‘Secular’ Science 2

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.