Search This Blog

Thursday, May 10, 2012

AIG presents Did God Use Evolution?

One of the common arguments that has been made since Darwin himself has been this:  That God created but then used evolution to bring about the world we see around us now and the organisms that live today.  Some believe that God made one single-celled organism and everything came from there.   Others believe that God made living things in abundance but in far more primitive forms than now seen.  Really, there is an entire menu of variations on the "God used evolution" theme.   I would assert that not one of them can be supported from a Biblical point of view and that not one of them fits the evidence as well as the complete creation model.   Just as the majority of Creation Scientists will assert, God created the Universe and all within it in one six day period ex nihilo (from nothing).   The God of the Bible is supernatural and transcends all time and space and is in possession of all truth.   All that can be known was known by God first, for He input all information into the Universe.  

It really does puzzle me that people can claim that "science says" that there is no God and that everything has a natural explanation.   The reason it puzzles me is that naturalism eventually comes down to unexplained miracles with no power to produce said miracles.  We say God miraculously created all things and Darwinists say we are being unscientific, and yet they say that *poof* created all things and that is supposed to be science?    Science is "nothing made everything by no means in complete opposition to known natural laws?"   Why does anyone buy that?


At any rate, Darwinists know that if they can inject evolution into the Bible they will eventually push God and Jesus the Savior out and church will be as meaningless to those who believe in theistic evolution as it was to Charles Darwin's father.  If you take Genesis out of the Bible, you might as well quit going to church and go to bingo night at the FOE instead.

Miracles from God?  Logical.  God is greater than the natural world and can therefore transcend that world and control the laws He established.

Did God Use Evolution?

Introduction

The theory of evolution is currently so widely established that it could be described as the all-inclusive and even the only philosophy of the 20th century.

The idea of self-organization from the simple to the more complex has been commonly appropriated—even in disciplines foreign to biological evolution. The development of computers is often falsely referred to as the “evolution of computers,” even though the current high-performance computers are the result of intensive research by many brilliant minds. They have been planned, constructed, and produced on purpose, and are clearly not the result of an evolutionary process.

Theology, too, was affected; evolutionary ideas have even been carried into biblical exegesis.
We will show below why evolutionistic thought is completely foreign to the Bible. This book is aimed predominantly at Christian readers who might be inclined to accept some version of theistic evolution. Over and above that, the book is set out in such a way that skeptical readers may also be guided to some decision.

The basic assumptions of science are discussed in a separate chapter. This should enable the reader to recognize which basic assumptions he automatically accepts when he decides for or against creation or evolution.

Use of the term “the theory of evolution” is intentionally avoided, because, according to the standards of scientific theory, evolution is a philosophical doctrine and not a scientific theory. For the same reason, we do not refer to creation theory, but to the biblical doctrine of creation. Creation research concerns itself with deducing models from physical reality, which are based on fundamental biblical statements. A total of 20 objections (OB1 to OB20) against theistic evolution are discussed in this book. In addition to valid criticisms of evolution, the alternative, creation, is increasingly expounded more clearly in recent literature, such as [B4, E2, G3, G5, G7, G8, G10, G11, J2, S3, S4, S5]. This book also refers repeatedly to this very sustainable alternative.

As far as possible, the objections are discussed along the following lines:
  1. The dictates of evolution
  2. Scientific objections against these dictums
  3. Biblical refutations of evolutionary assumptions
The author is an information scientist, but the discussions on information concepts in chapter 6 should be readily understood by the layman. In the last chapter, scientific and biblical objections against evolution culminate in the exposition of ten dangers inherent in theistic evolution. Many quotations expose the anti-biblical nature of such a viewpoint.

1.1 The Principles of Science Theory 

Science theory concerns itself with the possibilities and the limits of scientific knowledge. The basic assumptions of a theory are discussed, applicable methods for increasing man’s knowledge are explained, and, eventually, the validity of scientific pronouncements is reviewed and evaluated. Some basic principles (P1–P11) are enunciated below:

P1: Every theory requires basic assumptions (a priori postulates) which cannot be proved. These presuppositions are not observable, but are of a metaphysical nature (Greek: metà tá physiká = above physics, i.e., not based on observation). Such assumptions are recognized by convention. As W. Stegmüller [S7, p. 33] affirms: “One need not push knowledge aside to make place for belief. Rather, one must already believe something before you can speak of knowledge and science.”

P2: The basic assumptions are arbitrary postulates which appear plausible to the author. According to the theoreticist Karl R. Popper, the fundamental principles of a theoretical system may be compared to the conclusions reached by a jury in a criminal case. The verdict is the basis for the practical processes which comprise the joint deductions made from the statutes of criminal law. The verdict, however, need not be the final judgment; it can be repealed or revised by an appropriate process.

Popper explains [P5, p. 110–111], “The analogy between this procedure and that by which we decide basic statements is clear. It throws light, for example, upon their relativity, and the way in which they depend upon questions raised by the theory. In the case of the trial by jury, it would be clearly impossible to apply the ‘theory’ unless there is first a verdict arrived at by decision; yet the verdict has to be found in a procedure that conforms to, and thus applies, part of the general legal code. The case is analogous to that of basic statements. Their acceptance is part of the application of a theoretical system; and it is only this application which makes any further applications of the theoretical system possible. The empirical basis of objective science has thus nothing ‘absolute’ about it. Science does not rest upon rock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and when we cease our attempts to drive our piles into a deeper layer, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that they are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.”

P3: The initial postulates must be mutually consistent and should be free from inherent contradictions.

P4: When competing theories contradict one another (apart from errors in measurement and observations), the fault is not to be sought in the facts, but in differences in the basic postulates.

P5: The basic postulates may be objectively criticized and even rejected. The quality of the basic assumptions of two competing systems determines the practical success of the ensuing theories.

P6: If a theory is successful, it does not follow that it is correct. “Consequently, theories are never empirically verifiable” (K. Popper; [P5, p. 17]). According to Popper, consistency is not a truth criterion, but, on the other hand, inconsistency does falsify a theory. No all-inclusive theorem, like “All swans are white” can ever be verified, not even by endless experimentation. Theories can only survive, and are only provisionally valid, for as long as they are not shown to be false by empirical reality (when a single black swan is found), and subsequently replaced by a new, better theory.

P7: An empirical scientific system must allow experimentation. Popper proposes the falsifiability of a theory as criterion, not its verifiability. This means that it must be possible to negate a theory by means of methodical experimentation; the logical structure of the system must allow for negation [P5, p. 41]. “It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.” One single contradictory experimental or observational result is therefore sufficient to discard a theory in its present form. A theory is good exactly when it can very readily be refuted. If it then survives any barrage of crossfire attacks, it proves its merit. It becomes a “natural law” only after very many substantiations.

The physical law of the conservation of energy is a prime example of a very easily refutable theory, because one single unexpected experimental result will be sufficient to disprove it. This has never happened, and this law is generally accepted. Furthermore, it is a fundamentally important and useful theorem in all the exact and technical sciences. Any theory which ensures itself against falsification, and which is therefore inviolable, is scientifically trivial and untenable. It only provides a philosophical viewpoint.

Consequently, Popper defines the “real sciences” as follows [P5, p. 314]:
Insofar as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and insofar as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
P8: It is necessary to distinguish between structural and exact sciences on the one hand, and historical-interpretive sciences on the other hand, because of fundamental differences. This aspect is discussed fully in [P6, p. 112 ff ].

P9: In contrast to the theorems of the structural sciences (mathematics, informatics), no theorems of the experimental sciences can be proved; they are only more, or less, strongly established: “All knowledge is only inferential. The various conjectures or hypotheses are intuitive inferences. They are weeded out by experience, bitter experiences, and they are replaced by better conjectures: This is the only end result of experimentation in science” (K.R. Popper; [P5, p. 565]).

Popper also states that sure knowledge is denied us. Our knowledge is a guessing game, a network of hypotheses, a fabric of conjectures [P5, p. 278]: “We do not know: we can only guess. And our guesses are guided by the unscientific, the metaphysical faith in laws, in regularities which we can uncover, discover.”

P10: A theory can only be advanced if an example that can be practically duplicated (by experiment or observation), is available. The theorems derived from the theory must be testable, or rejectable by falsification. The acceptance of a theory depends on its repeatability.

P11: A theory must allow predictions. The correctness of such predictions is a prerequisite for the acceptability of a theory.

In what follows, we will discuss the essential theoretical principles of the doctrines of creation and of evolution, and of theistic evolution. It will be patently clear that the two views are so strongly divergent, that reconciliation is totally impossible. This calls for a decision. In chapters 3 to 6 we will show that the observations and facts of the exact sciences can be convincingly explained by the creation model.

~~~~~~~~

We will see as the series goes along that Creation Science is sound scientifically and philosophically.  This post was introductory to the series.   This blog will present part of the series and then lead the reader to the rest of the story...



1 comment:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"We will see as the series goes along that Creation Science is sound scientifically and philosophically."

Creation science and mainstream science share the basic, unprovable a priori assumptions that we do in fact exist and that the universe exists and that our senses reflect an actual world around us.

Creation science then adds the unprovable a priori assumptions that a supernatural being exists and that a religious text called the Bible reflects scientific truth in its entirety, even when that text contradicts observable evidence.

Occam's Razor would dictate that the latter assumptions be discarded.