Category Archives: Science

Extrapolation and Poor Assumptions

Posted on by

I am forming some thoughts here based on discussion with Riley Barton and Jeff Reichman. I stole this first paragraph from Jeff Reichman. Jeff describes the situation very well.

[BEGIN]

Science, Assumptions, and the YEC Double Standard

Young Earth Creationists often argue that radiometric dating cannot be trusted because it rests on “unprovable assumptions.” At first glance, this sounds like a serious critique, but the reality is that all of science rests on assumptions. The difference is that these assumptions are tested, confirmed, and relied upon every day in ways that even YECs accept without question.

Every airplane that takes off depends on the assumption that the laws of aerodynamics apply universally and consistently. Every bridge that stands depends on the assumption that material strength behaves predictably under stress. Every car, phone, and GPS device depends on the assumption that electromagnetic laws, atomic behavior, and relativity are stable and reliable. These assumptions cannot be proved in a final metaphysical sense, but they are confirmed through repeated observation and practical success. Without them, modern technology would collapse.

And yet, occasionally those assumptions appear to be violated: a bridge collapses, a plane crashes, a car malfunctions. But even in the face of these failures, no one concludes that the underlying assumptions of physics or engineering are invalid. We recognize that accidents happen due to design flaws, human error, or unforeseen variables, not because the laws of aerodynamics or material strength suddenly ceased to exist. YECs themselves continue to fly, cross bridges, and ride in cars without hesitation, despite these occasional breakdowns. The inconsistency is outstanding: they accept the reliability of scientific assumptions in every area of daily life, but reject them only when those same assumptions support radiometric dating and an ancient earth.

Radiometric dating makes the same kind of assumptions as engineering and medicine: that decay rates are constant, that isotopes behave in predictable ways, and that contamination can be detected and accounted for. These assumptions are no different in kind from those underlying the technologies YECs rely on every day. If they dismiss radiometric dating because of its assumptions, they must also dismiss the airplanes they fly in, the bridges they drive across, and the phones they use daily. Since they do not, their critique collapses under its own weight.

The real issue is not whether science uses assumptions, it always does. The issue is whether we apply those assumptions consistently. YECs accept them when they support everyday life but reject them when they challenge their interpretation of Genesis. That double standard reveals that the objection is not scientific but theological. Science rests on assumptions, but those assumptions are the bedrock of every technology we trust. If we reject them selectively, we undermine not just radiometric dating but the very foundations of modern life.

[END]

A few days previously, on November 29th, I had mused the following.

Old earthers believe in

1) the doppler shift is real

2) the red shift is real

3) the universe is expanding

4) the laws of physics are constant over the life of the universe.

5) singularities exist and the universe may have been designed before the big bang (and maybe during?)

Young earthers believe all the above violates their definition of scripture and are wrong.

I wonder:
What does the evidence say?

Can we extrapolate truth from what we see, or is it all deception?

Today, on Dec 3, 2025, I am thinking the issue is EXTRAPOLATION. On a known set of data in current time where the data is bounded this subject is called INTERPOLATION. In other words, predicting a value y=f(x) where x is an independent but unmeasured value and we are looking to guess (or interpolate) a value for the dependent variable y.

If we are looking for values outside our observational purview, for example the distant past or the distant future this becomes EXTRAPOLATION. So what young earthers are saying is “we cannot validly extrapolate laws based on physics. But why not? Theology! That is the reason. They essentially say “theology trumps physics because we say it does.” This is not based on inductive logic. Science itself is based (at least in part) on inductive logic – making observations within the purview of humans. That has to do with epistemology, ie, our purview, which is an observable domain of knowledge.

Christianity is also based on our human purview, an observable domain of knowledge, because of eyewitness testimony provided by history. Please note history here is defined as records of events observed by humans. But ORIGINS is an extrapolation because no humans were present to observe the alleged events.

Science offers an extrapolation of origins known as the Big Bang based on the idea that we can assume physical constants are constant across all time. This is temporal invariance. This is an extrapolation of our purview which old-earthers accept.

Another such extrapolation is evolution. Young earthers reject both extrapolations.


Sean Carroll and Materialism

Posted on by

I saw an interesting discussion written by Michael Egnor in 2023 about Sean Carroll’s view of the immaterial mind here: https://mindmatters.ai

Who is Michael Egnor?

Michael Egnor

Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics, State University of New York, Stony BrookMichael R. Egnor, MD, is a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, has served as the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, and is an award-winning brain surgeon. He was named one of New York’s best doctors by the New York Magazine in 2005. His book, The Immortal Mind: A neurosurgeon’s case for the existence of the soul, co-authored by Denyse O’Leary, was published by Worthy on June 3, 2025.

Now this article is talking about the human mind and and effects on the physical world or physical body:

Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins University who takes an atheist and materialist philosophical perspective on nature and on science. I have disagreed with him often — I’m in no position to judge his scientific acumen, but his philosophical acumen leaves a lot to be desired. An example of this is a question he asks in a recent documentary about free will (which I haven’t watched yet). In the trailer for the movie, Carroll asks, How in the world does the immaterial mind affect the physical body? Carroll’s denial of libertarian free will is based on this question, and of course, he believes that the immaterial mind does not exist and, if it did exist, could not affect the physical body. Thus, he believes that libertarian free will is nonsense.

Well that is an interesting comment about Carroll’s philosophical acumen. My interest is on the immaterial mind of a transcendent being such as God. Can that mind affect the human mind? Or matter? If miracles are possible then the answer would be yes.

Carroll, however, seems to be a reductionist. Lets leave that until a bit later. Meanwhile, let’s learn some aspects of causation theory. Egnor uses a statue as an example.

1. Material cause is the matter (marble) that the statue is made of. The matter of what something is made is one of the causes of the thing – without the marble, the statue could not exist.

2. Efficient cause is the agent that gives rise to the effect – in the case of the sculpture, the efficient cause is a sculptor.

3. Formal cause is the design principle that underlies the effect – in the case of the sculpture, the formal cause is the idea in the mind of the sculptor of what the sculpture will look like. The formal cause is quite real and is indispensable to an understanding of causation – after all if the form of the sculpture did not exist in the mind of the sculptor as he was working, there would be no sculpture.

4. Final cause is the ultimate goal, purpose, or final state of the causal chain. The final cause for the sculpture might be the sculptor’s desire to express himself artistically or it might be the sculptor’s desire to be paid for his work.

Egnor comments, “In the Aristotelian paradigm, a complete understanding of cause must entail an understanding of all four causes in nature. In causation without a visible efficient agent, formal and final causes are often the same. The formal cause of an acorn growing into an oak tree is the design principle of the oak tree, which is also (in the Aristotelian perspective) the final cause of the acorn growing into the oak tree. The ultimate final cause, according to Aristotle, is God.”

PATTERNS AND PURPOSES IN NATURE

Egnor argues, “Aristotle was right – material and efficient causes alone are inadequate to understand nature because there are patterns and purposes built into nature that we can’t deny.”

He goes on to criticise Carroll, “So, Carroll’s implicit assertion that the immaterial mind could not affect the physical body is predicated on his belief that the only kinds of causes that exist in the physical world are material and efficient causes.“

To me this assumption of Carroll’s is Philosophical Naturalism, which itself is an a priori metaphysical assumption and is not part of science. So I think Egnor is right. My observation is Egnor is Augustinian and Neo-Platonist in his thinking here, whereas Carroll is neither.

MATHEMATICS?

 Egnor says, “Ironically, Carroll’s own scientific discipline – quantum mechanics – is a prime example of the importance of formal causes in nature. The scientific description of quantum processes is entirely mathematical, which is a description of formal causes. Matter and individuation disappear at the quantum level. What remains are the mathematical descriptions of quantum particles and dynamics. Contrary to Carroll’s implicit insistence that only material and efficient causes act in nature, quantum mechanics shows that formal (immaterial) causes are fundamental to nature.”

Hmmm.

BIOCHEMISTRY

Egnor makes a point about drugs and biochemistry, “Thus a mental (formal) state can cause a physical state in a way that is currently understood in physics. A particularly striking example of the importance of formal causes in science is the phenomenon of chirality. Chirality is a property of mirror image molecules in which the molecules contain exactly the same number and kinds of atoms connected in exactly the same kind of way except that one is a mirror image of the other. In other words, the matter comprising chiral molecules is exactly the same although the form of the molecules can be radically different. For example, all biological amino acids that make up proteins are L enantiomers (one mirror image). Amino acids that are identical materially but are R enantiomers (mirror images) play no role in protein manufacture. The difference between L and R enantiomers can be a matter of great medical importance and even life and death – Darvon is an analgesic but its enantiomer Novrad is an anti-cough agent. Penicillamine is used in the treatment of arthritis, but its enantiomer is very toxic.“

PHILOSOPHICALLY VACUOUS?


Egnor’s conclusion: “Formal causation is ubiquitous in biology and Carroll’s argument that we cannot have libertarian free will because the immaterial (formal) mind cannot affect matter is philosophically vacuous.”

Fascinating!

I knew Carroll and one other person debated Dinesh D’Souza in 2014, and his debate partner (whose name I do not recall) was a reductionist. It seems Carroll is as well. Now, what does this mean for quantum mechanics? To me there are two questions and they may be the same question.

1. Who is the observer?
2. What is measurement?

As you know, when you take a measurement in the quantum world you perturb the wave function and cause quantum collapse. So a wave suddenly localizes into a particle-like phenomenon. Can a mind function as the observer? How would we ever know?

If God is in the universe (ie, immanent) can his mind perform a measurement (or observation?). What kind of observations are possible? We do not know. But ignorance is not proof of non-existence. So, I am still pondering these questions. I am looking for input on these subjects from a variety of sources. This includes Sean Carroll’s lectures on quantum mechanics. I really enjoy listening to him. I think one just has to be aware of his presuppositions.

If you want to be more aware of issues related to the soul you might check out his new book The Immortal Mind .

Now, it may be worth considering the following definition: Naturalistic evolution, or evolutionary naturalism, is the philosophical concept that all of life, including the human condition and morality, arose through natural processes, rather than supernatural or intentional design.  (This is an AI summary.)

I am not happy with AI summaries. The problem is the definitions are taken from websites that are reactions to chatter, are not real propositions, and are mere hyped up opinion. There is no substance underneath. The concepts are fabricated and imaginary.

Note, I can only find one book written on the subject in 1922. Everything else I have found is propaganda from creationist websites where the terms are re-defined to support the war between science and God. ( a political viewpoint, not a scientific one). The book itself is a philosopher’s response to other philosophers in order to find a better naturalism. This is because naturalism was considered to be broken or inadequate.

BTW, this linkage with natural processes would fit neatly with Sean Carroll’s view that there is no free will. It also is congruent with nihilism – the view that human values and maybe even human minds themselves are mere illusions – all in the imagination and not real at all.

I will contend that what scientists do is based on methodological naturalism (MN), not philosophical naturalism (PN). MN produces science. PN produces scientism. PN, being metaphysical, is not a statement about either science or reality. MN is a statement about science, is not metaphysical, and is a statement about an approximation of reality, or a part of reality, but not all of reality. Just the physical part of reality in which humans live.


What I have noticed is the biologos people are adamantly against PN. The young earthers totally ignore PN as if it does not exist. Old earthers and ID people are somewhere in between.

DISTORTIONS – WHY I DONT TRUST MANY CHRISTIANS

Speaking of which … another interesting article: https://www.str.org/w/if-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal. I disagree with this person’s definitions of naturalism. The STR people are concordists and distort both philosophy and science.

Then there is another voice: Masters U. These are horrible statements about naturalism at Masters University, which seems to be associated with John MacArthur. https://www.masters.edu/thinking_blog/creation-believe-it-or-not-part-1/. Masters miscontrues and distorts the meaning of almost all of these concepts.

I have come to think that Christians are either terribly dumb or they are terrible liars.

TRANSCENDENCE

The real problem I see in Christianity is somebody in history philosophized that God is “transcendent only.” Yes, God is transcendent. But He is also immanent. I.E., In the world. Affecting the world. Affecting physical reality. He is not entirely outside the physical reality. This is difficult to understand – indeed, no human really grasps it just like no human really grasps the trinity. But the bible and Christianity do not teach that God is purely transcendant (purely supernatural). That is a lie held to by atheists.


Young earth creationists (and concordists?) teach that God can only “create” from outside the physical universe by overturning the physical laws of the universe. To me that is *not* a Christian belief. It is not what the bible teaches. I think the bible teaches that the laws of the physical universe are held fixed by God, and God often creates by using these laws. Can create by using these laws. That is not, BTW, naturalism.

These two cases of Masters and of STR may be the subject of future posts just on them.

Summing Up

So we started with Sean Carroll’s issues with free will. But the real issue is far larger. Free will is really just a side topic.











Do the Laws of Physics Change Over Time?

Posted on by

Hugh Ross writes: “The biblical principle of unchanging and pervasive physics launched the scientific revolution.”

Before that happened Galileo told the cardinals that because of the established laws of heaven and earth when you find the laws in contradiction to your understand of scripture then your understanding is flawed. The church eventually agreed with him. Why?

Fixed Naturals Laws and the Christ.

https://www.bible.com/bible/111/JER.33.NIV

19The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 20“This is what the Lord says: ‘If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, 21then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. 22I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.’ ”

23The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 24“Have you not noticed that these people are saying, ‘The Lord has rejected the two kingdoms he chose’? So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. 25This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, 26then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’ ”


What got me to thinking about this? Answers in Genesis claims that the laws of physics have been different in the past. Drastically different physical constants. Physical constants that vary. Such as the speed of light.

Hugh Ross writes about physical constants and physical laws remaining constant. he references the above scriptures.

New Evidence Further Affirms Biblical Prediction of Unchanging Physics
by Hugh Ross

August 9, 2021

(from reasons.org)

It may be surprising for some readers to learn that the Bible declared millennia ago that the fundamental physics of the universe has not and does not change. In Jeremiah 33, for example, God avows that he is not like humans, who habitually change their minds, their convictions, and their loyalties. God uses the physics of the universe as an analogy for his immutable nature. As God “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25), so, too, his character attributes, convictions, and commitments are unchanging.

Another biblical example is found in Romans 8:20–22. Here, Paul states that “the whole creation has been groaning” as a result of its “bondage to decay” (NIV 1984). This passage summarizes the long discourses in Ecclesiastes, especially chapters 1–3, 10–12, declaring that the law of decay, known today as the second law of thermodynamics, applies ubiquitously throughout the universe.

Foundation of Modern Science
The biblical principle of unchanging and pervasive physics launched the scientific revolution. During the Renaissance, students of the Bible began to recognize that if the laws of physics are the same for all times and places throughout the universe, then experiments and observations about natural phenomena will reveal reliable and trustworthy knowledge and understanding about the natural realm. Such understanding would not only satisfy our curiosity about nature but also yield economic and technological advances. During the Reformation, the recognition of unchanging and pervasive physics became widespread throughout Europe and gave birth to the scientific revolution.

It is no accident that the scientific revolution was birthed in Reformation Europe. Biblical literacy, for the first time, flourished in Reformation Europe and led to the widespread acceptance that the laws of physics could be trusted to reveal truth about nature.

Tests of Unchanging Physics
Even though the biblical principle of constant and pervasive laws of physics forms the foundation of the scientific method and scientific research, scientists continue to subject the principle to rigorous and exhaustive testing. They have two reasons for doing so. First, affirming the fundamental assumption undergirding the scientific method and scientific research to a greater degree of precision and to a greater extent of space and time builds confidence in the value and successes of the scientific enterprise. Second, searching for very tiny departures from the constancy of known laws of physics might reveal the existence of new, as yet undiscovered, laws of physics. For example, what appeared to astronomers at the end of the nineteenth century as a tiny departure from Newton’s laws of motion in their observations of Mercury’s orbit1 led to the discovery of another nonvarying law of physics, the theory of general relativity.2

Christians also have a vested interest in subjecting the biblical principle of constant and pervasive laws of physics to more rigorous and exhaustive testing. Millennia before scientists had any hint that the laws of physics are constant and that they apply ubiquitously to the entire universe, the Bible stood alone in making such claims. These tests present an opportunity to demonstrate the Bible’s unique power to accurately predict future scientific discoveries. Such a demonstration provides strong evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-truthful God and that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant revelation from that God.

Past Tests
I have written many Today’s New Reason to Believe articles documenting the most rigorous observations and experiments that establish that the laws of physics are constant and pervasive.3 The most stringent tests achieved to date, with years over which measurements have been made, are as follows:

Physical law test Measurements’ Span of YearsVariation
fine-structure constant variation  4 years4<2.0 x 10-16/year
fine-structure constant variation  12.9 billion years5<6.2 x 10-16/year
electron-to-proton mass ratio variation  4 years6<2.3 x 10-14/year 
electron-to-proton mass ratio variation  12.9 billion years7<1.6 x 10-17/year 
gravitational constant variation  24 years8<5.2 x 10-14/year  
gravitational constant variation   11.0 billion years9<7.9 x 10-12/year

The two tests performed over 4–year spans were achieved in laboratories. Helioseismic observations of the Sun were responsible for the test over a 24-year span. Observations of the spectral lines of galaxies and quasars over a broad range of light-travel times yielded the three tests over billions of years. To less precision, tests show no sign of variation in the values of the fundamental constants of physics with respect to regional location in the universe.10

Latest Test
The past tests establish to high precision that no change has occurred in the fundamental constants of physics from 11.0–12.9 billion years ago until the present. That’s 93.5% of cosmic history. Until the James Webb Space Telescope and the Extremely Large Telescope become operational, it will not be possible for observations of galaxy and quasar spectral lines to push the time range earlier than 12.9 billion years ago. However, two British astronomers, Luke Hart and Jens Chluba, analyzed data from the Planck 2018 map of the cosmic microwave background radiation to determine values for the fine-structure constant and the electron-to-proton mass ratio when the universe was only 370,000 years old, or 13.79 billion years before the present.11

Hart and Chluba determined that just 370,000 years after the cosmic creation event the value of the fine-structure constant compared to its value measured in present-day laboratories = 1.0005 +/- 0.0024. The value of the electron-to-proton mass ratio 370,000 years after the cosmic creation event compared to the present-day value = 1.0005 +/- 0.0099. Though Hart and Chluba’s measurements are not as accurate as the past tests, they extend the demonstration that the fundamental constants of physics remain unchanged over the past 93.5% to now 99.9973% of cosmic history.

Philosophical Implications
Observations now show that the laws of physics that govern the universe indeed are unchanged to high precision over (what for all practical purposes is) the entire history of the universe. The accurate forecasting of this scientific discovery thousands of years ago in the writings of the Bible establishes that the One who inspired the Bible authors to write what they did must be superintelligent, superknowledgeable, superpowerful, trustworthy, and truthful. These observations show, too, that the study of nature is a worthwhile endeavor that can be trusted to reveal truth not only about the natural realm but also about the attributes of the One who brought it all into existence.

Endnotes

  1. Simon Newcomb, “Discussion of the Observed Transits of Mercury, 1677–1881,” Astronomical Papers Prepared for the Use of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, vol. I (Washington: Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, 1882), available at http://relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/mercury_perihelion_advance/S.Newcomb.pdf; G. M. Clemence, “The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions,” Reviews of Modern Physics 19, no. 4 (October 1, 1947): 361–364, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.19.361.
  2. Albert Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” Annalen Der Physik 354, no. 7 (July 1916): 769–822, doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702; Albert Einstein, translated by Satyendra Nath Bose, “The Foundation of the Generalised Theory of Relativity,” last edited December 30, 2020.
  3. Hugh Ross, “New Fine-Structure Constant Measurement Affirms Cosmic Creation,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), March 1, 2021; Hugh Ross, “More Evidences for Biblical Claim of Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), June 22, 2020; Hugh Ross, “Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), July 1, 2013; Hugh Ross, “TNRTB Classic: Testing the Biblical Notion of Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), July 4, 2013.
  4. Nathan Leefer et al., “New Limits on Variation of the Fine-Structure Constant Using Atomic Dysprosium,” Physical Review Letters 111, no. 6 (August 6, 2013): id. 060801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.060801.
  5. S. A. Levshakov et al., “An Upper Limit to the Variation in the Fundamental Constants at Redshift z = 5.2,” Astronomy & Astrophysics: Letters 540 (April 2012): id. L9, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219042; Franco D. Albareti et al., “Constraint on the Time Variation of the Fine-Structure Constant with the SDSS-III/BOSS DR12 Quasar Sample,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 452, no. 4 (October 1, 2015): 4153–4168, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1406.
  6. J. Kobayashi, A. Ogino, and S. Inouye, “Measurement of the Variation of Electron-to-Proton Mass Ratio Using Ultracold Molecules Produced from Laser-Cooled Atoms,” Nature Communications 10 (August 21, 2019): id. 3771, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11761-1.
  7. Levshakov et al., “An Upper Limit.”
  8. Alfio Bonanno and Hans-Erich Fröhlich, “A New Helioseismic Constraint on a Cosmic-Time Variation of G,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 893, no. 2 (April 21, 2020): id. L35, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab86b9.
  9. Earl Patrick Bellinger and Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, “Astroseismic Constraints on the Cosmic-Time Variation of the Gravitational Constant from an Ancient Main-sequence Star,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887, no. 1 (December 3, 2019): id. L1, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab43e7.
  10. Jon O’Bryan et al., “Constraints on Spatial Variations in the Fine-Structure Constant from Planck,” The Astrophysical Journal 798, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): id. 18, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/18.
  11. Luke Hart and Jens Chluba, “Updated Fundamental Constant Constraints from Planck 2018 Data and Possible Relations to the Hubble Tension,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493, no. 3 (April 2020): 3255–3263, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa412.

Cant Be A Christian Without YEC?

Posted on by

A letter from an anonymous person raised an issue over her kids. Here is her letter and some responses.

Hi All,

I am looking for resources to share with my kids (oldest is 12 but they all can handle middle-grade type stuff – my oldest loves to read pretty advanced tech books, has read the Jurassic Park novel, etc.).

Long story short – I am divorced and since the divorce the ex has taken a very deep dive into AiG, among other troubling things, and is doing his best to indoctrinate the kids. He subscribes to AiG TV (or whatever it is) and the kids have tablets at his house with all the media on it. He “homeschools” them on the weekends (they go and have always gone to public school) with AiG materials.

One of my bigger concerns is that he’s planning on taking the kids to the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter next Summer. From what I have gleaned about it from YouTube videos, etc., it just sounds traumatizing for my more sensitive (and ND) kids.

So I think I have this school year to try to inoculate the kids as best I can in preparation of that trip, and of course long term I want my kids to not be afraid to ask questions, to feel free to think for themselves and make their own decisions. A big concern is that the kids are being taught that anyone who doesn’t embrace YEC isn’t a Christian (and really is evil) – and I don’t want them to be worried about my salvation if/when I speak openly to them about my own concerns with AiG, or their own salvation as they grow and hopefully start to ask their own questions.

So I’m looking for media of all types that can gently and gradually influence/open their minds to know it’s ok to have doubts, to want to think twice, or even to learn more about evolution (right now they can recite all the reasons why evolution, and those who think it is correct, is stupid and wrong – in their words). I will support them whatever they belive – but I want them to decide for themselves, and I’m not ok with the extremist take of YEC (us vs. them, and that the denial of YEC is the root of all evils in the world) that AiG promotes!

They will outright reject anything that blatantly states anything but the YEC viewpoint (and, for that matter, any children’s bible that has a “bathtub”ark in it…) so it really does have to be a subtle, gentle approach.

Books are great, podcasts are even better, and videos, too, although we don’t have tons of time to sit and watch but we do do a lot of driving so listening is great!

And if this isn’t the best group to post this question in, I appreciate references to other groups that would be helpful, too!

Thank you in advance!!!

One person answered:
You’re in a difficult spot. I’d probably advise letting them know that you don’t agree on everything they’re being told and many fine Christians have a different viewpoint.

Another answer:
Know that your children probably see YEC as the bedrock on which their entire faith is grounded. Attacking YEC head on will be seen as an attack on Christianity itself. This tends to be based on the following arguments: 1. If the earth wasn’t created in 6 days, then God is lying; 2. Jesus can’t be the second Adam if there was no first Adam, 3. Life comes through Jesus as death came through Adam, 4. There was no death before sin. I’m sure you’re aware that those are all straw man arguments and don’t hold up, so I won’t go into detail unless you ask. So what I would recommend is teaching them about other interpretations outside of a YEC context. Show them the importance of context. Let them know that we can disagree charitably with other viewpoints and calling people names for disagreeing is not christ-like.

As for exposing them to real science, try to avoid (for now) making it “science vs YEC”. If they ask why they should learn about “wrong things”, explain that we should always try to understand ideas we disagree with and make sure we’re disagreeing with things others are actually claiming and that even those with the best intentions have trouble presenting strong versions of other viewpoints. Maybe show them videos of people non-charitably presenting YEC or Christian positions to illustrate the point.

Resources:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/120YkDporc_xK8o655_dT6ENmN2Aemjs1lWsgkMRjHZU/edit#heading=h.780c1iaa3j9v

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15R4uQpASz-UL-d2Jd46nlBm5PUQq9nIyB7qBndLUTFQ/edit#heading=h.xfu9qm91oycp

My response:
I go to a Baptist church that does not have a worldwide global flood as part of it’s statement of faith. It also does not hold to any particular doctrine of origins. So this AiG/YEC idea stands outside church doctrine and is something that is added on as an extra. My church is not fundamentalist either. The church is, as far as I know, in line with the Fundamentals. But as Stackhouse points out, fundamentalism took the name but only the name and did not take the principles of the Fundamentals, and is just a cultural movement.
So a church can endorse the principles of the Fundamentals but not be fundamentalist.

This idea of adding onto scripture bothers me. I see Answer in Genesis as non-Christian. Just like Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. The doctrine is different. The ontology is different. The epistemology is different. It has a different concept of knowledge than Christianity. And a different concept of science. And many of the AiG followers destroy the work of the blood of Christ by requiring belief in things which have nothing to do with Christ as a condition of salvation. So to me it is like voodoo. Or the Mormons. Or the Moonies. It is a religion based on the bible. It is a Christian-like religion. But it is different than Christianity. It has a lot of philosophical and logical mistakes involved in it. And it distorts the bible. I would not call it a heresy but it would be fair if the catholic church were to declare it a heresy.

The pharisees were a non-Christian religion, but they were based on the bible. What about the Arians? The Donatists? Both bible-based heresies. Most heresies are bible based.

AiG is a big faith killer for millions of people. Perhaps it is a cult?

Look at Mark Chapter 7. Verse 6. What is the foundation of faith? Is it a crowd of people? Is it a teaching? Is it a status? A way of life? Is it a doctrine or an understanding of Genesis? Why are people so vested in one particular interpretation of Genesis to the exclusion of all others?


About Y-DNA

Posted on by

This was a note to myself to remember a few basic facts about Y-DNA and what the ftdna website was telling me.

Here is their statement:

Men do not just have one Haplogroup. They carry a “trail” of SNPs that are cumulatively passed from fathers to their sons.

Each man has many thousands of SNPs/Variants.

As of 27 March 2024, each FTDNA Big Y-700 included 639,776 Variants for each Kit’s results. (Show All: +; – ;?)

When two Kits verify a Variants existence, the Variant becomes a named SNP.

There are 20 Haplotypes: A through T.

In your example, the Haplotype is “R”.

Haplotype + SNP = Haplogroup.

In your case, you see three Equivalent SNPs in one Box on the Block Tree: FT43614; FT283922; and FTF15721.

The three SNPs formed in 3 separate and distinct Paternal Ancestors in your Tree. The names of the SNPs differ based on when they were first observed.

“BY” SNPs were named when Big Y-500 was the current test in 2029.

“FT” SNPs began in 2020 with the introduction of Big Y-700.

Once the number of “FT” SNPs reached 469,999, the names started over at “FTA”.

When “FTA” SNPs reached 99,999 the naming began again at “FTB”.

And the system continues.

The most recent SNP included in the ISOGG SNP Index is FTG641.

As of the end of March, there were 673,791 Variants/SNPs on the FTDNA Haplotree.

A Comment To Joel Duff

Posted on by


I wrote this to Joel Duff today. He had done a movie review of The Ark and the Darkness.
His review is called My Reaction to The Ark and the Darkness: Background, Themes and Thoughts.
On Maundy Thursday I am too busy to watch his review, perhaps tomorrow.


I said:

“I haven’t looked at the movie review yet. But today some movie fans became overly exuberant and claimed some things that are clearly wrong about how we all descend from Noah. No other humans survived anywhere on earth.

My hobby is genetic genealogy. Just today the ftdna blog announced George Washington’s Y-DNA is R-U152, which originated 4500 YBP (years before present) , ummm…during the flood!

I have low confidence that God faked DNA and high confidence that humans understand human DNA reasonably well. My church people haven’t yet told me what their confidences are or why they have them. All I know is they are affirming faith in God by affirming they believe no other humans survived the flood. They are hitching their faith in God to that wagon. I am going to guess they think they are preserving the truth of Christ. I am puzzled as to why that works. I can only guess what fallacies may be involved.

Thanks.”

https://youtu.be/yBMOZavfGiw is the URL of his review.


Why Do Christians Ignore Lexicography?

Posted on by

One sane man explains  YEC, Concordism, and Answers In Genesis  in a nutshell.

Paul A. Miller

As a retired linguist, these types of discussions as to whether the sun is a star remind me of similar examples like whether or not a tomato is a vegetable. As lexicographers would say, a tomato is a CULINARY fruit but it is a BOTANTICAL vegetables. That is, it suits the purposes of chefs to include the tomato among the vegetables even while it suits the purposes of botanists to call it a fruit because it is a reproductive product containing seeds. Neither is more “correct” than they other, because tomatoes don’t care what humans call them. Accordingly, tomatoes will continue to do what tomatoes do and be what tomatoes are. The labels don’t change them. Indeed, labels and classifications/groupings are about human convenience.

To state another way: Humans have countless labelling systems which involve groupings of similar things. It is a matter of communication and convenience—but naming does NOT somehow control ontology.

Likewise, to an astronomer, the sun is just another star. But to a poet or a painter, the sun is unique in beauty and significance for human experience. It is clearly “set apart” from stars, which are mere pinpoints in the sky. Indeed, that is how the Hebrew language of Genesis reflects its culture: the sun is the greater light and the moon is the less light—and the stars are far less significant. Nothing erroneous about that. It is a matter of perspective.

By the way, Genesis 1 is clearly not meant to be a scientific treatise, so we can’t make dogmatic arguments that it requires a “separate” creation for the sun and moon versus the stars. The main theme of Genesis 1 is “God made everything” and it uses the literary form of that culture and era to declare that message. The Answers in Genesis dogma on Genesis entails all sorts of anachronistic impositions of modern cultural notions (including scientific ones) on a text from an ancient culture.

My Response:
I am not a linguist. But I have never met a Christian who is one. But they often tell you what words mean. Because they KNOW.   Or do they?

David Buddrige says,

I agree (with Reverend Graham) on this point.Genesis isn’t talking about biological life, but rather spiritual life.You can see this by observing that God promised Adam that on the very day he ate of the fruit that he would “die”.The day he ate the fruit, he didn’t (physically) drop dead, but what *did* happen was that he was thrown out of Eden, and lost his friendly relationship with God.Consequently, what “death” *means* in the Bible is to be thrown out of God’s place and out of relationship with God.If “death” means to lose one’s relationship with God, then to be alive means to gain the relationship with God.Therefore when the Genesis creation account says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, he is describing that moment in history when the biological human creature first became aware of their special relationship with God and the promise of blessing and life with him – if only they would look to God for the definition of good and bad.It is for this reason that Paul could – with a straight face – tell the Ephesians that they were previously “dead”, and had now been made alive in Christ.

Excellent! This is another point where a linguist can tell us how words work.

My take on the subject is the concordists are wrapped around the axel on the topic of death in the world before Adam sinned. But the bible isn’t talking about biological death. it is talking about spiritual death. The concordists actually have a DOCTRINAL DISPUTE with other Christians.

If the Sun Is Created on Day 4, What Is the Light on Day 1?

Posted on by

If the Sun Is Created on Day 4, What Is the Light on Day 1?

TESTING POSTING OF LINKS INTO A FACEBOOK PAGE.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1

https://www.thetorah.com/article/if-the-sun-is-created-on-day-4-what-is-the-light-on-day-1
https://randomraindrops.com/day-1/

Return of the God Hypothesis

Posted on by

An interesting review I saw on amazon.com

“A comprehensive and lucid argument for theism as the best explanation for the scientific evidence. Stephen Meyer has a true gift for conveying complex concepts clearly.” — Dr. Robert Kaita, former Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

“A meticulously researched, lavishly illustrated, and thoroughly argued case against the new atheism. Even if your mind is made up—especially if it is—Meyer’s refreshing take on the origins of the Universe is a joy to read. You may not come away convinced, but you’ll be richer for the journey.” — Dr. Brian Keating, Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego, and author of Losing the Nobel Prize.

“Scientist and philosopher Meyer has discussed intelligent design previously but has not gone as far as he does here in terms of making the case for God. He does so citing new evidence from cosmology, physics, and biology, especially as it applies to DNA research. Meyer knows how to take readers’ hands and lead them through the history before showing how new discoveries can be used to undermine the cases made by anti-design theorists such as Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and even Bill Nye the Science Guy. Agree or disagree, there’s lots to ponder here.” — Booklist

“Meyer’s book is a masterclass, lucidly exploring every alternative from multiple points of view, while persuasively showing that the God Hypothesis is the best explanation of our finely-tuned, information-rich universe. It does irreparable damage to atheist rhetoric.” — John C. Walton, PhD, DSc, Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Research Professor of Chemistry, University of St. Andrews

“No one in my experience can explicate such complex material with the grace and clarity that seem so effortless to Stephen Meyer. With meticulous rational analysis of the latest discoveries in cosmology, physics, and biology, Meyer confirms a truth ideologues find too frightening to consider. Their ad hominem attacks on his brilliant work, confirm its importance.” — Dean Koontz, New York Times #1 bestselling author

“Reviewing all relevant evidence from cosmology to molecular biology, Meyer builds an irrefutable ‘case for God.’ The logic throughout is compelling and the book almost impossible to put down. A masterpiece. Easily the best, most lucid, comprehensive defense of the ‘God hypothesis’ in print. A unique tour de force. ” — Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., former Senior Research Fellow, Biochemistry, University of Otago, Author, Nature’s Destiny

“More than 400 pages of straightforward, engrossing prose, close reasoning, intellectual history, and cosmology, all in the interest of asking the most important questions about existence itself. An astonishing achievement.” — Peter Robinson, Murdoch Distinguished Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and former White House speechwriter

“With this book, Stephen Meyer earns a place in the pantheon of distinguished, non-reductive natural philosophers of the last 120 years, from the great French savant Pierre Duhem, through A.N. Whitehead, to Michael Polanyi…A profound, judicious book of great value bringing to bear advanced, scientific expertise and philosophical, integrative wisdom.” — Dr. Michael D. Aeschliman, emeritus professor Boston University, author The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism.

“Meyer masterfully summarizes the current evidence from cosmology, physics and biology showing that the more we learn about the universe and nature, the more relevant the ‘God hypothesis’ becomes.”  — Dr. Anthony Futerman, Joseph Meyerhoff Professor of Biochemistry, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel

“This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.” — Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, Fellow of the Royal Society Nobel Laureate in Physics

“When you don’t understand living systems, ignorance permits discounting a Creator.  But when the scientific details are thrust upon you, you’re forced to ask: How on Earth did that happen? Thus, the God hypothesis returns.  Stephen Meyer convincingly drives the point home: How could it be this way?  Only God!” — James M. Tour, Ph.D., T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Nano-Engineering, Rice University.

“Stephen Meyer is a genuine renaissance person.  His work tears down many purported barriers between science, philosophy, and religion.  An important book of both breadth and depth.” — Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry, Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia

“Dr. Meyer does a superb job in accurately describing the physics and cosmology that show the universe had a beginning. He also convincingly shows that quantum mechanics will not eliminate a cosmological singularity.” — Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Physics, Tulane University; Co-Author, The Anthropic-Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)

“A truly superb analysis of the relevant evidence.Stephen Meyer convincingly demonstrates that the God hypothesis is not just an adequate explanation for the origin of our fine-tuned universe and biosphere: it is the best explanation.” — David J Galloway, MD DSc FRCS FRCP, Honorary Professor of Surgery at College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences University of Glasgow; Former President, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow.

“A pleasure to read, [Meyer’s] inviting voice brings light to bear on complicated and profoundly influential subjects. With this abundantly rich book, Meyer completes a compelling trilogy which refutes the prevailing materialism of the intelligentsia.”  — Terry Scrambay, journalist and reviewer for New Oxford Review

“I commend Meyer’s book to those who believe science and religion are in conflict, and indeed to anyone seeking answers to the ultimate questions.” — The Claremont Review of Books

Shadow Banning

Posted on by

This came from a recent discussion about blog sites not being able to be posted on facebook and seen in the facebook browser.

Susan Lambeau, Looking at the facebook post in a browser if you click on the picture it launches a new browser window (the default browser of your system) and goes to https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html which is the URL of the article at phys.org. But using the facebook app what happens is you cannot get to phys.org. Instead Facebook generates a new web page that looks like the page at the above URL and send you to there, but inside the facebook app.

The implication here is facebook can censor the content. If they don’t want someone reporting on adverse side effects, for example, they can ban that.
Legally they can do that because they own the content on their website. They do not own the content on outside websites.

Even if you put the URL “https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html&#8221; on your facebook post people using the app will not be able to see the URL. They filter it out and re-write the display that is rendered.

This is important. Why? Well, for example, there is a recent scientific paper published in Canada about contamination level of DNA fragments in Pfizer covid vaccines. Facebook will not allow discussion of the paper. You cannot post the paper. You cannot post a link to a website talking about the paper either. They just remove your post. Sometimes they warn you not to try doing it again. The information is suppressed. This is one of the reasons people blog – to avoid censorship.

One of the side effects I recently noticed was it is not possible to get to a certain blog on medium.com where there are book reviews of books on science. The owner puts the link on her facebook group but facebook app users cannot get to the site to give feedback to the reviewer.

Really old people who still have computers and know what a browser is are slightly better off. But the new gen-alpha audience is totally locked into phones. Even my 40 year old daughter in law does not know what a browser is. And her kids have never seen a computer.

I think there is a word for this. I have heard it called “shadow banning”. The idea is to prevent unauthorized information from being viral. Or being capable of being viral.

So if a research scientist or an MD wants to say something that is “forbidden” she may be subject to shadow banning. Was there much of that happening during the lockdowns? You tell me!

When I travel I usually do not access facebook from a computer, but use a phone. I miss being able to copy a URL to paste into a note for later retrieval.
for example, the book review site. I had to ask the owner to message me the URL.

I hope this helps explain some of my concern. I want an open world wide web, not one that is controlled by a coalition of big tech that chokes off information.

Thanks!

Todays YEC Rumors

Posted on by


A friend posted this:

I wrote to her the following:


My friend David Rhoads tells me the YEC people claim the laws of physics change (when it is convenient for their viewpoint). I dont know if thats true. It seems to be. He has studied this for years. So, let us assume its true. God changes the laws of physics. OK, so then tell me why God cannot tweak the DNA of 100 organisms in a species to cause 50 reproducing pairs to suddenly exist to make a new species?

If God can and does change the laws of physics WHY cant he spawn a new species every day of the week?

Keep in mind the YEC claim is that the ENTIRE COSMOS had the laws of physics changed the first few days of creation and also changed the day Adam sinned.

Their claim is the speed of light everywhere changed.

Well, thats waaaaaaayyyyyy bigger of an effect on the universe than making a new species would be on tiny little earth.

So I am having a hard time understanding why god cannot do macroevolution.

I dont believe in naturalistic macro-evolution. I believe in theistic-macro-evolution. So to me what we seen in the natural world and what we see in the bible is One-Seamless-Truth.

So….”Evolution requires a lot more faith than the Creator view”… why do the YEC people limit God’s power? They believe God cannot do evolution. He is constrained to only being able to do creative acts at the beginning. Even if it means he changed all the physical laws of the universe. But during history? Oh, well, he is not allowed to tweak biology.

So I think this evolution versus theology idea seems to be a false dichotomy invented in the middle of the 19th century.

If we believe God can heal people and can resurrect people, why cant he make new species? I don’t get it. I used to go visit Henry Morris at his school in San Diego. I believed his world view. But now it doesnt make any sense.

On Cosmic Origins

Posted on by

LINK TO THIS POST: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/11/30/on-cosmic-origins/

Image of LINK TO THIS POST

On cosmic origins, Sy Garte says on page 52 of his book The Works Of His Hands,

“The third possible solution, one that is not commonly considered to be within the realm of science, is that God created the universe in a way that allowed stars, planets, and us to exist. While scientists typically reject any supernatural explanations, it must be said that the God hypothesis is not any more removed from testing or scientific confirmation than the multiverse. Therefore, a rational thinker is free to choose between two equally plausible and equally non-provable ideas. I now choose God.”



Let me pull out the two conclusions.

1. THE GOD HYPOTHESIS IS NOT ANY MORE REMOVED FROM TESTING OR SCIENTIFIC CONFIRMATION THAN THE MULTIVERSE.

2. THEREFORE A RATIONAL THINKER IS FREE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO EQUALLY NON_PROVABLE IDEAS. I NOW CHOOSE GOD.

Lets look at how Sy leads up to the third possible solution and his conclusions. Lets see what he says about the other two logical possible solutions.

Sy Garte On Cosmic Origins
Starting on page 49 of his kindle book The Works of His Hands Sy says the following about “Fine Tuning in Cosmology”



“What I learned about chaos and complexity helped remove my faith in materialism, rationalism, and the other philosophical reasons I started out with for not believing in God. But I also learned something that was more radical—something that actually made me think of a Creator God as a rational idea, or at least as rational as any alternative. This lesson did not make me a theist (that is still to come), but it did suggest a positive reason to believe rather than merely taking away reasons not to believe. That lesson was the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants.
Most physical laws include arbitrary constants that cannot be derived from theory but can only be measured experimentally—they simply are what they are. I will discuss the unsolvable mystery of the physical constants as an example of a hard limit on what we can discover through science in chapter 8. But for a small subset of these constants, the mystery has even greater significance. These are the cosmological constants—the constants related to how the universe was initially formed.
There are anywhere from six to about twenty of these numbers (depending on different interpretations), and it turns out that their values are highly fortuitous. If they were at all different (in some cases by extremely small differences), our kind of universe couldn’t exist, and neither could we.
According to modern physics, there are four forces that underlie all the physical laws of the universe. Two nuclear forces, the strong force and the weak force, govern interactions between particles within the atomic nuclei. At the other end of the scale of object size, interactions between large bodies such as stars, planets, and galaxies are dependent on the third force, gravity. Finally, magnetic and electrical forces between atoms and subatomic particles are different aspects of the fourth, the electromagnetic force.“



Ok, so far so good. I think we need to come back to this “unsolvable mystery of the physical constants”

The great goal of modern physics has been to find a unified theory that can integrate all these forces with each other and show how each force is related by some logical mathematical formulation to all the others. Some progress has been made. The weak force and the electromagnetic force have been shown to be interrelated; at a very early stage in the history of the universe (within the first billionth of a second of the start of the big bang), these two forces were actually one.
The relative strengths of the four forces are determined by specific equations that include some of the cosmological constants. Martin Rees, the distinguished British astronomer, writes in his book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe that these four physical constants (and two others) need to be exactly the values they are, or the universe would be radically different than it is. Changes in any of these constants would make stars, planets, and life impossible.
The fraction of the mass of two hydrogen atoms that is released as energy when they fuse to produce helium is 0.007 (0.7%). That is the source of the heat produced in the sun and in a hydrogen bomb. It is the amount of mass (m) that is converted to energy (E) in the famous Einstein formula E = mc2, and it is a direct measure of the strong nuclear force. If the strong force had a value of 0.006 or less, the universe would consist only of hydrogen—not very conducive to the complexities of life. If the value were greater than 0.008, all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang, and there could be no stars, no solar heat—again, no life.
As Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow put it in their book The Grand Design, “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration.”2

There are three possible solutions to the mystery of fine-tuning of the physical constants. One is that there is in fact a good theoretical explanation for these constants, and it will turn out that they had to be exactly what they are. This explanation would most likely be derived from the long-sought “theory of everything,” which will connect gravity to quantum physics and answer all questions. However, the theory of everything has so far been elusive. The latest disappointing results from CERN, the largest particle physics laboratory in the world, cast further doubt on these expectations.3
Another possibility is that there are or have been an infinite number of universes. We happen to be in this one because this is the only one out of billions or trillions, each with different constants and characteristics, that we could be in. The multiverse theory is favored by many physicists, but it has the problem of being unprovable, since information cannot travel between universes.

Lets re-iterate the three possible solutions.

1. THEORY OF EVERYTHING (that connects gravity to quantum physics and explains everything)
2. INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES (unprovable)
3. GOD (unprovable)

Origins and Science Note 1.

Posted on by

The mobile version removes background colors and images. Then in the facebook app they edit the words. They remove links so you cannot click them.

On November 28, 2023 I made a note of a discussion on origins, below. It has to do with YEC.

David Rhoads and Susan Haywood. Off topic of what the OP was….but …. I am puzzled by the theology of anyone who claims God can and did alter cosmological constants like the speed of light willy nilly and they think that is perfectly proper. But God cannot tweak mutations in DNA. For example, in a population of organisms God cannot invoke a mutation in two individuals or in 100 individuals all at the same time in order to make a new species that can reproduce with itself. That is too much for God to do, yet he can alter the physics of the entire universe! Are they serious?

I also do not see where the bible makes any claim about physics or about biology or DNA or species. Seems to me beliefs about these topics are conclusions jumped to by fallible humans. They are contrived notions or fabricated notions. Where does the bible say God cannot be involved in the evolution of biological organisms? Why do YEC’s believe God is forbidden to do any such interaction with biology in the universe? And yet he can snap His fingers and the speed of light changes “just like that” based on some decision some human made 6000 years ago. It makes no sense to me as a theology.

Here is the link: [Facebook users copy and paste into a URL in a browser to go to web page]
https://randomraindrops.com/2023/11/28/origins-and-science-note-1/

Language of God Excerpt #3

Posted on by

While reading Language of God something important caught my eye and I wrote about it at the time.

This is cross posted here: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/10/21/naturalism-of-the-gaps/

Francis Collins writes,

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview finds another way of finding truth. scientists who deny this would be well advised to observe the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable old by astronomer Arthur Eddington.

He [Eddington] described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.

Reference: Language of God, p 229 https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

Collins is quoting this fellow:

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington OM FRS[2] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He was also a philosopher of science and a populariser of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honour.


My remarks:

Eddington points out an epistemological mistake that is then used to draw an ontological conclusion that is not warranted. This is exactly what believers in philosophical naturalism (PN) commit when they tell us “science says there is no god.” PN believers are actually asserting that the natural world comprises all of reality and therefore theists must give up theism because the supernatural is impossible. This, BTW, is scientism.

I label this as Naturalism of the Gaps. I coined the phrase as a satire and later realized it is a serious position that invokes questions about human knowledge. I recently mentioned Naturalism of the Gaps to Jonathon Blocker. That afternoon I also read the remarks by Collins. It seems many physicists and philosophers have pondered these questions. I only noticed it because of the virulent and boisterous criticism of theists by science students who are looking for their daily student dose of confirmation bias.

Language of God Excerpt #2

Posted on by

The poverty of an objectivistic account is made only too clear when we consider the mystery of music. From a scientific point of view it is nothing but vibrations in the air, impinging on the eardrums and stimulating neural currents in the brain.

How does it come about that this banal sequence of temporal activity has the power to speak to our hearts of an eternal beauty? The whole range of subjective experience, from perceiving a patch of pink, to being enthralled by the performance of a Mass in B Minor, and on to the mystic’s encounter with the ineffable reality of the One, all these truly human experiences are at the center of our encounter with reality, and they are not to be dismissed as epiphenomenal froth on the surface of a universe whose true nature is impersonal and lifeless.

REFERENCE:
J. Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 18 – 19.

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual world view provides another way of finding truth.

REFERENCE:
Francis Collins, Language of God, p. 229.