“But science should ignore anything that is not testable. Intelligent design is not falsifiable and thus the scientific method is not applicable.“

I understand that, however that then throws out all explanations that cannot be proven or verified with that method. I understand that in theory, the scientific method isn't the only acceptable method, but to the casual observer it seems that faith is thrown out because ti doesn't fit with the testing methodology, but because it has been proven false.

The idea is to try to keep one's worldview out of the analysis, but that's not possible. In throwing out faith, they are not removing worldview bias but are in fact inserting a faithless worldview bias. (The creation science folks do the same thing in reverse)

“Do you have any evidence for this that isn't either anecdotal (“A friend of mine who..”) and/or hypothetical (“…might be unemployable if”). I have a counter example to this claim, by the way. His name is Francis Collins. He is a very well respected geneticist in the scientific community and is out about his Christian faith.“

No, I do not. I believe that Ben Stein did a movie recently to document this, but I have not yet seen it. As far as the example you cited, this man seems to have come to faith after establishing a career in science. He did not rise to prominence as a believer. That, in my mind, does not disprove my hypotheses. I don't assume that any science that professes faith is discredited, rather than any rising scientist is hindered in the establishment of their credibility by expressing faith. Science tends to suppress faith until one has a reputation. Perhaps I'm wrong in this assumption or my friend recently starting out in the academic science community has an experience outside the norm.

As I said, I'm not a young earther. I find much of their reasoning a bit tortured. My conviction is that God created the universe and that Genesis is htere, like Christopher Walker said, is to establish that fact, not to provide a science lesson. (Frankly, I'm not sure that God finds it important to explain the nuts and bolts of creation to us, only that we understand that He did it.) We neither have a complete picture of the history of the universe nor of God. When there is a conflict between science and religion, it is due to limitations on one understanding or another. Religion has made unwarranted assumptions or science hasn't discovered all the facts yet or ?? There's a harmony between the two, it just isn't visible yet, if that makes sense.

On the other hand, perhaps I use my lack of understanding as a cop-out, so as to sometimes avoid making definitive statements about my beliefs.

As for how one knows, I think that's left up to our best judgment. You're asking an epistemological question here, and the thing is I don't think it is possible to know any concept external to our own thoughts–like what the message of Genesis 1 is–with 100% certainty. Theoretically, and speaking in an objective sense, I would want to say that the one who most consistently applies hermeneutical principles, has the best information, and does the best to compensate for his own bias will invariably come up with the most accurate interpretation.

Now I could be mistaken, but I don't think I am, and anyone who wants to disagree with my interpretation of the message that Moses wrote in Genesis 1 is free to make his own case. I'm willing to be convinced. But he's got to make a case, because otherwise I don't think it's fair of him to dismiss mine.

“Christianity a lot less megalithic than you might think it is.”

I was thinking of core doctrine. Stuff like God exists, God cares about humanity and their actions, Jesus died for the sins of man, God created everything, the Bible is the word of God. What Churches seem to disagree on are particulars like whether the Bible is the literal or inspired word of God or whether God cares more about one's acceptance of Jesus (think Protestant) or one's actions (think Catholic).

“And your last sentence, you don't think you should apply that to religious folk too?”

I do think it should and it was meant to. We've talked many a times about how the extremists are not true representations of the underlying worldviews (religious or naturalistic).

Skeptics can be remarkably credulous when it comes to information coming from sources labeled “science” and Believers can be remarkably skeptical of the proclamations of those who, according to their faith, supposedly speak with divine guidance.

Would you say that everyone who self identifies as a skeptic is as rigorous in their skepticism as everyone who self identifies as a Christian is as rigorous in their following of the faith because when you say “by and large I've found it impossible to get skeptics to agree on just about anything” it sounds an awful lot like the church. I think the reformation made Christianity a lot less megalithic than you might think it is.

And your last sentence, you don't think you should apply that to religious folk too?

I would point out a major difference between the two camps is that skepticism promotes individual thought and religion promotes conformity of thought, at least where doctrine is concerned.

I would also point out that the legitimacy of any particular worldview cannot be judged on how it is misused by a minority of its adherents.

I see little difference between a self-styled “skeptic” who takes everything his favorite science pundit says without analysis and a member of a religious congregation.

As for roughly correspond… there's a table somewhere.. let me see if I can find it.

Ah, here it is. Keep in mind this is for an ancient earth cosmology; basically what modern geology tells us.

http://www.reasons.org/creation-timeline

And when you say “roughly correspond” what do you mean?

“If testability means that science can only properly test naturalistic theories…”

First, a terminology note: we are discussing testing hypothesis not theories. There is widespread misunderstanding of the use of these terms in science. Scientific theories have already been extensively tested, have passed those tests, and are thus accepted as true. Hypotheses need further testing.

Second, science has tested supernatural hypotheses. In fact, a significant portion of the very comment you were responding to had one huge example: The scientific investigation testing The Flood hypothesis. Your claim that science can only test naturalistic hypothesis is simply false. It's only that every time it has tested supernaturalistic hypotheses, they have failed.

“…that science can use principles to find agent causation, such as the science used at the scene of a dead body, and that evidence points towards agent causation…”

In such a situation, agent causation (i.e. murder) is a falsifiable hypothesis. Why? Because we have the cumulative evidence of countless other natural and homicidal deaths against which to test the hypotheses. This is not the case for ID. The very difference between homicide investigations and ID – falsifiability – is why the scientific method if applicable (though not applied nearly as often as popular TV shows would have you think) in the former and not in the latter.

“What I think salguod was trying to point out is that modern evolutionary science is a case of the former type of scientific inquiry these days, not the latter…”

There are not multiple types of scientific inquiry.

“…because it rules agent causation out from the outset under the assumption that it is not testable.”

Actually, the scientific method does not rule out an intelligent designer. It can't because such a hypotheses isn't testable. What it rules out (through testing) is an intelligent designer that created every species on Earth at once and in their present forms.

Take for instance, evolutionary creationism. It is a legitimate philosophical, but not scientific, position. It, in no way that I'm aware of, contradicts known evidence. Since this kind of intelligent designer is not falsifiable, the scientific method can neither confirm or refute it.

When people read or hear about the US doing a very poor job in science education, I don't think most realize its manifestation in our culture. The very fact that the scientific method and its philosophical underpinnings are so poorly understood is why ID is thriving. Proponents of treating ID need to realize that they are part of the problem when they call their philosophical ideas 'science'. They further confuse the issue for future generations.

The scientific method does not assume naturalism, it uses methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not rule out supernatural causation. Furthermore, as in my example from my previous comment (and another in the above link), supernatural causation has been studied scientifically – thus far without positive results. The very premise of your comments is faulty.

Conclusion? Evolution is science and ID is not. No amount of misunderstanding of the scientific method will change that.

That is interesting. Here is the problem with science, then. If testability means that science can only properly test naturalistic theories, then you have ruled out a possibility before you have even begun to test. You have done the same thing that the young earth creationists like Ken Hamm have done, you have effectively started with a conclusion (that things evolve and change naturalistically) and have tried to find evidence to support it because that is all science can do. This approach seems to undermine the credibility of whatever naturalistic findings you see.

Rather, if testability and falsifiability is meant to follow the evidence whereever it leads, that science can use principles to find agent causation, such as the science used at the scene of a dead body, and that evidence points towards agent causation (i.e. that the dead guy on the floor was murdered), then the findings retain their credibility.

What I think salguod was trying to point out is that modern evolutionary science is a case of the former type of scientific inquiry these days, not the latter, because it rules agent causation out from the outset under the assumption that it is not testable. On the contrary, as the science of forensics has shown, certain types of agent causation are testable.

Incidentally these long undefined periods of time seem to roughly correspond to the various eras and epochs that have been defined in science.

“What bugs me is that Science ignores any notion that there might be something intelligent behind the Universe.”

But science should ignore anything that is not testable. Intelligent design is not falsifiable and thus the scientific method is not applicable.

“There can be, therefore, no reasonably analysis of Biblical concepts by anyone respected in the scientific community.”

False. The science of geology started out as a reasonable analysis of the Biblical concept of The Flood by the scientific community in the past. Scientists of the day were trying to find physical evidence of The Flood. The problem is that the evidence collected eventually lead scientists to reject that Bible-based hypothesis.

“Once they pronounce any kind of faith, they are considered discredited.”

Do you have any evidence for this that isn't either anecdotal (“A friend of mine who..”) and/or hypothetical (“…might be unemployable if”). I have a counter example to this claim, by the way. His name is Francis Collins. He is a very well respected geneticist in the scientific community and is out about his Christian faith.

“Institutions such as the Creation Museum attempt to do scholarly research into Biblical concepts, but they get ridiculed in the press and in the mainstream scientific community…”

They are not being ridiculed by the scientific community because of their scholarly research, they are being ridiculed because they call their research 'science', which it is not. The scientific method involves gathering evidence and forming a conclusion based on the evidence. Ken Ham and his researchers form conclusions and then seek evidence in support of that conclusion. They've got it backwards. It is not science and they deserve the ridicule when they call it science.

“Science is supposed to test hypotheses, so let's start testing some Biblical ones.”

As I noted above, it already has. The whole issue is that some hypotheses based on the Bible, such as the age of the Earth, have been rejected due to overwhelming contrary evidence and some religious people refuse to modify their theologies to fit the evidence. I like the phrase “pet doctrines” that you used to describe those parts of they are unwilling to relinquish.

What bugs me is that Science ignores any notion that there might be something intelligent behind the Universe. Not simply ignores it, but considers any belief in any higher power to be absolutely and without question contrary to 'Science'. There can be, therefore, no reasonably analysis of Biblical concepts by anyone respected in the scientific community. Once they pronounce any kind of faith, they are considered discredited. A friend is in viral biology at a major university (both research and teaching) and has had to hide his faith until such time as he has tenure because to believe is to be unemployed and unemployable.

Institutions such as the Creation Museum attempt to do scholarly research into Biblical concepts, but they get ridiculed in the press and in the mainstream scientific community, so the rest of us are left to wonder, are they really just wackos or are they victims of the current environment that science operates in. I'm not necessarily a fan of theirs, but they the only organization that I know of doing serious research in that area. I'd love to see some more mainstream analysis that wasn't skewed to not believe up front. Science is supposed to test hypotheses, so let's start testing some Biblical ones.

Personally, I find that much of the young Earth group seems overly attached to the idea of a literal 7 day creation over simply being attached to a God who could speak the world into existence, no matter how long it took. Like so many pet doctrines in Christianity, it feels like it's starting to eclipse God in some of their minds.

I think that those who are involved with science at its furthest reaches recognize that theirs is a faith based endeavor. I seem to remember Steven Hawking indicating this in an interview that I read about. Unfortunately I can't remember where I heard about this. It seems to me that those who have “some” understanding of science like those who have “some” understanding of theology are the most dogmatic about the “truth” they possess.

The days/24 hour thing is actually pretty sound. The Hebrew word “yom” has both a literal and a figurative use, as does its English counterpart. Do you always take the use of the word “day” in English to be literal? I don't think it's necessarily arbitrary. It's about context.

There's also the notion that a day is subjective based on where you are in the universe. A day on Earth is a different length than a day on Mars. I intend to address that in a future post.

Which is?

My “biblical literal” filter is set such that I think it's more imortant to ask what a passage is teaching than to ask if it literally happened. In some cases the importance of the message is such that literalness is important (the Resurrection for example). Not so in this case.

For most folks science is a faith based system, in that I think you're right and that's what I was trying to say. Very few people have a broad and deep enough knowledge of science not ot be accepting some thing on faith.

Sigh

Great post!

It is also true that the word yom is used for periods greater than 24 hours which is one of the reasons that I am not tied to 24 hr days for Genesis 1.
Still don't think it necessary to take the Biblical creation account literally, however. I tend to but I don't find it necessary.

God created.

1) I think God had an active hand in creation
2) Other creation passages like Genesis 2 (ex. Adam's expression “At long last” when he finds Eve) imply a greater passage of time than a 24-hour period
3) The ancient Hebrew word for day, “yom”, has at least three different meanings, one of which is a large undefined period of time. You can take Genesis 1 literally and in-context and still be an Old Earth Christian.
4) The case for macro-evolution seems overstated; ex. it has been tested nowhere as thoroughly as general relativity. To me, the jury is still out.

The second question is: How literally do you really want to take the Bible. I try to take the Bible as literally as I can, but there are obviously sections that are meant to be figurative and symbolic. The Apocalypse anyone? (Although there are those who try to take that pretty literally and it scares the bejesus out of me.) I am willing to accept that the entire first couple of chapters are meant to be taken figuratively. I am also willing to accept them more literally. I do not wish to limit God by my understanding (which I do anyhow in practice if not in theory). I am even willing to accept the days in the Biblical account as 24 hour days, but if someone asked what I really believe, I would say that the 24 hour thing is probably an imposition by humans and not to be taken too literally.

The third point, although it is really not a question is: Science is a faith based system just as much as Christianity is. It has more currency for most western civilization types at this time, but it is by no means universally accepted, nor should it be blindly accepted by anyone. I am not anti-science btw, my minor in college was Chemistry and I was just a course away in each of Biology and Physics from having minors in those disciplines. I also studied Genetics in my biology courses and understand somewhat the ideas behind evolution, etc. I accept what I was taught within the limitations of each field. I do not believe in a flat earth is what I am trying to say. By the same token, there are presuppositions that go with each discipline just as there are when dealing with religious/philosophical disciplines such as understanding the Bible and its creation account.

God created.