Who Wrote the Bible?

[Redzeppelin]

Well, time does, in fact, change the odds, as time leads to greter understanding of the conditions of early earth. One can calculate the odds of an event with greater precision if one has more precise information about that event. Note, however, that while biologists do treat common descent as fact, they do not, if they are good biologists, treat the currently accepted hypotheses of abiogenesis as one. For the purposes of biological evolution, it doesn't really matter if the common ancestor came from primordial DNA-like molecules, God, martians, the infinite improbability drive or whatever.

But I think it does matter - because the presupposition of science is Naturalism - and Naturalism denies the existence of God (or any other supernatural power); as such, sooner or later, science must persue evolution of life on earth backwards until it finds a proper answer. Once you pull God out of the loop in terms of the 6-day creation and say He could have used evolution (though the Bible gives no clear indication that He did), we now wonder why He's necessary for the explanation at all (except that the current explanation of life-from-chemicals-and-random-chance requires me to accept numbers far beyond belief).

[cuppajoe_9]

Once you pull God out of the loop in terms of the 6-day creation and say He could have used evolution (though the Bible gives no clear indication that He did), we now wonder why He's necessary for the explanation at all (except that the current explanation of life-from-chemicals-and-random-chance requires me to accept numbers far beyond belief).

Why this means that evolution is dependant on abiogenesis is, I confess, quite over my head.

[Babbalanja]

Either way, the mathematical odds are against such a formation. We can argue fossil records, transitional forms, yadda yadda yadda - but the math points to impossible odds - odds that time doesn't change.

And the mathematical odds of modern species popping up instantly at the behest of a Big Magic Guy are so much better? Thanks for showing us true scientific objectivity where it counts.

[mtpspur]

Free will, science, belief, unbelief. I believe my free will consistently has gotten me into much mischief and is probably the reason God is protrayed as a Father who watches over his wayward children. Good to know he cares. Science--a great believer in it as a testimony to a VERY precise Creator and the marvelous results of his operations. Belief--I have a bit but that darn free will interferes with my effectiveness. Unbelief--very much so.

Bottom line for me--Faith, Faith, Faith by the grace of God. I could but won't even bother trying to refute the Bible. I have discovered over many years that God is not all concerned with my opinion of Him but that I should be very concerned with His of me.

With respect to an unanswerable debate--been watching this site for awhile and decided to chime in with the same old song.

[Redzeppelin]

And the mathematical odds of modern species popping up instantly at the behest of a Big Magic Guy are so much better? Thanks for showing us true scientific objectivity where it counts.

I'll ignore your sarcasm (since it does nothing for your argument); I did not indicate my position was the better or more believable: I indicated one of the difficulties of the "God didn't do it" option. Please read posts carefully before you attempt to critique their logic.

First, your term "Big Magic Guy" shows that you know little, if anything about the true nature of God.

Second, if God is who He claims to be (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present) then it's quite reasonable that He could do such a thing. Design implies a designer; nature is far too complex to have come about randomly. While we're at it, why don't you tell me the "mathematical odds" against the existence of God, OK?



The "objectivity" of science is up for debate.

[Babbalanja]

The "objectivity" of science is up for debate.

This just plain bugs me.

Science is meant to produce and refine a testable model of reality through empirical inquiry. The process itself is open to all and is constantly getting us closer to an accurate view of the way our universe works. Okay, not everything it has produced is to our liking, but there is much we owe to science that we should be proud of: we understand the nature of heredity, we can appreciate the vastness of history, we know we are part of an intricate biosphere.

Science is reviled as the destroyer of illusions. No matter what we see every day in the sky, we know the Sun is the center of our solar system. Thus, we also know that what we believe and feel is nothing in the face of objective scientific inquiry. Science should be a humbling experience: knowledge is constantly progressing, and many of today's certainties will be tomorrow's obsolete information. The orderly world of Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein's universe of uncertainty, just as the model of our solar system progressed from geocentrism to heliocentrism.

The progress in our collective knowledge is not made through personal contemplation but by empirical evidential inquiry. We can't learn by starting with our beliefs and trying to find evidence to support them. The real submission and humility is in staring at our beliefs about the universe objectively and wanting to make them better through honest inquiry.

That's the only way we learn.

[billyjack]

magic--Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

isnt the above definition of magic an accurate portrayal of the qualities the christian god would neccessarily possess in order to do what he is said to have done?...
"big magic guy" isnt that weird of a take on the matter.

[Redzeppelin]

This just plain bugs me.

Science is meant to produce and refine a testable model of reality through empirical inquiry. The process itself is open to all and is constantly getting us closer to an accurate view of the way our universe works. Okay, not everything it has produced is to our liking, but there is much we owe to science that we should be proud of: we understand the nature of heredity, we can appreciate the vastness of history, we know we are part of an intricate biosphere.

Science is reviled as the destroyer of illusions. No matter what we see every day in the sky, we know the Sun is the center of our solar system. Thus, we also know that what we believe and feel is nothing in the face of objective scientific inquiry. Science should be a humbling experience: knowledge is constantly progressing, and many of today's certainties will be tomorrow's obsolete information. The orderly world of Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein's universe of uncertainty, just as the model of our solar system progressed from geocentrism to heliocentrism.

The progress in our collective knowledge is not made through personal contemplation but by empirical evidential inquiry. We can't learn by starting with our beliefs and trying to find evidence to support them. The real submission and humility is in staring at our beliefs about the universe objectively and wanting to make them better through honest inquiry.

That's the only way we learn.

Did you tell me all this because you think I don't already know it? I'm well aware of the value of science (heck, it's what allows me to be here posting in cyberspace) - I get all the stuff you wrote. I think science is essential to living life here on earth - we gain great things from its continual probing and exploring. What I'm suggesting (and seems to rankle an number of people here) is that you be realistic and fair and admit the shortcomings of science; some things it can assert with definitive authority and I totally acknowledge that; however, other things it can only speculate on and offer a reasonably educated guess on. It is when people will not admit to that, that I become concerned. I'll freely admit that I cannot prove God to you; I'm asking you to admit that science cannot - in and of itself - provide all answers. It never has, and it never will.

[Babbalanja]

What I'm suggesting (and seems to rankle an number of people here) is that you be realistic and fair and admit the shortcomings of science; some things it can assert with definitive authority and I totally acknowledge that; however, other things it can only speculate on and offer a reasonably educated guess on. It is when people will not admit to that, that I become concerned. I'll freely admit that I cannot prove God to you; I'm asking you to admit that science cannot - in and of itself - provide all answers. It never has, and it never will.

I never asserted that science has all the answers. In fact, I declared quite openly that scientific truth is only ever tentative, the best answer we have until more information comes in. I only objected to the claim you made that scientific objectivity was open to debate.

In reality, the strength of science is that new information and continuing research changes and refines scientific knowledge. Sooner or later, the better theory replaces the obsolete one. If the evidence is there, scientific truth changes for good. Does science still support the concept of a flat Earth? Does science still assert that fermentation and putrefaction are the product of spontaneous generation? These may have been heated debates once upon a time, but now the case is closed.

Ultimately, it all boils down to evidence. Whenever I hear someone denigrating science as "not objective" or "propaganda" or "a religion in itself," I suspect that someone is concerned that science won't reinforce his prejudices.

[Redzeppelin]

I never asserted that science has all the answers. In fact, I declared quite openly that scientific truth is only ever tentative, the best answer we have until more information comes in. I only objected to the claim you made that scientific objectivity was open to debate.

Good; your first two sentences indicate we agree.

In reality, the strength of science is that new information and continuing research changes and refines scientific knowledge. Sooner or later, the better theory replaces the obsolete one. If the evidence is there, scientific truth changes for good. Does science still support the concept of a flat Earth? Does science still assert that fermentation and putrefaction are the product of spontaneous generation? These may have been heated debates once upon a time, but now the case is closed.

Yep.

Ultimately, it all boils down to evidence. Whenever I hear someone denigrating science as "not objective" or "propaganda" or "a religion in itself," I suspect that someone is concerned that science won't reinforce his prejudices.

Depends on what you mean by the word "evidence."

Of the three terms you listed, the first is not a denegration but a qualification. Science is not completely objective because it is studied and conducted by people who have different philosophies and world-views. Some of us will admit to the truth that our perceptions very much color our interpretation of the facts; others of us like to pretend that we are totally objective. We're not. Science functions from the premise of naturalism - so therefore it is not totally objective in its conclusions; the evolutionary scientist and the intelligent design scientist can look at the same "evidence" and come up with two different and equally reasonable conclusions, due to their two contradictory suppositions from within which they interpret the meaning of the facts they find. Science can only be as objective as those practicing it - and human beings have extreme difficulty being objective.

[cuppajoe_9]

Science is not completely objective because it is studied and conducted by people who have different philosophies and world-views. Some of us will admit to the truth that our perceptions very much color our interpretation of the facts; others of us like to pretend that we are totally objective. We're not.

That's what the process of independent confirmation is for. If your conclusions are coloured by personal prejudice, you will get caught for it. Either you will not get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or somebody else will perform experiments that show your findings to be fallicious. It isn't just one person or group of people deciding what constitutes evidence and what doesn't.

Science functions from the premise of naturalism - so therefore it is not totally objective in its conclusions; the evolutionary scientist and the intelligent design scientist can look at the same "evidence" and come up with two different and equally reasonable conclusions, due to their two contradictory suppositions from within which they interpret the meaning of the facts they find.

But only one of those conclusions gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. Why? Because the ID scientist can't back up his assumption that complexity implies design, because he can't compare objects that are known to be designed to objects that are known to be undesigned because he doesn't believe that the latter exists. Also, he can't make testable predictions, can't perform experiments to test his hypothesis, and can't seem to remember the arguments he lost fiteen years ago. He is, in short, a poor scientist.

[Redzeppelin]

That's what the process of independent confirmation is for. If your conclusions are coloured by personal prejudice, you will get caught for it. Either you will not get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or somebody else will perform experiments that show your findings to be fallicious. It isn't just one person or group of people deciding what constitutes evidence and what doesn't.

But only one of those conclusions gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. Why? Because the ID scientist can't back up his assumption that complexity implies design, because he can't compare objects that are known to be designed to objects that are known to be undesigned because he doesn't believe that the latter exists. Also, he can't make testable predictions, can't perform experiments to test his hypothesis, and can't seem to remember the arguments he lost fiteen years ago. He is, in short, a poor scientist.

But joe, I'm speaking from more than just a "personal" position (meaning the individual's personal "filters"); I'm speaking of a collective suppositional stance, and I'm going to be very bummed when you tell me that you don't acknowledge what I'm about to say (and have said here before ): I think it is possible for people to begin from a certain standpoint - a foundational belief system - and that that foundation largely decides what will and will not be considered as cogent evidence; as such, it has been fairly evident that - from the Enlightenment on - Naturalism has been the basis of scientific inquiry. Therefore, that means that any discussion of a spiritual component to the world, or the existence of a Divine Being is automatically ruled out, based on the presuppositions of Naturalism. So - if all scientists are publishing upon the same foundation, then it won't be seen as a "coloring filter." Total objectivity would require science to adjure Naturalism and embrace ALL explanatory possiblities.

[RJbibliophil]

I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I watched the documentary, and something's wrong with it. It seems like he's jumping to conclusions without real proof. He's definitely reading between the lines of the Bible. He's missing something major. I found it interesting, but I'm not swayed.

[Morrisonhotel]

the evolutionary scientist and the intelligent design scientist

Now, my dad works in the field of evolutionary science. I quote him here when I say that ID scientists don't exist - at least within the peripheral of modern fundamentalist ID belief. There are those within the field that are agnostic, and, furthermore, those that believe the God created the process of evolution - and, furthermore, those who do have leanings toward a creator are almost exclusively proponents of evolution (very few and far between are the scientists who differ from a model of evolution - and even then, most of these have been shown to have seriously flawed methods).

[cuppajoe_9]

I think it is possible for people to begin from a certain standpoint - a foundational belief system - and that that foundation largely decides what will and will not be considered as cogent evidence; as such, it has been fairly evident that - from the Enlightenment on - Naturalism has been the basis of scientific inquiry. Therefore, that means that any discussion of a spiritual component to the world, or the existence of a Divine Being is automatically ruled out, based on the presuppositions of Naturalism. So - if all scientists are publishing upon the same foundation, then it won't be seen as a "coloring filter." Total objectivity would require science to adjure Naturalism and embrace ALL explanatory possiblities.

Well if there was a God who created the universe, He would be as much a part of the natural world black holes, quantum uncertainty and other dimensions, and naturalism would therefore be able to uncover evidence of him, and maybe it will. There's no inherent reason why the hypothesis of a divine being should not produce testable predictions like any other.