Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Puzzling Over Making the Pieces Fit

Whether creationist or evolutionist, atheist or Christian (or anyone else), we all have the same facts to work with. For instance, a fossil is a fossil. The differences are in the interpretations of the facts. (Ridiculous evolutionist assertion such as, "We have the fossils, we win" is discredited at this link on point nine.)

stock.xchng / chadou99
But to properly interpret the data, we must be aware of our presuppositions and worldview. Further, we need to know if we have enough information so that we can have a correct interpretation. Does an interpretation fit, or do we have to make contrived "explanations" to force it to fit? Sometimes we have to try again.
I held the plastic Coke bottle up and suggested we view it as a fossil. Both the atheists and myself had the same data in front of us. None of us were ‘there’ historically to observe what happened, so we had to find a way to ‘interpret’ the data in front of us—my imaginary fossil. 
Very quickly Peter and Paul suggested we would need more information in order to interpret this ‘fossil’. I agreed. All of us would need additional information in order to interpret the data. 
But what if the other information we had was wrong? Could we still ‘interpret’ this fossil with incorrect data? Of course not, they agreed. But the ‘scientific method’ had within it steps to check and confirm the accumulation of data collected along the way, they reminded me. I agreed that might be the scientific method, but these two atheists were about to learn a lesson about jigsaw puzzles. 
I suggested that the ‘facts’ of the universe were like a giant jigsaw puzzle. In order to complete the puzzle, you eventually have to get each piece in its correct place. Sometimes when you play with jigsaw puzzles, you find two pieces that seem to fit together, but later on you realize they don’t go together at all. So you pull them apart and try to find where they really belong in the puzzle.
You can puzzle this out in its full context at "The Street-Preacher's Guide to Jigsaw Puzzles".

1 comment:

radar said...

The argument concerning the puzzle pieces is great...and it brings us to another thought. Why is it that every organism has obvious design features, has irreducible complexity and aspects of organisms are completely foreign to Darwinism.

Naturalistic Materialists must assert that all things and systems and laws and forces are chance occurrences. But how in the world can they all work together if formed randomly? How can we correctly assert that gravitational forces will cause a rock you drop from your hand to fall down to the ground? Why would it not fly up sometimes, sideways sometimes, get stuck to your hand sometimes...in fact, what causes you to believe you have rational thoughts?

The foundation of Darwinism is not simply faulty, it is not even there at all.