Intelligent Design

Faith First; Evidence Later (if at all)

Spread the love

In the thread to my last post the following question was asked: “How are creationism and Darwinism commensurable.” In other words, what key traits do the two share, if any?

Here is my answer: With both creationism and Darwinism, the faith commitment is primary and the evidence is secondary.

Before exploring my answer further, let us define terms.

“Creationist”: In our UD glossary we provide a detailed definition of creationism. In summary, creationists hold that one can arrive at the truth of origins only by accepting the revelations of scripture as true (and typically only their interpretation of those scriptures), and all evidence is filtered through that basic faith commitment.

“Darwinist”: Darwinists believe that origins can be explained though small genetic changes in populations over time due to the impact of natural selection on the phenotypic variation among individuals in the populations. Darwinists believe that this process can be explained in purely materialist terms through the interaction of chance (random mutations) and mechanical necessity (the “law” of natural selection), and all evidence is filtered through that basic faith commitment.

“A priori”: All first principles must be accepted on faith. In the language of philosophy, all truth claims, without exception, are either “a priori” or “a posteriori.” An “a priori” truth claim is one that is prior (thus “priori”) to experience. In other words, we do not rely on experience to support a priori truth claims, because, by definition, they are independent of experience and cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by experience. A posteriori truth claims, on the other hand, are made on the basis of experience (thus “posteriori” or “after”).

We all know that creationists have a priori faith commitments, but surely you are mistaken Barry when you say that materialist scientists operate in the realm of faith too. No, I am not.

Consider the the following syllogism which underlies all Darwinist materialism: All phenomena in the universe can be reduced to material causes. The complexity and diversity of life is a phenomenon in the universe. Therefore, it follows that the complexity and diversity of life can be reduced to material causes.

For the conclusion to be valid, the major premise must be valid. In other words, the statement “all phenomena in the universe can be reduced to material causes” must be valid. How can we know that statement is valid? The answer is that we cannot know based on experience (i.e., a posteriori) that the statement is valid. In his Logic of Scientic Discovery, Popper demonstrated that universal statements such as this are not scientific statements because there is no way to confirm them through experience. He wrote: “We cannot search the whole world in order to establish that something does not exist [in our case, a non-material phenomenon], has never existed, and will never exist. It is for precisely the same reason that strictly universal statements are not verifiable. Again, we cannot search the whole world in order to make sure that nothing exists which the law forbids.”

If we cannot know that the statement is valid on an a posteriori basis, it follows that the only way we can accept the statement, if we accept it, is on an a priori basis, and it turns out that is exactly how Darwinists accept it. That Darwinists accept materialism a priori is not news. Indeed, prominent Darwinist Richard Lewontin has been remarkably candid about it:

“We take the side of science . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute.”

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997.

We have now established beyond any reasonable doubt that both the creationist and the Darwinist start with an a priori faith commitment. The creationist is committed a priori to his interpretation of the sacred text. The Darwinist is committed a priori to metaphysical materialism.

What about my second claim that both creationists and Darwinists filter all evidence though their faith commitments?

Again, this is not hard to see for the creationist. Consider starlight. In my discussions with young earth creationists I usually ask the following question: We know for a certain fact that certain stars are a million (or a billion) light years away. It seems to follow that the light we see from that star had to start traveling towards us a least a million (or a billion) years ago. How do you reconcile that fact with your claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old?

Young earth creationists are never daunted by this question, and they have a variety of answers. These answers include “God made the light in transit” and “The speed of light was much faster in the past than it is now.”

Notice two things about the YEC answers. First, neither answer can be disconfirmed. In other words, plainly an omnipotent God can, for example, make light in transit and thereby create a 6,000 year old universe that only appears to be billions of years old. Second, the YECs have established a system that can never be falsified. Every conceivable observation can be reconciled with the theory. Therefore, the evidence really does not matter.

What about the Darwinist? Does the evidence matter to him? Here Phil Johnson has the key. In Darwin on Trial Johnson gave the most cogent explanation of Darwinist thinking I have ever seen. He said that to the Darwinist the materialism comes first, and if the materialist premise is correct then something like Darwinism simply has to be true. Thus, Darwinism follows from materialism as a matter of simple logic quite independently of the evidence. And because the conclusion has been reached independently of the evidence, any evidence will do to support it and no evidence will falsify it.

For example, Darwin’s theory predicts that the fossils of intermediate species not only will be found but that such intermediates will be the overwhelming majority of fossils. Yes, some fossils that Darwinists claim to be intermediates have been found (most famously a bird-like reptile). But those who rely on those fossils are missing the larger point. Darwin’s theory necessarily predicts that intermediate fossils will predominate the record. Yet as Gould famously admitted, the fossil record is predominated by stasis. The prediction of Darwin’s theory has been disconfirmed. Therefore, the theory is falsified right? Wrong. Darwinists respond with a variety of answers, including “The record remains incomplete even though we’ve had 150 years to supplement it” or “Darwinian gradualism really means punctuated equilibrium.”

Notice two things about the Darwinists’ answers: First, neither can be disconfirmed. For example, it is conceivable that it really is the case that all of those intermediate fossils are out there just waiting to be found. One can fill “holes” in the record with whatever one wants, and who is to say you are wrong. Second, the Darwinists have created a system that can never be falsified. Every conceivable observation can be reconciled with the theory. Therefore, the evidence really does not matter.

It is true that some Darwinsts have suggested there are certain observations that could conceivablely falsify the theory (e.g., a pre-Cambrian rabbit). Nonsense. I guaranty you that if a pre-Cambrian rabbit were found today, tomorrow a Darwinist would be tweaking the theory to accommodate it.

In conclusion, therefore, we see that Creationism and Darwinism are commensurable in that both subscribe to a faith first, evidence later paradigm.

22 Replies to “Faith First; Evidence Later (if at all)

  1. 1
    bevets says:

    Young earth creationists are never daunted by this question, and they have a variety of answers. These answers include “God made the light in transit” and “The speed of light was much faster in the past than it is now.”

    Notice two things about the YEC answers. First, neither answer can be disconfirmed. In other words, plainly an omnipotent God can, for example, make light in transit and thereby create a 6,000 year old universe that only appears to be billions of years old. Second, the YECs have established a system that can never be falsified. Every conceivable observation can be reconciled with the theory. Therefore, the evidence really does not matter.

    I suspect Barry Setterfield would contend that his hypothesis is falsifiable. While YECs (and Darwinists) have a Goal that will not change, the path to this goal can and does change to conform with current observations. I think you have confused the unchanging goal with the path.

  2. 2
    nullasalus says:

    It is true that some Darwinsts have suggested there are certain observations that could conceivablely falsify the theory (e.g., a pre-Cambrian rabbit). Nonsense. I guaranty you that if a pre-Cambrian rabbit were found today, tomorrow a Darwinist would be tweaking the theory to accommodate it.

    I’d have to agree with that. Really, what has already been established through research and study has shown us an evolutionary and biological picture that is alien to quite a lot of Darwin’s thought, and is increasingly hard to reconcile even with Neo-Darwinism. But there is a lot of (largely emotional) investment in invoking Darwin’s name or in acting as if all that’s needed are ‘minor modifications to the theory’. As I’ve asked before, how many times can you modify a theory before it’s simply a new theory altogether?

    Darwinists believe that origins can be explained though small genetic changes in populations over time due to the impact of natural selection on the phenotypic variation among individuals in the populations. Darwinists believe that this process can be explained in purely materialist terms through the interaction of chance (random mutations) and mechanical necessity (the “law” of natural selection), and all evidence is filtered through that basic faith commitment.

    I have two problems here. One is that there’s a number of people – TEs, people who are disconnected from the religion debate, etc – who reject materialism. I think Francis Collins does. If rejecting materialism suffices to make one ‘not a Darwinist’, Darwin deniers are all over the place.

    Of course, the other problem is that ‘materialism’ is dead too. Panpsychism is materialism now. Neutral monism is materialism. Property dualism is materialism. On some days, I honestly wonder if idealism can be considered a type of materialism. And this before getting to ‘law’ talk.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    The Cell As Revealed By The Electron-Microscope
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5766297/

    Stunning and intricate electron-microscope images of Diatoms: Diatoms are delicate unicellular organisms that have a yellow-brown chloroplast that enables them to photosynthesize. Their cell walls are made of silica almost like a glass house.
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gfH7WuD87e863tx-ICudApYGCWK9gvj0cd2ldmpYpyQ

  4. 4
    Spiny Norman says:

    Barry wrote:
    >> With both creationism and Darwinism,
    >> the faith commitment is primary
    >> and the evidence is secondary

    … meaning, presumably, that faith comes first and evidence trails along dragging its heels like a reluctant child.

    That may be true for some creationists, but to characterise ALL creationists in such a way is simply untrue.

    The intersection of faith with evidence have a long and rich theological history and to apply such a reductionist approach as you have done (above) unfortunately fails to do the topic justice.

    Methinks you are a little guilty of stereotyping.

    For Christian creationists, there is a famous verse to consider: “Faith is the evidence of things unseen” … which I understand to mean that faith (which arises in the believer) is the evidence (providing warrant) for those UNSEEN things which otherwise lack evidence.

    But to extend this principle to things which are seen would be unwarranted (and probably very bad theology). If you are trying to connect “the unseen” with “past history” then I think that’s a rather long bow and you need to do more to make your case.

    Many (though perhaps not most) of the creationists I know would argue, some very persuasively, that their faith arose because of the evidence, not prior to it nor in spite of it.

  5. 5
    Barry Arrington says:

    Spiny Norman,

    I am sorry, but I’m afraid you have missed the point of the post. The points you raise I largely agree with, as a set forth here.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-reason/

  6. 6
    tragic mishap says:

    Of course, intelligent design has no faith commitments whatsoever.

    Or is the point of this post to show that there must always be first principles taken on faith, even in science?

  7. 7
    Bruce David says:

    Gil,

    I love your posts, maybe because I too was once a materialist (and a Darwinist). I think you have got it exactly right, and have said it very well.

    One difference between the materialists and the creationists (other than the articles of their faith, of course) is that as a rule the materialists are in denial about their own faith. Most of them are certain that their materialism is the height of rationality and based entirely on science, and nothing you can say will persuade them otherwise. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

    To Tragic Mishap (#6): I don’t know what Gil would say (although I suspect he would agree with me on this), but I would say that it is impossible not to have something that one takes on faith. In mathematics, nothing can be proved without axioms, and it is generally true that one has to start from something that one just “knows” or believes (our fundamental paradigms). The important thing is to recognize them for what they are and bring them to consciousness where they can be examined. Only then does one have the possibility of allowing them to evolve as one’s life experience accumulates.

  8. 8
    Bruce David says:

    Oops. I seem to have misplaced the actual author of this post. My apologies to both Gil and Barry. I do wish one had the ability to go back and edit a comment once it has been submitted. It would save us all a lot of embarrassment.

  9. 9
    second opinion says:

    I am pretty sure that commensurable is the wrong term for what you describe. Scientific theories are commensurable if you can determine which one is more accurate. What you describe in your OP is something entirely different.

  10. 10
    Noesis says:

    Barry,

    So-called natural selection is not a “law of nature,” but a logical necessity. That is, adaptation is the logical consequence of variety, heredity, fecundity, and bounded resources. Materialism is irrelevant. Furthermore, there is no requirement that chance contribute to the variation in offspring.

  11. 11
    Bruce David says:

    Noesis, you said: “adaptation is the logical consequence of variety, heredity, fecundity, and bounded resources.”

    Darwinists consistently confuse adaptation (generally known as microevolution), which no proponent of ID of which I am aware disputes, with the emergence of new body plans, organs, organ systems, or processes (eg., sexual reproduction, blood clotting, insect metamorphosis), generally known as macroevolution. There is absolutely no direct evidence that macroevolution can arise by Darwinian mechanisms (ie., it has never been observed to occur either in nature or in the laboratory), and precious little indirect evidence. On the other hand, there is abundant and growing evidence that it cannot. It certainly does not follow logically from any known scientific laws or principles (other than Darwinism itself, of course). As Barry so eloquently points out, however, it does follow from an a priori commitment to materialism or methodological naturalism.

  12. 12
    Noesis says:

    Barry,

    Yet as Gould famously admitted, the fossil record is predominated by stasis. The prediction of Darwin’s theory has been disconfirmed. Therefore, the theory is falsified right? Wrong.

    Not to insult you, but your idea of falsification is what is now known as naive falsification. In his later work, Popper understood that good theories may make some incorrect predictions.

    Theories are continually modified in science, not just chucked out the window when something does not pan out. Are you aware that the standard model of cosmology is presently propped up by attributing 95% of its mass-energy to purely hypothetical entities — dark matter and dark energy?

    Ernst Mayr addressed the fact that evolution does not progress at a steady pace in the 1950’s. Eldredge and Gould cited his work in their first paper on punctuated equilibria, as I recall. Gould had a flair for self-promotion.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Noesis you state:

    ‘In his later work, Popper understood that good theories may make some incorrect predictions.’

    And at exactly which point of failing to make accurate predictions and modifying a hypothesis to accord with the evidence do you suggest we abandon a hypothesis such as Darwin?

    Darwin’s Predictions – Cornelius Hunter
    Excerpt: It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

    When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified a bit to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

    Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists argue strenuously that these surprises are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred. Is this true or simply a case of partisanship in science? How can we tell?
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

  14. 14
    second opinion says:

    I’m just wandering: What does ID say about the pre-Cambrian rabbit?

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    second opinion, what are you really trying to say??? You will only accept a ‘certain type’ of animal suddenly appearing out of nowhere in the fossil record as falsification for darwinism?? Talk about cherry picking!

  16. 16
    Noesis says:

    Bruce David,

    Again, adaptation is a logical consequence of heredity, variety, fecundity, and bounded resources. How do you get a restriction to microevolution out of this?

    The belief that some biological entities evidence intelligent design does not entail belief that macroevolution never occurs. In fact, some IDists have argued that evolutionary adaptation is inherently teleological.

    The evidence (including direct evidence from the fossil record) that cetaceans evolved from land-dwelling mammals is quite strong, and I can’t imagine any but a religious reason for denying that.

    Macroevolution has also been observed in silica.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Noesis you state:

    The evidence (including direct evidence from the fossil record) that cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc..) evolved from land-dwelling mammals is quite strong, and I can’t imagine any but a religious reason for denying that.

    Actually you are severely misguided if you think you have any evidence to withstand scrutiny::

    Perhaps one of the most egregious violations to common sense, by the evolutionists, is the evolutionists claim that whales evolved from a terrestrial (land dwelling) mammal in a mere 10 million years. These following videos and articles expose a few of their violations of logic:

    Whale Evolution? – Exposing The Deception – Dr. Terry Mortenson – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568

    This following studies provides solid support for Dr. Terry Mortenson’s critique of whale evolution in the preceding video:

    Of Whale and Feather Evolution: Nature’s Two Macroevolutionary Lumps of Coal (Dismantling Nature’s evolutionary evangelism packet) – Casey Luskin _ November 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....37221.html

    How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010
    Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-356170

    This article shows how misleading Darwinists can be with the ‘whale’ evidence:

    Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a “Whale” – November 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....39851.html

    This following sites is a bit more detailed in their dismantling of the whale evolution myth:

    Whale Tale Two
    Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales.
    http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~d...../v6i2f.htm

    These following videos are very good, for they use the mathematical equations used by leading evolutionists themselves, for population genetics, to show that the evolution of whales, and even of humans, is impossible even by using their own mathematical methods of predicting change:

    Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203

    Darwinism Vs. Whale Evolution – Part 1 – Richard Sternberg PhD. – SMU talk – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263733

    Darwinism Vs. Whale Evolution – Part – Richard Sternberg PhD. – SMU talk – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263746

    “Whales have a long generation time, and they don’t have huge populations. They’re like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly,” “To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]–mathematically that’s totally not possible.” Casey Luskin
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    further note:

    Darwin’s Theory – Fruit Flies and Morphology – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs

    Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) – October 2010
    Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....ruit_flies

    Whale Evolution? Darwinist ‘Trawlers’ Have Every Reason To Be Concerned:
    Excerpt: As one review noted: “The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive.”
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....wlers_have

    This following video takes a honest look at just what evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain whale evolution:

    What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale – David Berlinski – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM

    Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using ‘designed’ echolocation to hunt a giant squid:

    Sperm whale Vs giant squid – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2Lfxpi710

    It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of ‘bone homology’, or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but ‘certain’, as this following video and quote clearly point out:

    Investigating Evolution: Homology – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18

    If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following ‘true’ statement:

    “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
    Evolutionist – Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils

    As well, there are very many similar creatures alive today (Marsupial and Placental mammals for one example) that, hypothetically, have completely different evolutionary paths yet their fossils are virtually indistinguishable from one another:

    Are look-alikes related? – September 2010
    http://creation.com/are-look-alikes-related

    Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg

    Here are four more pages of quotes, by leading experts, on the fossil record here:

    Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record #1 – Stephen E. Jones
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc01.html

  19. 19
    Noesis says:

    bornagain77, spare me:

    Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species.

    Bizarre claim. Methinks George has spent too much time in the echo chamber.

    Scientists in all disciplines explain empirical phenomena in naturalistic terms. The naturalism is in the methodology of science, and not in the theory of evolution, or any other theory. Explanation in terms of the supernatural may appeal to some of you, but I cannot see that it has ever advanced science.

    The notion that science is supposed to “tell the truth” about everything that matters to humankind is scientism. It’s more disturbing when religious people embrace it as when the irreligious do. I believe that the ID movement is doing more damage to people, spiritually, with its scientism than it is doing good.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Noesis, Actually, the artificial imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is called methodological naturalism and is both an artificial and unwarranted restriction on the scientific method, especially when investigating these questions of origins!!!

    Materialism compared to Theism within the scientific method:
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc....._5fwz42dg9

    Excerpt:

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
    William Shakespeare – Hamlet

    The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc… Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins.

    A Question for Barbara Forrest
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....rrest.html

    In fact, I’ve heard someone say, “Science is materialism.” Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, “Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?” When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. No less than leading “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins agrees:

    “The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science.” Richard Dawkins
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-crocker/

    The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method.

    Steps of the Scientific Method
    http://www.sciencebuddies.org/.....thod.shtml

    For a quick overview, here are a few:

    1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. – Big Bang points to a creation event. –

    2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. – Time was created in the Big Bang. –

    3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) – Space was created in the Big Bang. –

    4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted ‘material’ was created. – ‘Material’ was created in the Big Bang.

    5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space – Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. –

    6. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9)-

    7. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind – Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. –

    8. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe – Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. –

    9. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    10. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    11. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from “a warm little pond”. Theism predicted God created life – The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    12. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) – We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth –

    13. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. – The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    14. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record – Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    15. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. –

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & the Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5070355

    Last, but certainly not least, as a Christian I would be very remiss if I failed to ask you to accept the free gift of eternal life from the living God who created this universe and all life in it. In fact, almighty God has made a very clear path for us “fallen human adults” to completely reconcile with Him so we may be able to stand before Him in heaven. We do this by humbly accepting what He has done for us through Christ on the cross so that we may be able to stand in the glory of the presence of almighty God in heaven (For our God is an all-consuming fire – Hebrews 12:29). In fact by accepting Christ into your heart, you will be cleansed spotless of your sins in the presence of almighty God. So how about it, Will you accept this priceless gift of Jesus Christ into your heart today so you may able to receive the priceless gift of eternal life in heaven? —

    Revelation 3:20
    ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.’

    My Beloved One – music video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200171

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

    The Disciples – How They Died – Would A Man Die For Something He Knew Was A Lie? – music video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4193404

    ———————————————————————————–

    Evanescence – “Bring Me To Life” – Video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpmSHb-aRB0

    Wake Me O Lord

    Wake me O Lord from this sleep of mine
    To the living wonders of creation that are so fine
    With a “Oh, that’s nice” I shall not content
    NO, only when You speak shall my heart be spent
    Others may suffice their cravings of Awe
    With an “Oh Well” shrug of the wonders they saw
    But I know You are in each piece of reality
    Yes, in the wind, the stars, and even the sea
    So this vow to You I make
    No rest in me my heart will take
    Till Your face and hands again I see
    In the many waters of reality
    For the truth be known to You indeed
    That if I see You not with my heart and head
    I’m not really born again, but instead am dead

    Does God Exist? Finding a Good God in an Evil World
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    corrected link:

    Evanescence – “Bring Me To Life” – Video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM

  22. 22
    Bruce David says:

    Noesis:

    I agree with you that adaptation is a logical consequence of heredity, variety, fecundity, and bounded resources. However, what is in question between Darwinists and its critics is not that adaptation occurs. Rather it is whether adaptation has the power to explain the full extent of the variety of living forms and processes. That is not a logical question, it is a scientific one, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against a Darwinian explanation. See Denton, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Axe, Meyer, J.C. Sanford, and a number of others, all of them scientists, mathematicians, or philosophers of science, and who make their case based entirely on the scientific evidence.

    Your invoking cetaceans is a case in point. The fossil record shows a series of some 5 or 6 animals which can be placed into an evolutionary sequence leading to modern whales. But this sequence (if it is even valid) simply does not distinguish between evolution by Darwinian processes and evolution by design. Look at the evolution of the airplane in the twentieth century, for example. Clearly an evolutionary sequence, but a designed one, as we all know.

    The fossil record, if it supports any conclusion at all, supports the conclusion that Darwinism is false. If Darwinism were true, the record should consist primarily of species gradually morphing one into another through small incremental changes. We should see some rodent’s forelimbs slowly enlarging and changing form until voila, a bat. Or scales slowly changing into feathers. Or something like that somewhere. There is no such sequence at all, anywhere in the fossil record. Darwin argued, as do Darwinists today, that the record is too incomplete to record these changes. But even if this argument is valid, this is simply an explanation of why the record does NOT support Darwinism, not a proof that it does.

    All the fossil record shows us is that life has become more and more complex and varied over geologic time. It does not show us that a Darwinian mechanism is responsible.

Leave a Reply