Is Young Earth Creationism a Science?

[harvey1]

Recently, I've had some discussions in the Christianity sub-forum where we argued about whether academia has the right to define what academic used terms mean. And, it seems that the consensus seems to be that the populace has a majority share in what terms mean. So, since many people believe that Young Earth Creationism is a science, I thought that a majority in this sub-forum would have no problem calling YEC a science. Is that true? Can we dispense with YEC as being unscientific because some certain populace now has defined science differently than the academic departments throughout the world? Any thoughts?

[Jose]

Thanks for the compliment.

You're most welcome.

You seem to have this strong desire to "reconcile" different religions. But religions are incompatible with one another. ...

I didn't make myself clear. I fully agree that religions are incompatible with one another; that's their nature. What I was trying to do (some time ago, now) was examine the notion of "truth." I don't know if I can say it differently, but I'll try...

I imagine that any religion that has an origin story considers that origin story to describe the origin of the earth, its animals, plants, rocks, and people as they now exist. Therefore, that religion should somehow be compatible with the world that it describes. If the story is not compatible with the world itself, then there must be a reason for the incompatibility. Either the world is wrong, or the story is not literally true. In general, people are happy with the idea that the story is not literally true, as long as they're talking about someone else's religion.

Now, consider the claim of many religions that they describe Absolute Truth. Again, that Truth must be compatible with the actual world, if said Truth is really true. It's easiest to check this Absolute Truth through the overlaps between a religion's claims and the world that it describes. Mere origin stories are only a part of it; there are other overlaps, such as so-called sins--like the misconception that it is a choice to be gay, and therefore a sin. We can also envision the possibility that, in the future, people will invent new technologies that enable us to detect things we cannot detect now, and that those technologies will broaden the overlap between science and religion.

As a general question, what do we do when we encounter something that a religion describes differently than science? I should rephrase that: the religion's description is at odds with the data that scientists uncover (not the interpretations of the data). Is the religion's Absolute Truth really true, or is the data--measurable aspects of the world--really not there? Because anyone can reproduce the data, it would seem that we have to accept the data as Fact--as Truth. As with the consideration of origin stories above, it seems we either have to reject the world or consider that the religion's description might not be literally true.

If that religion is a take-it-or-leave-it thing, and that religion insists that the description really is literally true--it's Absolute Truth--then, it seems to me, we must reject the religion. It is not Absolute Truth. Now, it may be that we can accept a variant of that religion, in which this error has been corrected (i.e. we read this bit metaphorically instead of literally). Well, this kind of reasoning is what leads to the development of different denominations. This happens all the time; there are bazillions of flavors of Christianity, based on different readings of the text (i.e. taking some things and leaving others). There seems to be a lot of room for interpretation. (This seems to me to argue against the take-it-or-leave-it idea, but I guess you can just make the changes you like, and rename it as a new religion that you take or leave as a package.)

Going back to the Absolute Truth idea, and the overlap between science and religion--i.e. where religions make claims about the detectable world--there's another way to look at it. We can look at religions historically. They come and go. New ones replace old ones if the new ones offer "something better" than the old ones. People invent religions in order to try to make sense out of the world (origin stories, battling sea monsters to explain tsunamis, Babel to explain different languages, etc). Maybe we'll keep inventing until we get one that is fully compatible with the Real World. Maybe it will take a few thousand years...who knows?

It seems impossible to me that there can be Absolute Truth that is incompatible with Facts that we can just go out into the world and observe. The notion of Absolute Truth is that it is True. Period. So, if religion is a way of finding Truth by one set of rules, and if science is a way of finding truth by a different set of rules, they must converge on the same Truth as each becomes more precise. Science seems to become more precise by reiterative modification of explanatory theory in the light of more Facts. Religion seems to use a different method of changing over time; there seems to be a process of inventing new religions, throwing out old ones, with lots of different ones in vogue at any one time.

People can agree on science. Everyone can look at the data. The data are facts. In our Search for Truth, science is a universal method that everyone can accept. Worldwide, there are scientists of all religions and nationalities--evidence that everyone can agree. [Where there is denial of scientific conclusions, it is usually accompanied by not looking at the data, and is based on perceived incompatibility with religion.]

People don't agree on religion. Yet, to adherents of different religions, everyone's religion is Absolute Truth. Mine may not be the same as yours, but to each of us, each is Absolutely True. What contribution, then, can our religions have in our Search for Truth? If your "Truth" is different from my "Truth," then one or both of these "Truths" can't be true. One or both must be a kind of "personal truth," that is more of a personal guide to living than it is a description of Reality. Because there are so many different religions, it seems that, with respect to the overall True Reality of the world (physical and spiritual) they are most likely all to be "personal truth."

In the realm of overlap between science and religion, religions tend to differ from science. Because scientific data are objectively verifiable, and true regardless of a scientist's religion, the disagreement among religions seems, once again, to put them into the realm of "personal truth." This is not a claim that science is the only way of discovering truth; rather, it's a variation on an argument commonly used in support of religious truth. In that version of the argument, we say "Christianity has so many followers that it must be true"--an appeal to numbers of adherents. In this version of the argument, we say "truths discovered through scientific methodology are objectively verifiable by everyone, regardless of their religion, producing agreement among those who are willing to look at the data"--an appeal not to numbers but to the property of being objectively verifiable. In the event of disagreement, religions simply disagree; in science, it is possible to look at the data, figure it out, and reach agreement.

It has often been said that claiming Absolute Truth puts a religion at risk of becoming irrelevant. People will believe it happily as long as they don't know about anything that contradicts the religion's claims. When they finally learn about these things, they are likely to convert--if not to a new religion, at least out of that old one. This, it seems, is the basis of the claim that teaching evolution will lead kids to adopt a godless heathen lifestyle. If kids learn that evolution really is true, and that their religion argues against it on the basis of a story and in contradiction to observable Fact, they are likely to think seriously about the validity of the religion's dogmatic claims. The son of one of my friends exemplifies the problem here: he started college planning to major in Biology. After a while, he felt compelled to change majors, so that he wouldn't learn about evolution. He felt it was important to keep his religion, and knew that if he learned more, he wouldn't be able to. So he stopped learning.

In short, it's not that I want religions to be compatible, or that I think they should be. Rather, it is their very incompatibility that argues against using them to understand aspects of the world that can be studied objectively. The objective facts, accessible to all, enable us to resolve the differences.

The incompatibility, in the face of strong belief by individual adherents, further argues for religion as a personal, rather than universal, belief system. There cannot be as many Absolutely True "spiritual realities" as there are religions that describe them...unless we are at the nexus of a great many spiritual universes, and each religion taps into a different one.

You talk about religions making predictions that can be checked. ... But religions that deal with "eschatological" (end of the world) themes rarely make such precise predictions. Instead such matters are treated as an ultimate or transcendent reality, much like an afterlife, that cannot be directly verified prior to their happening.

Sorry--it's that language thing again. I use "prediction" in the scientific sense of the term, not the "guess the future" sense of the term." If you take a peek at the Flood as Science thread, you'll see what I mean. The hypothesis of a world-wide flood can be checked. If such a flood occurred, certain things would have happened. These things would have created certain products. We can look at the earth and see if those products are there. The hypothesis predicts the existence of those products. Similarly, the hypothesis that everyone got off the ark in the middle east and then walked to their current locations makes certain predictions, based on how fast different creatures can walk, their lifespans, their social/solitary nature, and based on how far they can swim. Again, we can look at the world and see if the locations of various creatures match these predictions.

You say you want to match the reality identified by a deductive, take-it-or-leave-it thinking with that "revealed by inductive methods". Can this be done? Good question. They have to overlap first. Even then they have to be comparable. Let's take a simple example. Suppose you have your students do a laboratory exercise. One student, "quiet Carmel", works by herself and writes a very detailed report. Another student, "flashy Frank", is yakking away the whole time and writes a report that has lots of flashy graphics with little detail. It turns out Carmel comes to a different conclusion than Frank. Well, they studied the same phenomena but it's going to take more than comparing their reports to see who's right.

Indeed, overlap is essential. In the regions of non-overlap, there's no problem--which is why I speak of religion being fundamentally about that which is not scientifically accessible, and why I agree with those who do pick and choose those bits of their religion that they'll buy into. Where there is overlap, and where science shows the story to be wrong in its literal sense, it makes sense to treat the story as a story that speaks to us of a deeper "truth" that is outside the realm of science.

With respect to Carmel and Frank, there is a very simple resolution. Their conclusions rest upon their data. If they did the same exercise with the same techniques, they should have obtained similar data. If they didn't, then one of 'em screwed up. I'd guess Frank, from what we know of him. Even then, we don't have to guess--we can look at other students' data and see whether Frank's is similar to the majority of them. This is why we insist that results be replicable--to distinguish whether anomalous data result from "operator error" or from something interesting. Even if Frank and Carmel have identical data, there remains the possibility that Carmel interpreted her data in the context of other data from other investigations, and Frank overlooked something basic when he pulled his interpretation out of the air. Again, we can check this by working through the logic. We have the data, after all, and can interpret it as often as we like. Generally, we find that the data force us to the same conclusion over and over--regardless of what Frank's report may have said.

In this regard, religions are fundamentally different. They are the report, just the report, and nothing but the report. There are no data to go back and re-evaluate. Sure, there may be a setting for the story, but that setting, no matter how accurate, doesn't help us with the unique, non-reproducible, events that contradict the laws of nature as we know them now. Raven did his important stuff in the arctic; his setting is accurate, but that doesn't prove that Man originated by germination of pea seeds. Ant did his important stuff in the African savanna, but the accuracy of the setting doesn't make humans the product of a complex weaving. Nor does the accurate description of a middle eastern setting tell us that bushes talk when on fire. With respect to the Key Events that define a religion, there is no data.

You say that some religions "put their deductive reality first". That's exactly right. Religion is more important than science, and those religions that are more open to science do so because of their religion. But there is usually an open space between religious doctrines and scientific consensus -- and for most people that includes physical origins.

Let's rephrase that, to be fully accurate: "For some people religion is more important than science." I would say that those religions that are more open to science are not threatened by its findings, and more concerned with philosophical issues than with nuts and bolts. This includes some flavors of Christianity, but excludes others. Typically, the ones that feel threatened are the ones whose adherents know the least about science; they are also usually the ones that are most dogmatic in their religious views as well. This leads to strange conclusions, like "the teaching of evolution causes homosexuality."

Christianity has been "pro-science" for a long time and still mostly is. But because science is amoral and there are those who use science's prestige and amorality to promote amoral or immoral behavior, there is increasing resistance to science.

If people would actually listen to science, they'd see that it provides a stronger basis for morality than does religion. It is farcical to say that science promotes immoral behavior, especially if science is "amoral." Science describes what exists. That's all. It is a false, and somewhat paranoid link to go from teaching evolution to "babykiller," to quote from the hate mail sent to the Kansas school board. Again, making this kind of link indicates an astonishing lack of understanding of science, and a remarkably active imagination.

I think this covers the spectrum of religious, philosophical, and political views. Pick your issue: genetically modified foods, human cloning, euthanasia, etc. -- scientific research and policies promoted in the name of science are impinging on religious turf.

We should be specific here: not "religious turf" per se, but turf that a very small subset of religions have claimed as theirs. Even so, it's interesting to look at these issues and see whether the "True Christian" stance is valid.

Genetic modification: everyone is perfectly happy to eat super-sweet corn, which is genetically modified by one technique. Yet, some people seem unhappy at the idea of making corn nutritionally complete, even though it would help stave off starvation, because it uses a different technique. Is the technique more important than the starvation of your fellow man? Is your personal religious objection to a technique sufficient justification to force starvation on members of other religions, or should you simply not eat that corn yourself? If it's their religion, not mine, and my religion has no objection, and there is no ecological down-side, who are they to prevent me from feeding my kids?

Human cloning: I agree that cloning humans just to make more humans is silly. However, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to save my daughter's life by taking one of her skin cells and inducing it to change its pattern of gene expression, thereby producing a cell type that can cure her disease. If someone objects to this on religious grounds, then let them not try to save their own daughter's life. But why should they force my daughter to die?

Euthanasia: Having watched all three of my parents (well, one was a step-parent) die slowly and painfully, I wonder why Christian compassion forces such painful suffering on people. Doesn't the Constitution forbid cruel and unusual punishment? The Supreme Court has said we aren't allowed to execute murderers by methods that might cause pain, but we are required to force our loved ones to suffer. We won't let our pets suffer, but we force our mothers to.

I see none of these issues as "science impinging on religious turf." Rather, they are religion--specifically a narrow and dogmatic interpretation of one flavor of religion--trying to force their views onto the rest of us. It's not their business how I die; why do they insist that it be as slow and painful as possible? It's not their business whether I try to save my daughter's life, or whether I try to feed my family. If someone's religion forbids them from doing something, then they don't have to do it--but they shouldn't make everyone else follow a set of rules that, so far as we know, were made up by a tribal shaman. Those whose religion it is rarely understand this kind of argument; for perspective, it's interesting to consider being forced to follow the rules of Scientology because someone else believes them. In that case, many of us would consider such forcing to be immoral.

[kilczer15]

"Is young Earth Creationism a Science?"

No.

No. No. No.

Not in a freaking billion years. They think the Earth is like 10000 years old. The absurdity of such a statement boggles ones mind...

[Jose]

"Is young Earth Creationism a Science?"

No.

No. No. No.

Not in a freaking billion years. They think the Earth is like 10000 years old. The absurdity of such a statement boggles ones mind...

Thanks for joining the discussion, kilczer15! It's an interesting thing...there are those of us who consider such an idea as a young earth to be mindboggling, what with all of the data demonstrating otherwise. The fact is, however, that YECs really do believe in a young earth, and consider their reasoning to be far more sound than that of science. But, the fundamental question of the thread is about the process of YEC investigation, and the logic whereby they match their data with the 10000-year-earth conclusion. Is this a scientific process?

It turns out that this becomes a discussion of "what the heck is science, anyway?" It seems to me, from what I've learned in these discussions, that a huge percentage of the US population has a conception of "science" that is wildly different from what it really is. By that misconception, YECism is "science." That's why Kansas thought it was OK to define science as allowing supernatural explanations. If we use real scientific methodology, we won't end up with supernatural explanations even in Kansas, because the data don't force us to such a conclusion.

So....your argument seems to be that the conclusion of a 10000-year-old earth makes it "not science." I'll argue, for amusement, that true science can come to incorrect conclusions, so having an incorrect conclusion is not enough to make YECism not-science. Can you offer us some additional reasoning for why YECism isn't science?

[kilczer15]

YEC starts with a conclusion an attempts to build evidence around it, while true science builds evidence and then draws a conclusion. If later they find evidence that disproves their theory, they will go back to the drawing board or try to correct the theory.

YEC is not science. It is religion.

[Scrotum]

According to a ´Dr´ Kent Hovind, Atheism is a religion, because we need to "believe" no God exists.

Out of curiousity, how would you tackle that one Kilczer? The YEC defines this as science, on what ground can we go against it? Some people define religion as "belief" (like Hovind), others use a clear definition thats been accepted by the community, who are we to judge?

[McCulloch]

According to a ´Dr´ Kent Hovind, Atheism is a religion, because we need to "believe" no God exists.

Out of curiousity, how would you tackle that one Kilczer? The YEC defines this as science, on what ground can we go against it? Some people define religion as "belief" (like Hovind), others use a clear definition thats been accepted by the community, who are we to judge?

Atheism is not a religion by most accepted definitions of religion. There is more to religion than mere belief. For an unimpeachable authority on this point check out James 1:27, "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." Atheism is the belief that there is no God or that there are no gods. It is not a science either.

Kent Hovind's diversionary tactic, however, does not change the fact that YEC is not science.

[harvey1]

Atheism is not a religion by most accepted definitions of religion. There is more to religion than mere belief. For an unimpeachable authority on this point check out James 1:27, "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." Atheism is the belief that there is no God or that there are no gods. It is not a science either. Kent Hovind's diversionary tactic, however, does not change the fact that YEC is not science.

Agreed. Atheism and theism are philosophies. That's why I keep going back to the point that these philosophical terms are defined by philosophers.

[rigadoon]

Because there are so many different religions, it seems that, with respect to the overall True Reality of the world (physical and spiritual) they are most likely all to be "personal truth."

I quoted this out of order to set some direction. Let's say someone makes 1000 fortune cookies and puts your name in only one of them. If you chose one at random, probably it would not be correct. That doesn't mean your name isn't on one of them, only that picking them at random won't find it. That's similar to finding the true religion. If one makes a list of all religions, then one chosen at random will probably not be the true one. But that doesn't mean the true one isn't there. While we have discussed religion in general to some extent, it's clear that Christianity in particular is the religion that is the focus (and the website). Other religions are a distraction and its difficult to say anything that applies to all religions so I suggest we just ignore them (someone else can respond about them if they want). I'll try to respond to your concerns that could apply to Christianity.

You mentioned a number of issues. First, what a religion asserts about origins. Let's take as an example a denomination that is friendly to YEC: the Southern Baptist Convention (Jerry Falwell's denomination). Their Statement of Faith (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp) affirms that God is the Creator of the Universe and man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. Nothing about the age of the earth, etc. So one could be a good Southern Baptist and believe all sorts of things about origins as long as it doesn't contradict these few propositions.

Different interpretations of the Book of Genesis didn't start in the 19th century. See for example the discussion of St. Augustine (AD 354 to 430) at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Sc ... Young.html.

Can supernatural events be checked? If there were witnesses, there could be testimony or documentation of what happened. If not, would there be physical evidence that remained? Perhaps, but physical evidence by itself could likely be "explained" by appeal to natural processes. So checking physical evidence by itself will not prove or disprove that a supernatural event occurred.

One thing I've noticed is the weight that people assign to evidence from documents vs. from physical sources. You mentioned that juries like physical evidence. That must mean not just any physical evidence but something like a DNA sample that has been analyzed by a trustworthy source. They see it on TV so it must be easy. Of course real-life trials aren't that easy. And material about the distant past is much harder to analyze. But there seems to be a cultural trend that finds it easy to doubt people and documents -- perhaps as fallout from political cynicism. It's relevant to this thread because YECs place much weight on documentary sources about ancient events. Their opponents seem to place more weight on physical evidence, no matter how incomplete.

You mention "the misconception that it is a choice to be gay, and therefore a sin" -- there are two parts here: the politically correct "fact" that people cannot change their sexual behavior which depends on censoring people who have changed. The other part is the "therefore". Whether someone can change themselves or not makes no difference concerning what is a sin: the only thing necessary for an action to be sinful is that it is displeasing to God. You mean we could be responsible for something we can't change? Yes. We can't change our depraved human nature but we are responsible for everything we do. What is the solution? That's what the Gospel is all about.

You say "there are bazillions of flavors of Christianity, based on different readings of the text". Actually there are many different reasons why churches split (particularly in America -- it's rare elsewhere). Overall there are about half a dozen main doctrinal differences and nowadays the different groups usually recognize one another as fellow Christians despite their differences.

You say, "if religion is a way of finding Truth by one set of rules, and if science is a way of finding truth by a different set of rules, they must converge on the same Truth as each becomes more precise." Christianity is most definitely not a "set of rules". Perhaps the fact that Christians affirm moral truths has misled you. Christianity is about "faith working by love" (to quote the New Testament), not rules.

"People can agree on science." Well, people don't agree on psychology. People don't agree on sociology. Are these sciences? The mainstream scientific community says so. And if you think science has a "universal method" that everyone agrees on, take a trip to the Middle East and see how many people agree with you.

Laboratory sciences, where there are highly controlled experiments, produce the most agreement. But the further one gets away from that, the more scientific methods are open to objection or doubt. Goethe's objection to Newton echoes still: if you want to understand light, don't pull down the shade -- go outside! Modern science has lost sight of the "what" of what is investigated in its fascination with abstractions that can be manipulated (see www.natureinstitute.org).

In the end it's the data that people can agree on more than anything (we seem to agree on this). Though philosophers are right to warn that facts are "theory-laden", it's more important to recognize the tremendous incompleteness of scientific data. Let me put it this way: consider your wife. What is it that makes her who she is? One could say she's a human being, has certain dimensions, has this personality type, etc. -- but none of these things would distinguish her from a crowd of others. What makes her who she is is what is unique about her. That's the most important thing. And science ignores what is unique. Exactly what is most important.

If we think that gathering scientific data about someone, something, anything will tell us "who" or "what" they really are, we are deluding ourselves. We will be left with generalities, abstractions that we can manipulate, but a thin reality behind those abstractions. To get beyond this one must step outside of the laboratory (literally and metaphorically). Are there any data out there? Yes, but they may be excluded by scientific rules of evidence.

When I mentioned "resistance to science", I should have said "scientism" (science as the only justifiable access to truth) or exaggerated claims about science that are leading to resistance.

The moral issues I mentioned are of concern to many "non-religious" people, too. You surmise that you know what the "True Christian" stance is -- I wonder where you're getting this from. Christians disagree about genetically modified foods for example. The points you raise are also raised by some Christians. Others raise concerns about the potential impact on ecosystems. As for human cloning, as far as I'm aware the issue is the creation of an embryonic clone to be destroyed.

Euthanasia in the form of (assisted) suicide is wrong because it violates the sanctity of human life. Yes, that is a religious proposition but it's also a primary function of government to protect the vulnerable and there are good practical reasons why euthanasia is exploitative. At first there are assurances of safeguards but the reality is different. The infirm are a burden on others so there is a subtle (or not so subtle) pressure on the patient to acquiesce (if they can speak). In Holland today, people are being euthanized without their permission. And they are about to authorize infanticide in words that are similar to those used by Germany in the 1930's. Yet today there is much palliative care that can be provided to minimize suffering.

[Jose]

If one makes a list of all religions, then one chosen at random will probably not be the true one. But that doesn't mean the true one isn't there. While we have discussed religion in general to some extent, it's clear that Christianity in particular is the religion that is the focus (and the website). Other religions are a distraction and its difficult to say anything that applies to all religions so I suggest we just ignore them (someone else can respond about them if they want). I'll try to respond to your concerns that could apply to Christianity.

Other religions are not a distraction at all. They are exactly analogous to Christianity, and to the outside observer, they call into question the "truth" of Christianity. Sure, Christianity may claim to be "the one true religion," but how can we tell whether it is more true than any other? Unless there is some measure for distinguishing relative truth, I don't see how we can possibly choose just one of them for consideration. 1000 fortune cookies may not be enough, especially if religion is a human construct.

First, what a religion asserts about origins. Let's take as an example a denomination that is friendly to YEC: the Southern Baptist Convention (Jerry Falwell's denomination). Their Statement of Faith (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp) affirms that God is the Creator of the Universe and man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. Nothing about the age of the earth, etc. So one could be a good Southern Baptist and believe all sorts of things about origins as long as it doesn't contradict these few propositions.

First, a Statement of Faith is not the whole doctrine, so we can't tell what their beliefs are in detail from such a summary statement. Nonetheless, the summary that you offer is pretty restrictive. It does, after all, state that there was a creation, and that the creator was male, and hominoid in appearance. So far, this is untestable conjecture, and therefore on a par with other flavors of supernatural origins. If this were all there were to it, Jerry Falwell would have not problem with evolution. That he seems not to be overly fond of it indicates that the dogma of his sect includes more details.

Different interpretations of the Book of Genesis didn't start in the 19th century. See for example the discussion of St. Augustine (AD 354 to 430) at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Sc ... Young.html.

This might correlate with the discovery of facts that would seem to call into question the validity of the surface-story of Genesis. There would be no reason to consider different interpretations if there were no reason to question the standard one.

Can supernatural events be checked? If there were witnesses, there could be testimony or documentation of what happened. If not, would there be physical evidence that remained? Perhaps, but physical evidence by itself could likely be "explained" by appeal to natural processes. So checking physical evidence by itself will not prove or disprove that a supernatural event occurred.

As we know from a great many studies, human memory of events is pretty poor. So is the ability of people to observe events and note a significant percentage of the details--which results in different eyewitnesses recounting different stories of the same event. So, we must rely on physical evidence. It seems to me, there are two basic options: natural explanation or supernatural explanation. As it turns out, it is impossible to rule out a supernatural explanation for anything--god may have created it 2 seconds ago to look just like it is now, and we'd never know. If we want to distinguish between natural and supernatural (except for the type of supernatural explanation I just mentioned), it kinda makes sense to determine whether we can rule out a natural explanation. If not, it seems that the only reason to invoke a supernatural explanation is that one wants to. It's not required by the data, but is an add-on. One can add on any kind of supernatural explanation one likes, as long as it produces what we see.

One thing I've noticed is the weight that people assign to evidence from documents vs. from physical sources. You mentioned that juries like physical evidence. That must mean not just any physical evidence but something like a DNA sample that has been analyzed by a trustworthy source. They see it on TV so it must be easy. Of course real-life trials aren't that easy. And material about the distant past is much harder to analyze. But there seems to be a cultural trend that finds it easy to doubt people and documents -- perhaps as fallout from political cynicism.

One reason that DNA evidence is overshadowing people's mere testimony is the rather large number of convicted killers who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. It rather looks like relying on eyewitnesses and the like has a fairly high error rate.

But we don't mean just DNA evidence, but all sorts of forensic clues. These are, by the way, clues to things that happened in the past. The basic rules are the same as for things that happened longer ago. The funny thing about YEC philosophy is that it accepts this kind of evidence for the distant past until we hit the magic moment...and all evidence of older moments is "wrong," even though it's indistinguishable in overall character from the evidence that is "right."

It's relevant to this thread because YECs place much weight on documentary sources about ancient events. Their opponents seem to place more weight on physical evidence, no matter how incomplete.

And what documentary sources do you mean? Frankly, it doesn't matter what documents we use here, because historical accuracy in describing the place and some of the characters in a story has no bearing whatsoever on the fictional parts of the story that is put into that setting. What it boils down to, in the end, is whether one accepts the untestable parts of the story--the things that, in another religion, we would call fictional.

You mention "the misconception that it is a choice to be gay, and therefore a sin" -- there are two parts here: the politically correct "fact" that people cannot change their sexual behavior which depends on censoring people who have changed.

I've had this discussion with 1John2_24 and others, but to no avail. Politics has nothing to do with it, even if it is convenient to pretend that "political correctness" is all it is. We know enough about sexual dimorphism of the brain, and about brain development to answer the basic question. To phrase it in Christian terminology, sexual orientation is chosen in utero as part of god's great plan for each individual. Why should a creator who tells us it's a sin to be gay purposely create gays? It makes no sense. Basic biology, however, does make sense. Why believe the story that doesn't make sense, when the one that does is so much more straightforward?

Whether someone can change themselves or not makes no difference concerning what is a sin: the only thing necessary for an action to be sinful is that it is displeasing to God. You mean we could be responsible for something we can't change? Yes. We can't change our depraved human nature but we are responsible for everything we do. What is the solution? That's what the Gospel is all about.

This depends upon believing the bit about "sin." It depends on the rather odd notion that humans can tell what's "displeasing to god." It depends on accepting the untestable bits of religious philosophy--which gets us back to the fundamental question of how we can tell whether this particular religious philosophy is more right than any other. What if the Truth is a different religion than Christianity, and that there is no such thing as "sin"? The bottom line here is this: you are choosing to ostracize people on the basis of a completely untestable and unknowable idea. These people don't match that idea, and are therefore subjects of persecution, ridicule, and fear.

You say "there are bazillions of flavors of Christianity, based on different readings of the text". Actually there are many different reasons why churches split (particularly in America -- it's rare elsewhere). Overall there are about half a dozen main doctrinal differences and nowadays the different groups usually recognize one another as fellow Christians despite their differences.

I don't know what all of the doctrinal differences are, but the last time I tried to figure out a Phylogeny of Christians, I found 40 primary groups. Indeed, some recognize each other as fellow Christians, while others fight to the death, and others insist that they, alone, are the True Christians while all others are Pretenders.

You say, "if religion is a way of finding Truth by one set of rules, and if science is a way of finding truth by a different set of rules, they must converge on the same Truth as each becomes more precise." Christianity is most definitely not a "set of rules". Perhaps the fact that Christians affirm moral truths has misled you. Christianity is about "faith working by love" (to quote the New Testament), not rules.

Rules, tenets, philosophies, choose your word as you like. I'd call "faith working by love" one of your rules. One of your rules is that the bible is inherently true. Another is that one can find truth, or let it find you, by Believing. Another rule is that there is such a thing as god. These are very different from the basic rules of science, such as making reproducible measurements/observations, and then using those observations to infer the ways the world works. It's another way of saying that science and religion are different "ways of knowing."

"People can agree on science." Well, people don't agree on psychology. People don't agree on sociology. Are these sciences? The mainstream scientific community says so. And if you think science has a "universal method" that everyone agrees on, take a trip to the Middle East and see how many people agree with you.

I'll say it again. People can agree on science. The more complex the system under investigation, and the more variables that cannot be controlled by the investigator, the more difficult it is to come to irrefutable conclusions. The reason social psychology and sociology are referred to as "soft sciences" is because they study people, who are tremendously diverse genetically, behaviorally, and culturally. I imagine that, as more becomes known, there will be more agreement.

You are right that I have not gone to the middle east. However, I know plenty of scientists from the middle east, or from Africa, or from India, or from Poland, or from Siberia, or from Korea, or from Argentina, etc and we find general agreement. This is possible because the methods of "doing science" are more objective and less ideological than the methods of politics or religious belief.

Laboratory sciences, where there are highly controlled experiments, produce the most agreement. But the further one gets away from that, the more scientific methods are open to objection or doubt.

This is pretty much what I said above (isn't it?). But, we should distinguish the data--the facts--from the interpretation of the data. Whatever the experiment, it produces results. If it is well-designed, then those results can be repeated in repeats of the experiment. Thus, the result is fact. The disagreements are over the interpretations. We rarely hear someone say "that didn't really happen" when someone describes an experimental result. So, even in the messy sciences, people can agree on the facts. Among religions, even this much cannot be achieved, because the basic facts are a matter of faith.

Though philosophers are right to warn that facts are "theory-laden"...

These are "facts" as used in general conversation, referring to "what science currently concludes." Those are not facts, but inferences from data. The data themselves are the facts--and they are not "theory laden." I drop my keys; they fall to the floor. No theory there--falling happened; it's fact. If I claim that gravity attracted them toward the center of the Earth, then I've added theory.

....it's more important to recognize the tremendous incompleteness of scientific data. Let me put it this way: consider your wife. What is it that makes her who she is? One could say she's a human being, has certain dimensions, has this personality type, etc. -- but none of these things would distinguish her from a crowd of others. What makes her who she is is what is unique about her. That's the most important thing. And science ignores what is unique. Exactly what is most important.

Let me tell a story. I was chatting with Ellen some years ago. We were trying to understand each other's science. As she put it, "Jose--you don't even begin your analysis until you have eliminated all of the variation in your system. Yet, it's the variation that makes things interesting! You eliminate everything I care about before you start." And my response was, "perhaps so, but remember that what I'm interested in cannot be studied when you change too many variables at once. The variation that interests you makes it impossible to ask the questions that interest me." From this story, I suggest that you are, perhaps, conflating two separate issues: what is interesting, and what is scientifically accessible with current methods. What makes each of us unique is, among other things, the particular combinatorial arrangement of alleles of some 30,000 genes, where each gene may have hundreds of alleles. Add to this the environmental influences and stochastic events that interact with genotype, and you've got lots of opportunities for "uniqueness." You've also got a complex system with plenty of variables. Eventually, we may be able to say more about these things than we can now. The fact that science is terribly incomplete is what makes it still be fun.

Are there any data out there? Yes, but they may be excluded by scientific rules of evidence.

They may be excluded by there being too few scientists to gather them, or by the fact that we are only as technologically sophisticated as we happen to be at present. If we need new tools to "see" something, then we have to wait for those tools before we can report what we see.

It seems to be common thinking that there is some kind of conspiracy to keep certain evidence from being known, and that there are some kind of "rules of evidence" that force creation scientists out of the clique. The only rules are that the data be reproducible (to rule out operator error), and that the interpretations (explanations, models, hypotheses...) be driven by the data and not ruled out by other existing data. You wouldn't think that these rules would be so restrictive that they'd keep creation science out of all of the journals, but they seem to be.

When I mentioned "resistance to science", I should have said "scientism" (science as the only justifiable access to truth) or exaggerated claims about science that are leading to resistance.

Sure--there's plenty of reason to resist "scientism." I would argue, though (as I have argued before) that few scientists succumb to this philosophy, and that the Fear of Scientism is primarily the result of the Religious Right promulgating misinformation. Misinformation is easy to promulgate when we're dealing with an audience that really doesn't understand science. You'd think that it would suffice to tell people what science really is, and have them remember. Alas, it doesn't seem to work that way.

The moral issues I mentioned are of concern to many "non-religious" people, too. You surmise that you know what the "True Christian" stance is -- I wonder where you're getting this from. Christians disagree about genetically modified foods for example. The points you raise are also raised by some Christians. Others raise concerns about the potential impact on ecosystems. As for human cloning, as far as I'm aware the issue is the creation of an embryonic clone to be destroyed.

Everything I've heard about the "True Christian" stance is from these forums, and from people who have come out and said the things I've passed on. I admit to having been startled when I first heard their views.

I presented my short monologues on genetic engineering (etc) with the intent of trying to sound reasonable about things that are contentious. You are absolutely right--there is no clear consensus, and most groups seem to be divided on these issues.

I'll offer a comment on the ecosystem issue: much of what I've heard in this realm seems to result from poor understanding of genetics. I ask my students each semester to find an anti-GM website and analyze one of their arguments. The ecosystem damage argument is one they often choose. It is surprising how often the anti-GM folks talk about GM plants cross-pollinating with other species. Huh? As it turns out, the ecosystem damage issue did, indeed, induce the USDA to tighten its rules on the release of new varieties, to include stronger ecological controls--for plant varieties developed by traditional breeding programs. In general, the anti-GM folks have it backwards; they argue on the basis of the method by which the plant variety was developed, rather than on the basis of its biological characteristics. If you create an invasive variety, it's invasive whether it's GM or traditional.

Unfortunately, it may be moot. There is certain to be massive ecosystem degradation as the human population increases, and we destroy everything in sight in order to grow food and generate usable energy.

Euthanasia in the form of (assisted) suicide is wrong because it violates the sanctity of human life. Yes, that is a religious proposition but it's also a primary function of government to protect the vulnerable and there are good practical reasons why euthanasia is exploitative. At first there are assurances of safeguards but the reality is different. The infirm are a burden on others so there is a subtle (or not so subtle) pressure on the patient to acquiesce (if they can speak). In Holland today, people are being euthanized without their permission. And they are about to authorize infanticide in words that are similar to those used by Germany in the 1930's. Yet today there is much palliative care that can be provided to minimize suffering.

The palliative care is insufficient. Ask my stepmother when you reach the afterlife. As it turns out, even having the patient plead with the Powers That Be is insufficient to allow them death with dignity. I agree with your statement that the government should protect the vulnerable, but that's not the issue here. I think that it's just plain wrong, and highly immoral, for someone else's religious views to prevent me from availing myself of assisted suicide, when I know my medical condition. Even when the populace votes to make it legal, the Religious Right jumps in and tries to prevent it (cf Oregon). So much for democracy.

[rigadoon]

Jose,

You say that "other religions" are "exactly analogous to Christianity". That implies some expertise in all these religions. I wonder what religious studies program you've taken. And you say these "other religions" call into question the truth of Christianity. How?

Compare science (which is a particular kind of philosophical system) with other philosophical systems. These philosophical systems don't agree with one another. If you picked one at random, it would not likely be the true philosophical system. So the existence of other philosophical systems calls into question the truth of a particular philosophical system such as science?

You discount human memory as "pretty poor" but we're not talking here about identifying a suspect from a lineup; we're talking about things like whether a mountain blow its top. The volcano Epomeo erupted on the Italian Isle of Ischia in 1762 according to documentary evidence. Do geologists say, "we must ignore those documents and find out when Epomeo erupted from physical evidence alone"? That would be silly. If there are ancient documents that say a tremendous flood occurred, should these documents be ignored by geologists? No.

If one begins by recognizing the existence of "nature" alone, then something apart from nature ("supernature") would require an extra justification "to invoke" (as you put it). But without that prior distinction between natural and supernatural and a privileged status for the natural, there would be no need for extra justification to reference the supernatural. So those who begin by recognizing the existence of "nature" alone should (1) define what "nature" is (or "physical" if that's a synonym) and (2) justify the exclusion of what is not "nature".

By the way, I understand that the number of exonerations with DNA evidence is quite small when compared with the number of convictions. In any case, all evidence must be introduced by witnesses, who attest to what it is and, if they have expertise, to how it should be interpreted.

For some "documentary sources" about the Flood, see http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.ph ... obal_flood.

You again claim expertise in Christian theology by saying, "To phrase it in Christian terminology, sexual orientation is chosen in utero as part of god's great plan for each individual." Among other things, you are forgetting that the moral issue is behavior, not "orientation". Speaking the truth about sin does not "ostracize" anyone. All humans have a proclivity to sin. Only Christ can change that.

Your Phylogeny of Christians chart doesn't show anything about the theology of Christianity. Perhaps you can share a little documentation about all these Christians who are killing each other?

I'd call "faith working by love" one of your rules."

It's not uncommon for non-Christians to think that Christianity is all about rules. Christians don't say that. They call such an attitude "legalism" which is anathema. Christianity is all about Christ.

I'll say it again. People can agree on science.

You obviously consider this significant. I questioned it in relation to non-Western cultures. Well, people can agree on Christianity. This is evidenced by the billion or so Christians around the world in both Western and non-Western cultures -- and Christianity is growing even in the face of persecution. So do you consider this significant?

You said you "imagine that" the "soft sciences" will come to "more agreement" "as more becomes known". Well, there are more schools of psychology today than there were 100 years ago. Perhaps you have evidence of a convergence? Or is this an expression of faith?

In Quine's classic paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" he attacked "reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience." He argued that observation is cast in terms of complex concepts that cannot be immediately given in experience and all of which are subject to revision in light of further experience. Scientific experiment (particularly in physics) is so theory-laden that it is impossible to isolate which part of them belong to the theory and which to the empirical 'facts'. Please let me know when you publish a critique of Quine.

Let me tell a story. I was chatting with Ellen some years ago. We were trying to understand each other's science. As she put it, "Jose--you don't even begin your analysis until you have eliminated all of the variation in your system. Yet, it's the variation that makes things interesting! You eliminate everything I care about before you start." And my response was, "perhaps so, but remember that what I'm interested in cannot be studied when you change too many variables at once. The variation that interests you makes it impossible to ask the questions that interest me." From this story, I suggest that you are, perhaps, conflating two separate issues: what is interesting, and what is scientifically accessible with current methods. What makes each of us unique is, among other things, the particular combinatorial arrangement of alleles of some 30,000 genes, where each gene may have hundreds of alleles. Add to this the environmental influences and stochastic events that interact with genotype, and you've got lots of opportunities for "uniqueness." You've also got a complex system with plenty of variables. Eventually, we may be able to say more about these things than we can now. The fact that science is terribly incomplete is what makes it still be fun.

I like your story.

I was speaking about the reality and the value of what is unique about each individual, whether anyone finds that interesting or not. To reduce that uniqueness to mere combinatorics is to miss reality. Certainly there are limits to "what is scientifically accessible with current methods" -- though your point seems to be about a lack of limits in the future. Is that a scientific assertion? Or an expression of faith?

The whole notion of falsification is based on the incompleteness of inductive methods. Again, induction is defeasible -- it can be defeated by observation at any time. That also means additional information that has been eliminated ("the variation in your system"), if included, could falsify the induction. That means reality could prove you wrong. I for one wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of reality, no matter how scientific that wrong side is.

Scientism has been observed in science teachers, science textbooks, and famous scientists. The influence of such sources is enormous in Western society. There is good reason to be concerned that such a false philosophy is being promulgated under the radar, so to speak, in the good name of science.

Everything I've heard about the "True Christian" stance is from these forums

At last we have the source of your expertise about Christianity. Would you tell genetics students, "To learn about genetics, start with Internet forums"? Of course not. If you really want to know "the True Christian stance", start with official sources and classic texts. Or at least visit a few churches.