"Evidence and Faith"

You could say something very similar about "creation science" as was once said about the Holy Roman Empire: "By the time of its collapse it was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire." Creation science is certainly not about creation, its about religious paranoia and arrogance, and very little of it has anything to do with science. I assume you're actually asking why it's wrong to search for evidence supporting the Biblical account of creation. For an investigation to be science, it must seek to explain an observed phenomenon or gathered evidence. Creation science seeks to explain a mythical story for which there exists no evidence that we're aware of, and even worse, there are copious amounts of contradicting evidence that creation science chooses to ignore. And far, far worse, creationism wants to discard the foundation of scientific thought, naturalism.I could go into much more detail, and maybe some people will, but the real puzzle is why anyone would bother trying to explain any of this to you yet again. You're approaching your 3rd anniversary here, and all this has been pointed out and explained to you many times, yet you can still baldly state with an apparently straight face your belief that there's nothing really wrong with creation science other than that real scientists have labeled it wrong. Well, yes, of course. Science is wrong all the time. What's most important isn't whether an experiment or investigation produced new scientific knowledge, although that is of course the goal, but the quality by which the science was conducted. A high quality experiment that delivers a negative result can be very valuable, because the quality and rigor of the approach means that future investigations have no need to explore the blind alley.Here's a request for you: Name a creation science experiment or investigation that was done correctly from a scientific perspective, and if you can do that, then find one that was not only done correctly but had a positive result supporting the Biblical story of creation.But by far the most grievous offense of those who support creation science, at least in my opinion, is their continual attempts to degrade science education in this country by pushing their religious agenda into classrooms, educational standards, textbooks and laws. History class teaches a consensus of historians understanding and not some kook's view that aliens must have helped the Egyptians build the pyramids. English class teaches a consensus of what constitutes good grammar and literature and not the best seller lists. Chemistry class teaches a consensus of important chemical knowledge and not alchemy. Science class teaches the consensus view of our universe and not astrology or UFO-ology or ESP-ology or ghost-ology, and certainly not the Christian myth of creation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : 2nd => 3rd.

Who does? The issue isn't whether creation science is seeking truth. The issue is whether creation science is science. A spiritual quest for truth is noble, no argument there, but it isn't science. It also isn't football, knitting or boat building, but of course you see that. What you don't seem to see is that science has a definition that has been explained to you many times, and science is definitely not a spiritual quest for truth.You ask if we can leave emotion out of this, but I think that if you post messages that don't ignore the content of three years of explanation you won't get replies that seem to be expressing frustration. Your noble goal of convincing your influential pastor is not a license to just forget all that has gone before here. There you go again. Does anyone need to rebut this yet again? Why should we have to do that? This is just pure creationist crap that you've been fed. No wonder some like Jar just toss up their hands and start calling "creation scientists" (and if one could capitalize quotes I would) frauds. What you just said has as much value as me saying, "For many years deeply religious people believed that gods lived on Mount Olympus."If you really believe this stuff you're saying it not only means you've learned little in your three years here (in case it isn't clear, the problem isn't that you don't accept what's been said - it's that you post as if you have no recollection that these statements have been rebutted over and over again), it means you're not qualified for the task you've set yourself. It means you're telling your pastor the church doesn't belong in science not because it's causing the church to repeat misrepresentations and even pure lies, but just because churches shouldn't be doing science. If churches were doing good science then I think we should be all for it, but they're not. Creationism is just another great example of the saying, "For good men to do bad takes religion." (That's just a paraphrase, the full quote is something Freeman Dyson said: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things ” that takes religion.") Yes, of course. You seem to think you're making some valid point, so obviously you've missed the original point altogether. What's most important isn't whether an experiment or investigation produced new scientific knowledge, or even whether it was conducted mistake free. What's important is whether scientific standards and methods were followed. Making a mistake following a scientific procedure is still part of the process of science, and because of the requirement of replication is of no consequence in the end.But creation scientists do not follow scientific standards, do not follow the scientific method, do not even adhere to naturalism, and copiously ignore evidence. There's nothing in what they do that resembles science, and that's why creation science is not science. There are none. I have no idea what responses you're talking about. You didn't confirm whether you were talking about young earth creationism based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis, so I'll have to continue to assume that's what you're talking about, in which case there is no valid experiment, evidence, data, whatever, supporting a young earth and a global flood. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. No. Let me try again. History class teaches the consensus of history. There are some kooks out there who believe aliens helped the Egyptians build the pyramids, but they have had no success making their point within the academic historical community, so how legitimate would it be for them to lobby school boards, text book publishers and state legislatures for representation of their views in history class, even though they argue their views have been systematically and even scurrilously excluded by a biased historical community?Not legitimate at all, right?Science class teaches the consensus of science. There are some kooks out there who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that a global flood is responsible for modern geology, but they have had no success making their point within the academic scientific community, so how legitimate would it be for them to lobby school boards, text book publishers and state legislatures for representation of their views in science class, even though they argue their views have been systematically and even scurrilously excluded by a biased scientific community?Same answer, right?--Percy

Say what! I've explained that they are at best misrepresenting creation science as actual science, and at worst are simply lying, and you're having trouble figuring out why people see this as a bad thing? If I have to explain why misrepresentation and lying are bad then I give up. I call it telling people that there is scientific support for the Genesis accounts when there isn't. When someone says something that isn't true, what do *you* call it?This is why I asked you if you could name any creation science effort that had properly followed the standards and methods of true science, and had also come up with a result that supported any view of young earth creationism.In fact, can you name any contribution to science of any creation science research over its entire half century of existence?These are rhetorical questions because the answers are obvious, and the implications of the answers are equally obvious. Creation science has not made a single contribution to science over it's entire existence, and that's because they're not doing science. They're doing religion. They are doing religion and calling it science. They are taking their religion to school boards, textbook publishers and state legislatures and calling it science. Is that misrepresentation? Lying? Ignorance? What label do you want to give it? Certainly not honesty or knowledge, I hope. A scientific search for creation is in progress as we speak. It's called cosmology. They lie about it. By "lie" I mean they say things that aren't true, though often out of ignorance. Now what? Spiritual truth and scientific truth are two different things. This is where creationism goes so wildly wrong, by assuming that spiritual truth and the findings of science should be weighed on the same scales. They should not. Christianity assumes a supernatural realm inhabited by God. Science makes no such assumption (nor exclusion) and by its very definition keeps its focus on the natural world. Seems like it should be easy for Christians to avoid this label just by telling the truth, which includes saying "I don't know" when you don't know. But instead they say, "The Bible says the world is 6000 years old and there was great flood, and if science says otherwise then it's wrong."Where in your experience has religion ever shown itself to you to be an effective way of learning how the natural world works? Think about this, and then ask the same question about science. The list of contributions of religion to our knowledge of the natural world is nil, that for science nearly endless. In fact, the history of religion is one of holding back scientific progress.If creation science were truly science in that they adhered to the standards and methods of science then they would be successful in the halls of science. In science it isn't the answer you get, but the scientific quality of your approach.You should be telling your pastor that he should avoid bringing the kind of "science" he's familiar with into the church, and that the reason is because the information he's being provided is highly suspect, has no legitimate scientific support, and is very probably wrong from scientific standpoint. If he wants to say that we don't understand why science gives different answers than Genesis, then that's at least a religiously honest answer from a believer's standpoint.--Percy

You mean proving that they've never made a single scientific contribution? Let me reply by way of example. I claim there are pink unicorns living on a small planet in the Andromeda galaxy. You say I'm wrong. Can you prove I'm wrong? No, of course not. Does that mean these pink unicorns exist? No, of course not.You have to approach the issue from the opposite direction. It isn't for me to prove creation science has never made any scientific contributions. In other words, it isn't my job to prove a negative. Proving a negative is usually not possible. Rather, it is up to creation science to support their claims of being legitimate science by producing examples of some actual legitimate scientific research that they've conducted. I'm not aware of any examples, and no one else here is aware of any, either.But if you instead were asking if there was any way of proving that they're doing religion and not science, all I can tell you is that every single time they've marched into court, creation science has been ruled to be thinly disguised Genesis, or in the more recent case of Dover and intelligent design, ruled to be thinly disguised creationism which had already been ruled to be thinly disguised Genesis.Look at it this way. If an objective examination of the evidence revealed the world to be 6000 years old and modern geology to be the result of a global flood 4500 years ago, then scientists of all faiths and nationalities would be able to see this. But the only "scientists" who see the evidence this way are "creation scientists", all of whom happen to be Christian evangelicals. No non-evangelical Christian scientists see it this way. No Islamic scientists. No Buddhist scientists. No Jewish scientists. No Hindu scientists. Just evangelical Christian scientists.The reason for this is that evolution, and as time went by geology and cosmology, flatly contradict the Genesis account, and evangelical Christians see the teaching of these subjects as a threat to the faith of their children, who they dearly love and who they want to receive the blessings that come as a result of faith and trust in the Lord. And so they just decide that the science is wrong and go about doing their best to raise doubts about science, not among scientists but among those least qualified to make judgements about science: the lay public, school board members, textbook publishers and legislators.But beliefs don't change facts. God wrote his word in the rocks, it was fallible men who wrote God's word in the Bible. Scientists trust the rocks.--Percy

You're missing the point again. The items in that list can easily be shown wrong because there is physical evidence for the way the universe really is. They are positive claims that can be easily challenged, unlike negative claims. The claim that it's incorrect that creation science has never made any legitimate scientific contribution is a negative claim. The claim that there are no pink unicorns living on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy is a negative claim. Negative claims are usually very difficult to prove.The point you're missing is that you're going about this the wrong way by asking me to prove a negative claim. The problem has to be reformulated as a positive claim if any progress is to be made, so let me explain this another way.Let's say you make the positive claim, "Modern science based upon naturalism and the scientific method has never made any legitimate scientific contributions. Can you disprove that?"I reply, "Polio vaccine. Now it's my turn. Creation science has never made any legitimate scientific contributions. Can you disprove that?"Your turn.--Percy

I assume you meant to say "No, I can't." Right. And that's why I was suggesting that the message for your pastor should be that creation science shouldn't be included in his pulpit apologetics because it is misrepresenting itself as science and is not accepted as science by the scientific community.I think what you're going to find is that the opening you think is there isn't really there. The mission of evangelical ministers is to bring souls to Christ, and the importance of this crucial mission usually overwhelms their judgement to the point where the ends justify practically any means, including the propagation of falsehoods. After all, what is the significance of a few lies about something that isn't that important anyway when weighed against the saving of souls.--Percy

Crash already hit this point, but it deserves a second whack.You're a car mechanic. A man has his car towed to your garage. He tells you it won't start and that 500 mechanics have completely checked the car over and haven't been able to tell him what is wrong with it.You attempt to start it. It turns over but won't start. You start checking the obvious, beginning with the gas tank. It is empty. The man tells you that is impossible, that 500 mechanics have already checked the gas tank and found it full.You tell him it's nonetheless empty, add some gas to the tank, and start the car. The man tells you this is impossible, that 500 mechanics observed a full gas tank, but you pay him no mind, fill his tank, and send him on his way.The point of this story is that it never crossed your mind to give any credence to the man's story of 500 mechanics. In fact, the story of the 500 witnesses from 1 Corinthians 15:6 is the kind of exaggerated boast children make, and there is no possible way to show it right or wrong. And of course, as pointed out earlier, the negative claim that there were never 500 witnesses can never be proven. But consider this - there is as much hard evidence for 500 witnesses of the risen Jesus as there is for pink unicorns in Andromeda.The central question of this part of the discussion in this thread is how you can be so credulous concerning accounts in the Bible, and in ways that you would never be in real life, say, as an auto mechanic, while exhibiting perfectly good judgement in the rest of your life. The rules for assessing credibility of evidence shouldn't be suspended simply when the topic shifts to the Bible and religion, not if you're doing science.But of course, you aren't doing science, you're doing religion, in which case suspending any skeptical attitudes is just fine, as long as one understands that faith is one thing and hard scientific evidence another. They shouldn't be mixed, and your instincts regarding your pastor's tactics seem right on the money.--Percy

If I could add a little to the other comments, there's nothing unique about your God experiences. For example: In other words, you can find nearly identical testimonials for all faiths and many cults and fads around the globe.--Percy

I think you've already been given your answer, many times and in many ways. You asked: If you're talking about whether the world was created 6000 years ago, then the answer is no, there is absolutely positively no scientific evidence that the world is 6000 years old.If you're talking about whether the world was created by God, then the answer is no, there is absolutely positively no scientific evidence that the world was created by God.If you're talking about whether the universe was created by God, then the answer is no, there is absolutely positively no scientific evidence that the universe was created by God.If you're talking about whether the world was "designed" by someone/something, then the answer is no, there is absolutely positively no scientific evidence that the world was "designed".About the only thread you can grasp onto is if you're talking about whether the universe was "designed", in which case the fundamental constants seem to be well chosen for a universe capable of supporting life.The "evidence" you may be thinking about over at AIG, for instance the Humphreys link, simply misrepresents what we actually know, and none of the evidence or research that Humphreys talks about was gathered or conducted by creationists. They simple weave false stories around real data, or even around made up data, they don't care.This is a Faith and Belief thread and not the place to discuss the specifics of AIG claims, and I don't think that was ever your intention anyway. But if you're not going to believe that there really is no credible evidence for creationist claims, and you're not going to discuss the credibility of the claims over in the science threads, then what is the sense of going forward with this discussion?--PercyPS - And what do the 500 have to do with the topic?

People believe lots of weird things, what can you do, act like the guardian of the gate telling people what is pseudoscience and what isn't? Even for someone exceptionally familiar with science, it'd be like trying to block a fire hose with your finger, .You're hanging out with people looking for confirmation of their religious beliefs (in other words, you're hanging out with the people from church), and they will take it where they can find it. By and large it's harmless, except that some of those who buy the malarkey come to web sites like this one or get on school boards, and they just end up embarrassing themselves, and sometimes entire states besides, like Kansas. The religious are like a bunch of lemmings just waiting for the next charismatic leader to lead them over the cliff. One minute he's preaching the gospel and the evils of evolution, the next he's going to jail for tax evasion, or going to jail for arson, or getting caught with a prostitute, or going to jail for defrauding his parishioners, etc.I know what you want, and it's the right thing. You want people to place their faith in things of substance like God and love and friendship, and not in the material things of this world like people with enticing tales or science or ridiculous things like proving God. You can't prove God, he just is. One believes in God because of faith, not proof.--Percy

I'm posting another reply to your message because I find I have more to say. As do we all, I'm sure. There are issues of faith, where one accepts God because of what one feels inside, and there are issues of the real world, and the two shouldn't be confused.But it is impossible to keep the two apart. The simplest example is prayer, like your water-prayer website. Almost everyone across the entire world who believes in God, regardless of their specific religion, believes in the power of prayer. They believe that an appeal to the God that they feel only through his love and his presence inside their hearts can have an effect on the real world. Most of these people also believe in miracles, another example of the God of our hearts operating in the real world.Once you believe this, the Pandora's box is now opened, releasing every kind of possibility. How do you discredit the water-prayer man, since the same methods that would reveal him a fraud would show all forms of prayer, including those that you and all your fellow parishioners accept, to also be a fraud.Since the water-prayer man's approachh is as valid as your own from a real-world scientific perspective, I think you have to ask yourself why you object to it. The answer to that question is the reason why discussion in this thread continues beyond the point where your original question has already been answered.You see, using scientific arguments to scale back appeals to the fantastical or pseudo-scientific is a slippery slope, because those same arguments argue against most religious beliefs, both those you accept as well as those you don't. If against all odds you persuaded your pastor to assess the scientific merits of what he says, where does it stop? Does it mean he can no longer say, "The Smith family asked me to thank everyone for their prayers as they inform us that our beloved sister in Christ, Mary Beth, is home from the hospital now and doing very well," because he knows that scientific studies of the efficacy of prayer shows no benefit?You want your religion to make sense and not get caught up in fantastical and/or fraudulent claims, but religions are not rational social constructs. Is there a religion in the world based upon fact and rationalism? I don't think so. The best that one can do is accept the beliefs that one finds in one's heart, the ones that were there from the beginning and that no one ever had to tell you, and then find a church compatible with those beliefs. Maybe you're a little too liberal in your religious beliefs for the church you've chosen.--Percy

While I would have phrased this differently, I know what you're saying, and this is precisely correct, but now you have to follow this to the inevitable conclusions.One obvious conclusion is that unreplicable experiments mean that from a scientific perspective the phenomena is unconfirmed. In lay terms, it's baloney.The other obvious conclusion is that it gives us a clear understanding of the meanings of subjective and objective. If something is subjective it means how it is experienced depends upon the person. If something is objective it means everyone experiences it the same way.This places prayer clearly in the subjective category, and from a scientific perspective it makes it, again in lay terms, baloney.In other words, you can't draw a line. The same scientific techniques that show Dr. Emoto, the water-prayer guy, a fraud will show your prayers a fraud, too. And you can't with any fairness claim that his claims about prayer should be subjected to scientific scrutiny while yours should not. I think you're stuck. Emoto is a very obvious quack, or fraud if you prefer. He and his claims are not even worth discussing. If you want to learn about him just type "emoto quack" or "emoto fraud" into Google. The same type of people who believe this type of nonsense also believe in spoon-bending, past-lives and alien abductions.The modern flim-flam game is played like this: call attention to yourself, then sell something. I suggest you visit Emoto's website (Page not found – Spirit of Ma'at) where you can buy 12 ounces of gasoline fuel conditioner for just $35.90, or 2 ounces of Female-Aid for just $49.95, or a Water Energizer for just $24.00, or 1 ounce of Nano-2+ for just $30.00.As Jar keeps trying to remind you, the religious are just ripe for the pickin' by any con-artist who can spin an appealing yarn with a religious twist. I think the biggest contribution you could make to your church would be to start a weekly seminar titled, "Cons and how to detect them." I think that's what you really need, because sincerely devout religious types are as easy as shooting fish in a barrel to these people.AbE: I wish I could find this old comic I'm thinking of, it's priceless. I think it was by Gary Larson, but I could be wrong. Two adults are watching a televangelist who is saying, "God wants you to send me money." The caption says, "Sounds good to me, Orville, let's send him little Jimmy's college fund."--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add an AbE.

You're missing the point again and not making any sense either, so let me try again.I don't think you really meant to say that we "experience subjectiveness", but rather that all personal experiences are subjective, and you are correct. What you've left out of your formulation is where objectivity comes from.We define objectivity, which is the way we believe the world really is, as subjective perceptions that are in agreement across many individuals. It is a keystone of science that is achieved through replicability of experiments and observations. Relativity has been verified by experiment after experiment performed by many researchers across decades of work, so we believe relativity is an objective reality of our world.Cold fusion, on the other hand, of the type claimed by Fleishman and Pons where much more energy is generated than consumed, was observed only by them, was found not to be replicable by anyone in any lab anywhere, and so is deemed not part of objective reality. If Fleishman and Pons want to claim that they believe what they saw and stand by their observations then that is their privilege, but to the rest of the scientific community the failure to confirm their results means that it's just their subjective impressions and that they were very likely wrong. You're still adrift in the same confusion. By what standards are you going to call orbs and spirits into question? If it is by the standards of science then you have to realize that those same standards call many of your own beliefs into question. You cannot reasonably require that other peoples beliefs be subjected to scientific scrutiny but not your own. I thought it was turnip twaddlers. --Percy

You're not thinking this through. If you measure something like prayer against both standards, and it passes the Biblical standard but does not pass scientific muster, then what? No, it isn't. Most prayer studies indicate (*conclusively*, which means with significant correlation factors) that there is no relationship between prayer and outcome.And if you really believe the scientific prayer studies are inconclusive, how could you hope that scientific examination of Emoto's claims would be helpful to you?You're in reactive mode. You really want to start thinking through the implications of your position. If I were your pastor and you presented me the confused and incomplete thinking you've got so far, I'd probably respond, "Yes, yes, I'll think on it," and hope you'd go away. You need to give your pastor some clear thinking to go upon, because he can't just follow your advice if he doesn't understand the underlying rationale, which he won't because you haven't got one yet. You say he's influential, but he can't be influential if he can't articulate a rationale for his position. You've again got things exactly backwards. You shouldn't be thinking that Emoto hasn't been proven wrong yet. You should be thinking that Emoto hasn't been proven right yet. Claims are not right until proven wrong. In science it is the exact opposite. Claims are not accepted by the scientific community until sufficiently persuasive evidence is presented.And if you think Emoto's claims deserve inspection by scientists, then you've just got to start living in the real world. This will likely never happen because the sheer number of flim-flam claims far exceeds the scientific community's capacity to examine them. There is a small segment of the scientific community that does devote time to examining such claims, but they can only handle a tiny portion of them.Answer a simple question: How are you going to set up a valid set of scientific criteria that yields the results you think are correct, namely that Emoto's prayer claims are bunk and your own prayer claims are accurate? Think it through and you'll find that this just isn't possible.That's why I suggested that what you really want for your church is to teach parishioners how to detect swindles and quackery.--Percy

Sure, and if that turns out to be important to the discussion we can get into that, but before that even makes sense we have to get past this: If you're correct that prayer can't be studied scientifically, then how are you going to scientifically assess Mr. Water-prayer guy? Without objective assessments, his claims about prayer are as valid as your own, and your pastor would have no basis upon which to exclude mention of Mr. Water-prayer guy's work from his ministering to his flock.These unanswered questions are one reason why I keep saying you haven't thought this through. You started with this simple question in Message 1: The answer is no, there is no scientifically valid evidence that the events of a literal interpretation of Genesis ever actually happened. There aren't even hints of such things.Later you raised Mr. Water-prayer guy as an example of the kind of thing you'd like your pastor to avoid. Presumably the reason for avoiding mention of Mr. Water-prayer guy is the absence of "solid (objective) evidence" supporting his claims. But as I keep pointing out, the kind of prayer you do believe in has the exact same lack of "solid (objective) evidence", so by what rationale are you going to exclude Mr. Water-prayer guys claims while allowing your own? No, they do not deal with the objective. His claims are as subjective as your own. With no supporting evidence he claims prayer influences crystal formation , and also with no supporting evidence you claim prayer helps people. Both claims completely lack objective assessments and are not in any way objective or scientific. Then why in Message 140 did you say, "Even Dr. Emoto hasn't been proven wrong yet?" Sure sounds like you were hoping for someone to prove him wrong. Contradicting yourself like this is another reason why I don't believe you're thinking this through. You're like someone playing chess who doesn't think beyond his next move. Yes, that's true. But in order to save lots and lots of typing, when speaking scientifically in an informal context "proven" is used as a synonym for something like, "supported with evidence to the point where most reasonable people would accept it as probably true."--Percy