done and when harm is done no matter what you do then you cannot keep your oath. You need to find a better one that guides doctors in their care of others and keep the quacks and evil medical practitioners at bay. When a doctor prescribes treatment he knows the patient and his/her family cannot afford then they are doing harm and I mad no misleading statements.

A doctor doesn’t control the economic or political circumstances that lead to some countries have private healthcare which can be costly. A doctor also doesn’t prescribe treatment on the basis of cost, but on the basis of how likely it is to do the job and save someone. This is also still not a scientific problem, but a social and political one, so yes TA, your statement was misleading, and so is your new statement.

The oath is part of medical field thus it is a scientific dilemma for they are not providing doctors with medicine or treatment that will not allow the doctors to uphold their oaths. if secular science is as good as Dart claims then they should be producing perfect medicine for the patients.

The Hippocratic oath has nothing to do with the development of treatments and procedures. It is about ethics. TA also keeps putting words in my mouth – I don’t claim science is perfect.

#5.Science has not actually produced directly anything of the things you claim science has produced. The manner in which scientific knowledge is used is a different question, but you’re trying (yet again) to confuse the two. Torture techniques… seriously?

This is just flat-out head in the sand denial and not even worthy of any rebuttal for his train comment does the rebutting for us. Dart seems to think that when he mentions an item it is produced by science but when I point out the negative products of science then they are not of science. Double standard and just absurd as well.

I don’t claim ‘science produced the train’, but it’s true we wouldn’t have trains, or cars, or electricity in our homes, without research into these things. Once again, I am forced to remind to remind TA that science is neutral – it certainly isn’t ‘evil’ – that’s how the knowledge can be used, but it can also be used for great benefit, something TA seems determined to ignore.

#6.Science is neither good nor evil. It is how that knowledge is USED that is key, and you would throw the baby out with the bathwater in your haste to dismiss all the good that knowledge has managed. Millions of people survive illnesses and injuries that just a century earlier would have been fatal. People have heat and light in their properties, we have the means to stay in touch with people who are all the way around the world, developed the means to protect crops and grow more, hardier crops, and generally moved on from the Dark Ages that you would have us live in.

We put in bold the words that convey the same message we were told by all those scientists we have discussed with over the years. They said ‘all science is good science’ and that is a crock for if all science is good then no one can complain about the Nazi angel of death or his experiments, nor can they find fault with eugenics and other scientific programs that ended the lives or reproductive abilities of human beings too vulnerable to protect themselves.

Nor can they claim ideas like Piltdown man are hoaxes or anything they do not accept as faulty science or pseudoscience. All science is good so the field must be infallible, holy, sinless, incorruptible or God. Sorry dart but science is sinful, led by sin and evil influenced by evil and very corruptible as so many police DNA labs would not be producing false results in order to get convictions. Secular science is far from perfect and it can be wrong which puts it on the evil side of things not the good side.

It increasingly sounds to me like TA does want the Dark Ages back. Nor does he understand what neutral means.

I say that science is neutral. To which TA replies with scientists saying ‘all science is good science’. I’ve never heard a scientist claim this. At any rate, it’s certainly not the argument I’m making, so what exactly is TA replying to, the points I’m making, or an argument that he’s inventing to distort my own?

Perhaps we should do away with hospitals, and irrigation, and electricity, and refridgeration, and so on. After all, science is sinful and evil and has unduly influenced the development of these things. Does it matter if disease would become rife and people would starve? Well, it would be holy and sinless and therefore ok, right?

Here he repeats his mantra of all the good things science has done and ignores the fact that groups like ISIS communicate around the world in hopes of killing others but repeating his mantra does not support his point but shows that he has no argument. I hate to break it to him but we do not need science to grow better crops. Coming from farming stock, we were better off when science minded its own business and stayed out of the food-producing industry.

Hypocrisy at its finest. TA ignores all the good our pursuit of knowledge has done, and continues to do so. Shall we take a look at how agriculture has developed? Quoted from here:

Farmers use technology to make advances in producing more food for a growing world. Through the use of technology, each farmer is able to feed 155 people today, compared to 1940, when one farmer could feed only 19 people (Prax, 2010). Farmers use technologies such as motorized equipment, modified housing for animals and biotechnology, which allow for improvement in agriculture. Better technology has allowed farmers to feed more people and requires fewer people to work on farms to feed their families.

Keep in mind that the arguments proposed by Dart come from a person who feels like a woman and dresses like one even though his precious science has told him he is not a woman. So his position on science is based upon whatever benefits him and not the truth. Oh and we do not need science to determine what gender a person really is, we just have to use our eyes and look between the legs.

I don’t even know what TA is on about here. He thinks I’m transgender? If I were, what difference would that make to fact-based arguments? Precisely none, so it would be an ad hominen fallacy. It’s also an attempt to poison the well, so in fact it’s two fallacies for the price of one!

#7.As I am not certain I pressed ‘reply’ when I typed out a response last time, this is my latest: What evil is that? Treat everyone fairly without judgement based upon my religious beliefs? A refusal to impose my beliefs upon others?

We saw his responses but we are tired of his tired, old, repetitive arguments that distort secular science and come from hypocritical positions.  If science treated everyone without judgment then evolutionists would not be fighting for a monopoly on the science classroom, it would not be seeking to ruin people’s careers because they happen to mention ID or creation and they would not attack those who disagree with them. Yes Dart has blinders on concerning his favorite field.

Let’s not forget other things that science does like lie to people, brings false theories and conclusions promoting them for decades even though they have been shown to be false and impossible. I am sorry but secular science is not as wonderful as Dart maintains.

Well the comments in his second post were mostly duplicates so we will end with the one above. Suffice it to say those who argue for secular science do so without a real foundation, without truth and without any rational or logical thought. he ignores facts and evidence to paint a picture of secular science that is not only idealistic but unrealistic.

Dart is free to respond in the comment section but we may not answer him because we are tired of those arguments that do nothing but lie to people.

A string of self-justification for distorting evidence, and tremendous hypocrisy. I don’t think TA understands just how much of the tools at his disposal during the course of any given day are available to him because of our development of technologies based on scientific study. Are there bad applications to some of these studies? Yes, I never denied that. TA however, denies the good applications out of blind faith, dismissing reason. I have made him aware of this rebuttal, and even gone so far as to post it as a comment, but I am not confident he will share the link, or indeed post the comment. We shall see.

I recently took on some more anti-scientific ideas from TA of Theology Archaelogy. As TA has a tendancy to edit comments (assuming he even lets them through) I am posting them here.

To begin with, I issued a challenge:

TA, I openly challenge your assertions here.

I had included the link to my article, but not unsurprisingly TA took the link out. We don’t want people to see challenges to his rhetoric now do we?

I also asked a question:

You keep referring to science as evil. It’s via science that we have life-saving medicines. Is this evil?

His first responses were as follows:

I am tired of the word assertions as people use it to avoid hearing the truth and I am tired of those people who use the term.

You obviously did not read what I said and it is typical of people who defend science to highlight only one small fraction of what science, especially medical science, does.

is it good to keep people tied to machines financially ruining them and their families?

Onward to my replies:

Except your assertions are exactly that – assertions. You aren’t making fact-based arguments – you are making interpretive assertions. In fact, for all your complaints about interpretation, you are blind to how you are guilty of exactly that. You have a rigid interpretation of the Bible as literal truth, but that’s only one possible interpretation of the Bible.

Your comment does what you also did in the article – it conflates and misleads. The financial implications of treatments vary from country to country and are the result of different political and social policies – this has nothing to do with science developing the means to save lives.

Also, in focusing on the minute (the use of machines to keep people alive) you are guilty of your own accusation – namely of highlighting only one detail. There are many procedures and medicines available to us today that we wouldn’t have if not for the efforts of science.

Also, we wouldn’t have cars, trains, planes, the Internet, refrigerators, advanced farming, or power for our homes without science. But I guess all this is evil too right?

His next responses:

Sorry that is only your subjective opinion which is influenced by the evil you allow to reign in your life.

this is what secular science supporters do, they distort and misrepresent secular science and only paint a partial picture of that research field and what it produces. In other words they lie.

Not only does medical science ruin people financially but it helps doctors violate their Hippocratic oath but extending the suffering of those who are ill, especially those who are terminally ill.

Then to answer his claims, secular science has also produced– pollution, weapons, bullets, missiles, mustard gas and other poisonous gases, pesticides, carbon dioxide, reduced our natural resources, reduced our financial resources by wasting money on theories and processes that do not exist and the list can go on and on and on,

The full picture of secular science is not a pretty one nor a beneficial one as we can add torture techniques to that list as well as plastics which do not erode away quickly. How many fish have been killed or mutilated by the plastic 6 pack containers?

I could go on but i think that is enough evidence for now.

What evil is that? Treat everyone fairly without judgement based upon my religious beliefs? A refusal to impose my beliefs upon others?

I urge you to take a look at your first sentence and consider that it is in fact, you who is distorting science.

In the original post, you adopted examples that have nothing to do with science and tried to use those examples to disprove the scientific method. This demonstrates horrible ignorance of the scientific method. You are also ‘painting a partial picture’ of science (I imagine this means you too are lying, no?). Plus, once AGAIN you conflate science with other fields.

The cost implications of medical treatment have nothing to do with the science behind those treatments. You are using the strawman argument (yet again). The cost (or lack thereof) of medical treatments varies from one country to the next, and is based on a variety of factors, none of which are to do with the actual procedure itself. Trying to mislead with false statements about ‘science ruining lives’ is a deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of what we’re discussing.

Likewise your comment about the Hippocratic oath. You do know what this oath is don’t you? It’s first rule is to do no harm. Letting someone die might be considered the ultimate harm – but obviously letting people suffer in pain is doing harm as well. It’s an ethical dilemma, but it’s NOT a scientific dilemma. This is once again a wilful and misleading statement from you.

Science has not actually produced directly anything of the things you claim science has produced. The manner in which scientific knowledge is used is a different question, but you’re trying (yet again) to confuse the two. Torture techniques… seriously?

Science is neither good nor evil. It is how that knowledge is USED that is key, and you would throw the baby out with the bathwater in your haste to dismiss all the good that knowledge has managed. Millions of people survive illnesses and injuries that just a century earlier would have been fatal. People have heat and light in their properties, we have the means to stay in touch with people who are all the way around the world, developed the means to protect crops and grow more, hardier crops, and generally moved on from the Dark Ages that you would have us live in.

 

 I twice responded to TA with the above and twice he ignored it, declining to even acknowledge my latest rebuttal. It’s his site so he is free to do exactly that, but in my view he does this because he is not equipped to address the points raised. 

Last night ranks among the worst for lack of sleep I have ever had. For reasons I don’t know, I could not settle, and so this morning feel beyond tired. I’ve not been feeling myself for a few days now, so I could really use good sleep, not the broken slumber I suffered last night. 

Worse, my tossing and turning probably kept my wife awake (or woke her up). For this, I can only apologise! 

We briefly return to TA’s first article on the subject of science and belief, before turning to a new article of his:

It is unrealistic as how can anyone expect a force to last 14 billion years? The assumption that it does is distorted thinking and a distorted view of the evidence.
Third, Hubble’s theory is undermined by the fact that no one at any time has ever seen the edge of the universe. There is no way to measure any expansion. We have no ‘stretch marks’ that reveal the different boundaries of the universe over time and no other markers that can be used to support the thinking that the universe expands or has expanded.

Moving galaxies are not evidence and using those as evidence is like saying, the city of Denver is expanding because cars are travelling away from the city. Without accurate, constant historical records measuring the expansion of the universe the expanding universe theory falls flat as moving galaxies only prove that God gave the galaxies enough room to ‘live’ and move in.

It’s only unrealistic to expect a force to last 14 billion years if you don’t understand what that force is or how it works. Likewise, to use (yet another) flawed example of cars moving away from a city as an analogy for the movement of galaxies betrays the ignorance from which TA approaches this topic.

The believer needs to remember one very important fact about secular scientists. They have not been redeemed by Jesus, they have not been made a new creature nor has the old man been removed from their lives.

 These people are deceived, blind and under the influence of evil thus their ideas, theories, conclusions, etc., will not be the truth. Though they may contain elements of the truth, this is merely a trap to deceive believers into leaving the truth for the lies of evil.

 No amount of education, no amount of experience, no amount of conducted experiments will overcome this fact. The secular scientist remains in sin, a prisoner of evil and blind to the truth. At no time does the Bible teach that we are to follow the unbelieving world and at no time are we taught anywhere in scriptures that we are to adopt or adapt their theories, ideas or conclusions.

 The choice is you either believe God or you believe secular scientists (evil) There is no middle ground.

What I would recommend anyone who is of the faithful to remember is – TA does not speak for the entirety of Christianity and please don’t feel compelled to follow his ultra-strict, completely inflexible interpretation of the Bible as the only answer. He is indulging not only in repeated strawman fallacies, but also in the false dilemma fallacy – to him, our only choices are: A, a strict adherence to the literal word of the Bible or B, an evil way of thinking that involves anything else. Option B requires wilful ignorance of facts and evidence, and an extremely judgemental attitude toward not only non-believers but people who don’t believe in the same way he does. Despite some of the arguments I may make, I don’t believe science and religion are incompatible – it’s the attitudes of people like TA that create that image.

On to his second article:

When it comes to determining where a believer gets their information the believer must remember that the secular world was not the place or the people they are to go to. Jesus made it quite clear that we are to follow the HS to the truth and the HS will lead us to use different fields of study we must be careful that we do not get sidetracked and start adopting erroneous data.

The word science is defined by Noah Webster as

  1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge;

Webster, N. (2006). Noah Webster’s first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Anaheim, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education.

Note with interest that TA turns to a Christian education foundation’s definition of science, rather than the standard definitions found elsewhere.

From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

 

Full Definition of science

  1. 1 :  the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

  2. 2a :  a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>b :  something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

  3. 3a :  knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methodb :  such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :  natural science

  4. 4 :  a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

From the Oxford dictionary:

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: the world of science and technology

He goes on:

But we must be cautious here and not mistakenly think that the knowledge that science obtains is perfect knowledge and all it proclaims is true.  The word knowledge is very general and that means that science will receive a lot of false information.

We cannot assume science, especially the secular variety, is pursuing the data that God wants us to have. The believer must remember that science is led by the majority of scientists who do not believe. This means that their work, their conclusions and observations are influenced by evil. This fact tells us that the field of science is under deception and blind. The light does not shine in its boundaries.

Even when some scientists claim to be Christian because they let darkness lead them away from the truth and darken the light they are to shine on that field of research. Some of what follows may be basic knowledge that everyone already knows but there might be some who have not heard of the following information yet.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, based on our observations of what we can see, hear and touch, and what we can study. It doesn’t claim to hold all the answers to all of life’s questions, and it doesn’t claim to be perfect.

Whether a scientist believes in God or not is beside the point. A good scientist will go where the evidence leads, and will not employ blind faith at the expense of facts (this is what creationists do).

Science in general is designed to look for natural answers. This means that any supernatural involvement in this world is excluded from its research. What this tells the believer is that secular science is not looking at all the data available to it and that it draws its conclusions based upon faulty research and data.

Secular science can discover things that God did, for example gravity. They can see how gravity works and how it influences the world, its orbit and so on. But it does not mean that they can come to the truth about the source of gravity or who made it.

In one sense TA is correct – science looks for natural answers. There is no system of observation which can find supernatural answers, since they are by definition impossible to define or study. This doesn’t mean they are dismissed – it simply means they are taken as an article of faith – which is the point of believing, is it not?

The secular scientist will look for a natural source not a divine one. They do not want supernatural answers which tells the believer that the secular scientist is not looking for or wanting the truth.

When it comes to our origins, secular science is the interloper, the usurper because they have entered the field of theology and the supernatural and have tried to change what actually took place in our history to fit their own desires—natural answers.

But when an event is supernatural in origin then secular science is out of its depth and cannot provide any answers to anyone. The best explanation is not the truth and when a field of research excludes the truth there is no way that it can come to the truth.

This is frankly, long-winded justification for ignoring fields of work where exhaustive studies have been carried out, which continue to provide evidence for evolution. It’s also an appeal to ignorance – so-called supernatural occurrences have, when re-examined using modern methods, been found to have natural causes in virtually all cases.

We are not going to spend much time here discussing the different rocks and how they point to one origin over another, suffice it to say that the secular geologist has not proven that the rocks formed as they theorize.

One theory has it that the planets formed by different rocks colliding together in the expanding universe, combining to form bigger rocks. No experiment has ever shown this to be true.

Yet more ignorance. We know how gravity works. We know how the relationship between mass, density and gravity works. The theory that planets form through a series of collisions is the best model that explains the facts – and geologists can point to evidence for the formation of rocks and fossil records – it’s hardly their fault TA can’t explain the evidence or comprehend the theories.

Other theories state that the rocks we see took millions of years to form yet again, no experiment has proven this idea correct. It is one thing to state a theory but it is another thing to prove that theory correct and all the years of education and experience a geologist has at looking at rocks does not mean they know how the rocks formed. There is no guarantee that the geologist, even with all of their education and experience, has found the truth let alone tell others the truth.

They have never observed the process they proclaim formed the rocks in action. They just look at already existing rocks and make a declaration that their ideas was how it was done. The words of point one applies to this field of research as well as all the fields we will place here in this article.

Still more ignorance. Geologists do not simply ‘look at rocks’. It’s a field of study which is far more complex than that. TA’s casual dismissal of it is telling. Next up, he moves on to genetics.

This is a fascinating field of research one that lets people see firsthand the complexity involved in God’s creative act. Many people complain that the bible is not a science textbook  and use that complaint to adopt secular ideas about our origins. But they are greatly mistaken in their conclusion. While the Bible is not a science textbook, that lack does not disqualify Genesis 1 or God from recording and acting as we read in that account.

If God put every little detail into the Bible secularists want to see in there, then the Bible would be so thick that no one would read it and I doubt they would be able to lift the book. God left some things for us to investigate for ourselves so that we will learn about him and glorify him for his power, his detailed work and so on.

Some people do indeed interpret the complexity of the genetic code and our bodies as a sign of creation. I don’t object to this on a theological level. As a matter of faith, I have no problem with anyone believing in Intelligent Design. As an article of what we can observe and study, we apply Occam’s Razor – there are many processes behind our evolution, and introducing a deity that cannot be quantified or measured is adding an extra mechanism that cannot be defined – therefore it’s not admissible from a scientific point of view.

He did not leave us that work to attribute his creative act to some non-existent natural process. The secular world does not understand why some genes turn off and others turn on but that is because they reject the true answer and seek one that fits their natural methods objective.

Genes turn on and off in certain ways because God’s handiwork was corrupted by Adam’s sin. We know why genes work the way they do and why people get diseases when others do not. It is not the result of natural selection but sin. The unbelieving scientist rejects this answer because they do not believe in sin or evil as the Bible describes it. They think that there is a natural reason for this phenomenon and again they are not looking in the right places for the right answers.

If we go by the argument that genes turn on and off because of sin, then this creates a philosophical dilemma. Why would babies and children be subjected to crippling, life-limiting and painful conditions, because of a sin that took place thousands of years ago? Indeed, why would anyone face all kinds of debilitating conditions because of this?

I am reminded of an interesting interview with Stephen Fry, who spoke passionately of what he would say to God if he met him.

On the other hand, if we are the result of the haphazard process of evolution, it makes sense that we are flawed on a biological level. It makes sense that every creature on the planet is vulnerable in some way shape or form.

Most often the secular scientist will simply say ‘we do not know why this takes place.’ which tells the believer that the secular scientific field of genetics does not have the answers and that they should be fleeing secular science not supporting it or accepting its wrong conclusions or theories.

God has allowed us an opportunity to find the truth of what he did at creation yet so many people claiming to be Christian have wasted that opportunity by going with secular ideas or trying to Christianize them. We need to look for the truth not the best explanation Christianized or secular.

We come back to Occam’s Razor. We have a process that we have observed taking place on the micro level, many times. We have fossil records for many species, including our own. All of these things can take place without a deity getting involved. God cannot be quantified by material means therefore is not part of the measurable equation.

Does this mean God doesn’t exist? My own personal answer is that I don’t know. I don’t claim to know this with any certainty one way or the other. If God does exist, then I, like many others I’m sure, would have a lot of questions. That however, is a philosophical discussion for another time.

image

We’ve only just gotten through Belgium and we’re already preparing for the next race – at another historic venue, Monza, in Italy.

Like Spa, Monza has a long and tragic history, one woven into the fabric of Formula 1 and motorsport. The has hosted the Formula 1 grand prix since 1950, having only not hosted it once. Also like Spa, it’s a fast track, in fact the fastest track on the calendar. Fast sweeping corners (Curva Biassono and Curve di Lesmo are very quick) and long straights are punctuated by the occasional chicane, but by and large you can spend much of the race at full throttle. This should favour the Mercedes and their customer teams, whilst Ferrari will hope to recover some ground on Red Bull, what with their more powerful engine.

This is where the title race heats up. Nine points split the Mercedes duo, with Hamilton enjoying the slender advantage. Rosberg has described every race as a ‘cup final’, whilst for Hamilton it’s ‘game on’. Off track, there are uncertainties which have only increased following Felipe Massa’s announcement that he’s retiring at the end of the season. Jensen Button’s future at McLaren is far from certain, so a seat with Williams might appeal, and Sergio Perez is said to be in the mix (though with Force India threatening Williams for fourth place in the constructor’s championship, might his current team be a better option?).

The run-in is here, starting with Italy and the final leg of the European circuit.