Reality. What a Concept!

[Worddigger]

"Reality! What a Concept!" The subject line is a quote from one of my favorite comedians, Robin Williams. I consider it a most profound utterance of wisdom. I have chosen to apply this gem of wisdom to an examination of the arguments concerning the teaching of Evolution and the counter concept of Intelligent Design. What is the reality here?

Evolutionary scientists claim that the introduction of Intelligent Design theory is just a back-door attempt to justify the teaching of Creationism. Further, to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design was tantamount to re-defining what science really is and how it is properly conducted. Perhaps this is true. The word science means “knowledge” and, if it means ALL knowledge, then excluding the concept of God means we are excluding that particular area of knowledge.

While I agree with the scientific establishment that pure science should be based solely on the observations of nature, without invoking the inferred workings of a Deity, the reality of the matter is nature itself was ordained by God and the observed “laws” of nature, which guide our observations, were preordained by Him. That is an inescapable reality of life. And those who choose not to accept the existence of God do so in an attempt to escape the reality that the great "I AM" really is.

Agreed! God can not be observed or measured by scientific instruments or, for that matter, scientifically proven to even exist. But the reality is that the workings of God can, indeed, be observed when measured against the Light of the Word of God.

Evolutionary theory espouses the concept that the universe brought fourth life and consciousness by itself, and that this consciousness, today engendered in the form of its highest evolutionary accomplishment (mankind), is now self aware and looking back and observing itself. That line of reasoning is rather pantheistic, and a religious belief system in its own right, when you boil it down to the lowest common denominator.

I have no problem with the big-bang theory that the universe exploded out of nothing (or a singularity), and then expanded to become everything. The mathematics of physics certainly points toward such a reality. And that reality is accepted by science. But science can not answer WHY that singularity ever was in the first place, and why it produced an extremely structured and well ordered universe in the second place. Who was the Designer? Was there a Designer? This is the real crux of the argument.

Some folks argue that the seeds of life on the Earth were brought here by comets or asteroids in the distant past. Fair enough, so where were those seeds first made and by whom, and when? Others will claim that life was sown here by space aliens or some superior race of beings. Fair enough, so where did they come from and who designed them, and when? That kind of reasoning is only an attempt to dodge the issue. And every one of these arguments arises from denial of a greater reality.

The physical sciences can only take us so far in understanding the cosmos and all things within it. Evolutionary theory says that man’s nature (to kill) is an evolved instinct and a normal part of nature. If this is normal, then why does civilized society find murder and death so abhorrent? Why should we fear and constantly struggle against what is natural? We do so because it is not natural. There is something fundamentally wrong within the cosmos which also can not be observed with the instruments of science. If it is impossible to quantify God, is it any more possible to quantify evil? Why does evil even exist? Science can’t answer that question, either.

What is the soul and why do different people have different personalities? Science can not define the soul or explain individualism in being. All these things are beyond the purview of the physical sciences, yet they are all things that can be observed. They are a reality. If then, scientists attempt to investigate and find answers to these questions, would they be guilty of re-defining what science and the scientific method is? No! In universities around the world researchers in diverse fields of the behavioral sciences are seeking these very answers. Researchers into paranormal activity are seeking answers to observed phenomena that can not be explained by the normal laws of the physical sciences. Although many of these latter scientists are branded as off-the-wall kooks by mainline scientists, they still receive a greater degree of respect from the general scientific community (and the public) than is accorded to any Creationist. Why is that? Science can’t explain it!

The ongoing controversy of "Creation vs. Evolution" will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the secular scientific community (or the Creationists). It cannot be resolved in a secular context regardless of the well-intended efforts of many on either side of the debate because the current focus of the argument is emotionally and factually misdirected.

Armed with only the observations of current and historical geologic processes and other empirical data, and assuming natural history has been a continuum across billions of years, the present secular paradigms of geological and evolutionary theory are about the best belief system that the educated mind of carnal mankind could be expected to conceive and accept from the available physical evidence. Without the input of Biblical Authority, current theories are, in reality, incomplete. And many questions and mysteries remain unresolved, especially in relation to the origins of mankind.

Secular scientists are confident to point out scientific inaccuracies of the Bible because they have been led to view the Bible through the distorted lenses of traditional Biblical interpretation. What scientists have successfully contradicted, and should be applauded for doing so, is refuting the traditionally-held Biblical interpretation: Specifically, that all things were created out of nothing only about six thousand years ago, as espoused by the Young Earth Creationists.

However, when you get down to the solid core of what the Bible actually and truly says, Scripture compared to Scripture, there is no scientific evidence in existence today to refute what it actually says: all life, indeed an entire ancient world order, had already perished from the face of the Earth long before the seven days of Genesis. The rightly-divided Scriptures reveal that the seven days of Genesis are a REGENERATION of the heavens and earth, and that life on this planet has not been an actual continuum. This is a Biblical fact that both sides find hard to swallow.

Both the Bible and scientific data are most certainly in agreement on one very key point: This planet Earth is very, very old, and if God authored both the Word and Earth's geologic record, no real contradiction in fact can possibly exist. The fault MUST be INTERPRETIVE, on both sides of the debate.

Noah's flood and Divine creative intervention by a Holy God are not factored into the world's accepted origins model, because God can't be observed or quantified in a physical system or seen under a microscope, although the results of His work can be observed and quantified. For these reasons there is an unbridgeable gap between secular Empirical Science and the Christian faith in respect to both Creation and Noah's flood.

Empirical Science is the pursuit of quantifiable facts and repeatable observations and is limited to the physical sphere of reality. From this purely physical perspective, the geological evidence appears to indicate that this planet and the life on it are the result of natural processes over time, and that the existence of all life forms and extinction must be credited to a natural process of random mutations and selection by nature itself. In such a paradigm of interpretation, the researcher's faith is in a theory or synthesis of theories which seems to best fit the observations.

The Christian, on the other hand, must also deal with spiritual things, which are just as real as physical things, but can only be seen through the agency of faith by the illumination of the Word of God. A true born-again Christian (who is also a scientist) cannot be fully objective in an empirical perspective in dealing with the question of origins. The acceptance of God's words on matters of original sin and supernatural agency hold us accountable to a higher interpretive system; a system which has no place of welcome in the institutional physical sciences of the world. No amount of compromise will be acceptable to either the Naturalists or Creationist extremes of each respective school.

That being said, please do not misunderstand. A lot of good knowledge emerges from the practice of good science and the scientific method, and there are a lot of good Christians who are scientists. But when it comes to matters of origins and the things of God, natural science (without God) is as much out of its depth in providing the full truth as the Young Earth Creationist is who ignores solid scientific data.

Behind the scenes, however, the real driving issue between Evolutionists and Creationists is not the existence of God. The real issue is whether all things were created by the Hebrew God of the Holy Bible and according to an Intelligent Design and purpose. Make no mistake, the authority of the Bible and the moral issue of personal accountability to God is the true but hidden root of all contention in that public debate.

[rjw]

"Reality! What a Concept!" The subject line is a quote from one of my favorite comedians, Robin Williams. I consider it a most profound utterance of wisdom. I have chosen to apply this gem of wisdom to an examination of the arguments concerning the teaching of Evolution and the counter concept of Intelligent Design. What is the reality here?

Evolutionary scientists claim that the introduction of Intelligent Design theory is just a back-door attempt to justify the teaching of Creationism. Further, to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design was tantamount to re-defining what science really is and how it is properly conducted. Perhaps this is true. The word science means “knowledge” and, if it means ALL knowledge, then excluding the concept of God means we are excluding that particular area of knowledge.

While I agree with the scientific establishment that pure science should be based solely on the observations of nature, without invoking the inferred workings of a Deity, the reality of the matter is nature itself was ordained by God and the observed “laws” of nature, which guide our observations, were preordained by Him. That is an inescapable reality of life. And those who choose not to accept the existence of God do so in an attempt to escape the reality that the great "I AM" really is.

Agreed! God can not be observed or measured by scientific instruments or, for that matter, scientifically proven to even exist. But the reality is that the workings of God can, indeed, be observed when measured against the Light of the Word of God.

Evolutionary theory espouses the concept that the universe brought fourth life and consciousness by itself, and that this consciousness, today engendered in the form of its highest evolutionary accomplishment (mankind), is now self aware and looking back and observing itself. That line of reasoning is rather pantheistic, and a religious belief system in its own right, when you boil it down to the lowest common denominator.

I have no problem with the big-bang theory that the universe exploded out of nothing (or a singularity), and then expanded to become everything. The mathematics of physics certainly points toward such a reality. And that reality is accepted by science. But science can not answer WHY that singularity ever was in the first place, and why it produced an extremely structured and well ordered universe in the second place. Who was the Designer? Was there a Designer? This is the real crux of the argument.

Some folks argue that the seeds of life on the Earth were brought here by comets or asteroids in the distant past. Fair enough, so where were those seeds first made and by whom, and when? Others will claim that life was sown here by space aliens or some superior race of beings. Fair enough, so where did they come from and who designed them, and when? That kind of reasoning is only an attempt to dodge the issue. And every one of these arguments arises from denial of a greater reality.

The physical sciences can only take us so far in understanding the cosmos and all things within it. Evolutionary theory says that man’s nature (to kill) is an evolved instinct and a normal part of nature. If this is normal, then why does civilized society find murder and death so abhorrent? Why should we fear and constantly struggle against what is natural? We do so because it is not natural. There is something fundamentally wrong within the cosmos which also can not be observed with the instruments of science. If it is impossible to quantify God, is it any more possible to quantify evil? Why does evil even exist? Science can’t answer that question, either.

What is the soul and why do different people have different personalities? Science can not define the soul or explain individualism in being. All these things are beyond the purview of the physical sciences, yet they are all things that can be observed. They are a reality. If then, scientists attempt to investigate and find answers to these questions, would they be guilty of re-defining what science and the scientific method is? No! In universities around the world researchers in diverse fields of the behavioral sciences are seeking these very answers. Researchers into paranormal activity are seeking answers to observed phenomena that can not be explained by the normal laws of the physical sciences. Although many of these latter scientists are branded as off-the-wall kooks by mainline scientists, they still receive a greater degree of respect from the general scientific community (and the public) than is accorded to any Creationist. Why is that? Science can’t explain it!

The ongoing controversy of "Creation vs. Evolution" will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the secular scientific community (or the Creationists). It cannot be resolved in a secular context regardless of the well-intended efforts of many on either side of the debate because the current focus of the argument is emotionally and factually misdirected.

Armed with only the observations of current and historical geologic processes and other empirical data, and assuming natural history has been a continuum across billions of years, the present secular paradigms of geological and evolutionary theory are about the best belief system that the educated mind of carnal mankind could be expected to conceive and accept from the available physical evidence. Without the input of Biblical Authority, current theories are, in reality, incomplete. And many questions and mysteries remain unresolved, especially in relation to the origins of mankind.

Secular scientists are confident to point out scientific inaccuracies of the Bible because they have been led to view the Bible through the distorted lenses of traditional Biblical interpretation. What scientists have successfully contradicted, and should be applauded for doing so, is refuting the traditionally-held Biblical interpretation: Specifically, that all things were created out of nothing only about six thousand years ago, as espoused by the Young Earth Creationists.

However, when you get down to the solid core of what the Bible actually and truly says, Scripture compared to Scripture, there is no scientific evidence in existence today to refute what it actually says: all life, indeed an entire ancient world order, had already perished from the face of the Earth long before the seven days of Genesis. The rightly-divided Scriptures reveal that the seven days of Genesis are a REGENERATION of the heavens and earth, and that life on this planet has not been an actual continuum. This is a Biblical fact that both sides find hard to swallow.

Both the Bible and scientific data are most certainly in agreement on one very key point: This planet Earth is very, very old, and if God authored both the Word and Earth's geologic record, no real contradiction in fact can possibly exist. The fault MUST be INTERPRETIVE, on both sides of the debate.

Noah's flood and Divine creative intervention by a Holy God are not factored into the world's accepted origins model, because God can't be observed or quantified in a physical system or seen under a microscope, although the results of His work can be observed and quantified. For these reasons there is an unbridgeable gap between secular Empirical Science and the Christian faith in respect to both Creation and Noah's flood.

Empirical Science is the pursuit of quantifiable facts and repeatable observations and is limited to the physical sphere of reality. From this purely physical perspective, the geological evidence appears to indicate that this planet and the life on it are the result of natural processes over time, and that the existence of all life forms and extinction must be credited to a natural process of random mutations and selection by nature itself. In such a paradigm of interpretation, the researcher's faith is in a theory or synthesis of theories which seems to best fit the observations.

The Christian, on the other hand, must also deal with spiritual things, which are just as real as physical things, but can only be seen through the agency of faith by the illumination of the Word of God. A true born-again Christian (who is also a scientist) cannot be fully objective in an empirical perspective in dealing with the question of origins. The acceptance of God's words on matters of original sin and supernatural agency hold us accountable to a higher interpretive system; a system which has no place of welcome in the institutional physical sciences of the world. No amount of compromise will be acceptable to either the Naturalists or Creationist extremes of each respective school.

That being said, please do not misunderstand. A lot of good knowledge emerges from the practice of good science and the scientific method, and there are a lot of good Christians who are scientists. But when it comes to matters of origins and the things of God, natural science (without God) is as much out of its depth in providing the full truth as the Young Earth Creationist is who ignores solid scientific data.

Behind the scenes, however, the real driving issue between Evolutionists and Creationists is not the existence of God. The real issue is whether all things were created by the Hebrew God of the Holy Bible and according to an Intelligent Design and purpose. Make no mistake, the authority of the Bible and the moral issue of personal accountability to God is the true but hidden root of all contention in that public debate.

Gidday Worddigger,


An interesting and thoughtful post - BUT

Your implicit definition of science seems to defy any meaning that has been traditionally applied to it. Furthermore it runs into fundamental problems.

You appear to argue that “science equals knowledge, God is a part of knowledge therefore God is a part of science”.

As long as science has been recognized as such, I think that most people would argue at least that science is a method for acquiring knowledge. Thus science is not knowledge.

As a method for acquiring knowledge, it seems to rely on the following:-

a) and agreed framework that incorporates such notions concerning an objectively real universe, that can be examined and understood by the human mind, in which regularities occur that can be observed and measured etc.

b) a process whereby data is collected (observations) and theories established, refined, or rejected

c) ideas which are used to explain observations and provide guidance for future observations – these ideas are our theories.

Now if your particular god could be incorporated within the body of scientific knowledge using the above mentioned methodology then I would say that “Worddigger’s god is science”.

However, I have not seen anything from anyone that gives me an idea that this is indeed the case, and your essay seemingly agrees with this. The very notion of God is problematical – even amongst believers, let alone evidence for him and his modus operandi.

You have done little more than assert that your god of your particular faith is real and therefore objective fact and therefore science.

Well you are entitled to your faith and I am entitled to mine.

I am an atheist. I doubt that God exists. Let me go one step further. I declare “God does not exist”. That too is science, following your rationale.

Your god exists is science.
Someone else’s god exists is science.
Your god does not exist is science.
Nobody’s god exists is science.

So what is there to decide between us?

Do we just follow along:-

Worddigger:- “God exists”.
Roland:- “God does not exist”.
Worddigger:- “He does so”.
Roland:- “Does not”.
Worddigger:- “Does so.”

The whole purpose of the reliance of science on those things I mentioned above was to take us out of the world of faith and unsubstantiated assertion, and provide some constraints on our speculation.

Your final paragraph does not answer the conundrum presented in your essay. Certainly this issue will never be resolved. But then there are still a very few people in the West who assert that the earth is flat and at the centre of the universe and to say otherwise is to invalidate true science and the Bible. Will they ever be convinced? Will we spherical earthers and they ever be united? Does your essay offer a solution to the conundrum presented by their presence?

I argue on several Bulletin Boards and spent my youth as an active member of the church. I am well aware of many Christians who accept “God’s Holy Word” but who reject YEC, OEC and ID in its modern incarnation. They also accept Big Bang cosmology, the ancient earth, and mainstream evolutionary theory.


They are the solution to your conundrum – surely. They fulfill the criteria of your final paragraph, and yet YECs, OECs and IDers still find cause to disagree with them.




Regards, Roland.

[otseng]

Hello Worddigger and welcome to the forum.

You certainly do raise many interesting questions in your post. But for debate purposes, it would be best to focus on a single issue for debate. And reading through your post, I cannot draw a single theme from which to debate from. Though you do mention, "What is the reality here?", that question is a bit broad. Could you encapsulate your questions into a single specific theme/question to concentrate our efforts on? Thanks.

[Worddigger]

Hello Worddigger and welcome to the forum.

You certainly do raise many interesting questions in your post. But for debate purposes, it would be best to focus on a single issue for debate. And reading through your post, I cannot draw a single theme from which to debate from. Though you do mention, "What is the reality here?", that question is a bit broad. Could you encapsulate your questions into a single specific theme/question to concentrate our efforts on? Thanks.

Hello otsend!
The focus of my question boils down to this issue: The Seven Days of Genesis were not the original creation of all things. Evolutionists and Creationists are debating over a misinterpretation of the Genesis narrative. The full truth of the matter is being overlooked in the heat of the debate.

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

A careful and prayerful analysis of the above passage reveals it is not a reference to Noah's flood. The Bible appears to be stating that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things, as is traditionally assumed. The Bible appears to be saying there was a previous world on the Earth before God created the present world of modern Man.

(Also see "worlds" in Hebrews 1:2)

If this is correct then it invalidates the Doctrine of Young Earth Creationism, renders the base argument of the Evolution vs. Creation argument a mute point, and reveals how empirical scientific observations proving an old age for the Earth is reconcilable with the Bible.

II Peter 3:5-7 appears to be a direct cross-reference to Genesis 1:2, which describes the Earth as flooded, desolate, and in darkness, not a cross-reference to Noah's flood. Call this the Gap Theory or the Ruin-Reconstruction theory or whatever you want to call it...it fits both the Biblical and Geological records.

Why that old "world that then was" ended, and why God made a new world and Man, requires study into both the Earth's ancient natural history and equally important ancient spiritual history. References to the latter are found throughout the Scriptures.

On my website I defend this thesis in great detail with both Biblical and empirical observations and show that the doctrine of Young Earth Creationism is a red herring. And, that continued advocation of this doctrine by the fundamental Church, is a deceptive exegesis and counter productive in winning souls to the Lord Jesus Christ.

[QED]

HI

While I agree with the scientific establishment that pure science should be based solely on the observations of nature, without invoking the inferred workings of a Deity, the reality of the matter is nature itself was ordained by God and the observed “laws” of nature, which guide our observations, were preordained by Him.

If he exists, yes.

That is an inescapable reality of life. And those who choose not to accept the existence of God do so in an attempt to escape the reality that the great "I AM" really is.

You'll have to do better than that. To escape from something suggests that the something 'exists' in the first place.

Agreed! God can not be observed or measured by scientific instruments or, for that matter, scientifically proven to even exist. But the reality is that the workings of God can, indeed, be observed when measured against the Light of the Word of God.

I'm not used to this sort of jargon. This 'light' you speak of must be a metaphor for what? A message from god to us? If so it must have come through an intermediary of some sort -- a man possibly?

Evolutionary theory espouses the concept that the universe brought fourth life and consciousness by itself

That's debatable. Most of the evolutionary science that I've read focusses on the processes that are "already in motion". Discussion about the transition from inorganic to organic is reserved for far more tentative treatise.

, and that this consciousness, today engendered in the form of its highest evolutionary accomplishment (mankind),

Really? I think you've maybe introduced one of your own assumptions there. An awful lot of evolution has gone 'under the bridge' already. We're rather a puny offshoot compared to many of the mighty beasts that are now extinct. Consciousness has it's strong points granted, but any assessment of evolutionary accomplishment is always going to be subjective.

is now self aware and looking back and observing itself. That line of reasoning is rather pantheistic, and a religious belief system in its own right, when you boil it down to the lowest common denominator.

Ah! The wonderful imagination of man. Something for him to do while he's chipping away making his flint tools. Fantasy is always there as an antidote to the hum-drum life.

Who was the Designer? Was there a Designer? This is the real crux of the argument.

The designer of flint tools must have often wondered this. Everything must have a designer right? Or is it just a habit of a designers way of thinking?