But I do feel the same way The Literalist feels -- give me a few billion to take on the evolution paradigm and I'll work hard at it. I'll comb the Christian schools and churches for the smartest most science-oriented geek type kids who are also genuine literalist Bible believers, and I'll find the best science teachers to groom them and we'll set up labs and field work and a reading load that should rival any scientific establishment in the world. THEN we'll start to see some progress in this debate.
I just wanted to point out that this has basically already happened historically. Catastrophism was the name of the game at one time. We had people gathering data and making observations based on that paradigm. We can imagine them running around looking at the geology around them, thinking "Wow, that flood was awesome. The bible says it happened; now letâ€™s find the evidence for it." They assumed that the flood happened, much like you do. Some went around thinking; wouldn't this be great to glorify God, by understanding his creation. They then went around gathering evidence and debating how the world could appear the way it appeared to them. They proposed hypotheses, and scratched their heads. They came across problems with their previous view of the world. Issues in their observations and data came up, which made supporting a strictly catastrophist viewpoint untenable. The geology of the world just didnâ€™t want to support their notions of what happened. They were able to use their brains to tease out theories and use their eyes to observe how things were being formed then. They could see beaches at work, sandbars change, rivers erode. While they couldnâ€™t see mountains forming, there were active volcanoes they could study. They noticed patterns, similarities between rocks in differing locations, and clues in rocks that point to processes at work today. Fossils were a big hit. They began to question the idea that the earth was static and unchanging, an idea they got from the bible.
Because they could not observe how everything formed they had to propose theories to ask how some things might have happened. Certain rocks types cannot be observed to be in the process of forming. They may no longer be forming, forming somewhere we can not observe, or they are in the process of forming but this is taking so long it can not be discerned. We only have a limited lifespan after all. They came to hold a more rational viewpoint on the processes that mold and create the land we see. They began to realize, the processes we see today must have been the processes that happened yesterday, and will be the processes we will see tomorrow. They continued to work together to uncover more knowledge and strengthen or throw away old ideas. All throughout this process they tested their hypotheses and theories, or someone tested it for them.
All of this present science we have today has been built upon the observations, data, tests and retests and theories of a multitude of people working to expand our knowledge of the world we live in, throughout time. Science works because it isnâ€™t exclusionary. Anyone can do it if they have the inclination. All it requires is hard work, basic intelligence, a common methodology, and honesty. It takes hard work to find and read what others have proposed, to go around observing the tops of mountains, or working in the lab. Most humans have the basic intelligence required. A common methodology is needed for others to understand and test your ideas. If you are not honest to yourself and others, your ideas are likely to be invalid or untestable.
How do we know gravity will remain the same today as it was yesterday?
Can we see, smell, taste or hear gravity? Or just feel its effects?
If we are unable to see, smell, taste, or hear gravity but can feel its effects, what is it? If we don't know what gravity is made of, are Einstein's theories invalid? How do we observe what we can't see?