It seems to me that if God created the universe, then there should be evidence that the universe was created by an intelligent builder, rather than by random events. In the same way that an archeologist can separate a true arrowhead from a uniquely shaped rock by detailed inspection of the tool marks, we should be able to find God's "tool marks" left on the creation.
My quest begins by trying to understand how we can truly differentiate between that which has occurred through physical processes, unguided by any intelligent force and those things that are the result of directed, intelligent effort.
Christians often cite the appearance of two similar cars and point out that the similarities are due to the creator using the same parts to accomplish the same purpose. And that this is as good an explanation as evolution for the similarities we find in the fossil record. But, if you buried the car for several thousand years and then dug up the remaining rusted hulk, would there be enough left to discern that the structure was the result of a design and not a random collection of iron oxide? Does the very fact that we live inside the system make it impossible for us to actually evaluate it?
Thoughts?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Value #5: Biblical Bias
My last value, is my Biblical Bias and this is what I mean by it. Since God created the universe, inspired the Bible and the Bible is His inerrant word, then wherever the Bible speaks to issues of science the Bible and science should agree.
So, when two or more scientific theories exist, which explain the same set of observable data, I am biased towards those that are reconciled to the Bible using the most straightforward interpretation of God's Word.
"Biblical Bias" applies to choosing between competing scientific theories, not choosing between science and the Bible. Given the choice between a theory devised by men and the Bible, written by God, there is no competition. I will choose God's Word every time. But given a simple scientific theory reconciled to the Bible through complex theology and interpretation and a complicated theory reconciled to the Bible through historically consistent theology and straightforward interpretation, I choose the complicated scientific theory first. Does this mean I have chosen the right theory to explain the given facts? Not necessarily. In fact, both may be entirely wrong. But everyone needs a way to prioritize competing theories, if only to decide which to investigate first. Some apply a version of Ockham's Razor and choose the simpler, some choose the one that is most in line with current thinking, some the most radical. For me, I apply Biblical Bias.
So, when two or more scientific theories exist, which explain the same set of observable data, I am biased towards those that are reconciled to the Bible using the most straightforward interpretation of God's Word.
"Biblical Bias" applies to choosing between competing scientific theories, not choosing between science and the Bible. Given the choice between a theory devised by men and the Bible, written by God, there is no competition. I will choose God's Word every time. But given a simple scientific theory reconciled to the Bible through complex theology and interpretation and a complicated theory reconciled to the Bible through historically consistent theology and straightforward interpretation, I choose the complicated scientific theory first. Does this mean I have chosen the right theory to explain the given facts? Not necessarily. In fact, both may be entirely wrong. But everyone needs a way to prioritize competing theories, if only to decide which to investigate first. Some apply a version of Ockham's Razor and choose the simpler, some choose the one that is most in line with current thinking, some the most radical. For me, I apply Biblical Bias.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Value #4: Don't be afraid of the Data
Like tools, inventions and firearms, data are not inherently evil or good. Data simply are. Some data are correct, some data are incorrect, but unless the data were produced illegitimately, we should not be afraid of the data.
How we use the data, the conclusion we draw, the actions we take based on our conclusions, the philosophies we build on those conclusions, those may be judged good or evil, but the underlying data can only be judged correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate, perhaps even mostly accurate, but not quite. But under no circumstances are the data themselves subject to moral judgements.
We don't have to like the data, we don't have to agree with the data, but we cannot alter it, dismiss it or ignore it without reason. If it is in error, then we must expose the error; if it is incomplete, we must complete it; if it is anomalous, we must explain the anomaly, not ignore it. To ignore the data only exposes our own ignorance and irrationality. I much prefer the man who admits "I believe contrary to the evidence presented, but I do consider the evidence. Would you like to present it differently?", for this man will listen. More importantly, this man has things to teach me, because there is reason to his belief, not just blind adherence to a doctrine he little understands.
Not everything you know agrees with what you believe. Science is not nearly as neat and clear-cut as we would like to believe. There is much disagreement over what the data mean. Don't fear the conflict. Relish it. Enter the fray and dig deeper into the data that contradict your beliefs.
How we use the data, the conclusion we draw, the actions we take based on our conclusions, the philosophies we build on those conclusions, those may be judged good or evil, but the underlying data can only be judged correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate, perhaps even mostly accurate, but not quite. But under no circumstances are the data themselves subject to moral judgements.
We don't have to like the data, we don't have to agree with the data, but we cannot alter it, dismiss it or ignore it without reason. If it is in error, then we must expose the error; if it is incomplete, we must complete it; if it is anomalous, we must explain the anomaly, not ignore it. To ignore the data only exposes our own ignorance and irrationality. I much prefer the man who admits "I believe contrary to the evidence presented, but I do consider the evidence. Would you like to present it differently?", for this man will listen. More importantly, this man has things to teach me, because there is reason to his belief, not just blind adherence to a doctrine he little understands.
Not everything you know agrees with what you believe. Science is not nearly as neat and clear-cut as we would like to believe. There is much disagreement over what the data mean. Don't fear the conflict. Relish it. Enter the fray and dig deeper into the data that contradict your beliefs.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Value #3: People First
As much as I desire to foster a lively debate, I so much more desire that all people be respected. Each human life is endowed with immeasurable value. No person, regardless of her opionion, should be the subject of ridicule. No person, regardless of his position in life should be at the mercy of another's whim.
So no matter how much we may argue; or how fundamental the basis of our disagreement may be; we must always recognize the right of each person to hold her opinions and arrive at her own conclusions. Coercion, whether by force, ridicule or "public opinion", is the last resort of one too ignorant to sway another by intelligent argument and too insecure to allow others to hold beliefs that disagree with one's own.
So no matter how much we may argue; or how fundamental the basis of our disagreement may be; we must always recognize the right of each person to hold her opinions and arrive at her own conclusions. Coercion, whether by force, ridicule or "public opinion", is the last resort of one too ignorant to sway another by intelligent argument and too insecure to allow others to hold beliefs that disagree with one's own.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Value #2: The Bible
The Bible is the directly inspired, inerrant word of God. The same God who created the world and who sent His Son to die on a Roman Cross to pay for the sins of all mankind.
By inspired, I mean that in the original, the exact words that God wanted written were transcribed onto the pages by over 40 authors on three continents in three different languages over a period of nearly 1,500 years.
By inerrant, I mean that the original text contains not a single mistake or contains anything that is incorrect or false. That which is historical is historically accurate. That which is prophetic can be trusted to occur. Those claims which it makes concerning the condition of mankind and spiritual matters are trustworthy.
I intentionally caveat my statements by referring to the original, because only in the original did God direct the writing. Transcriptions, translations and the passage of manuscripts through time and various owners all are subject to the inconsistencies which plague any ancient text.
Additionally, only in the original language in the form it was used at the time of the writing is the text perfectly accurate. Changes in connotation and usage can vastly alter the inferred meaning of a text long after it has been written. Consider how many American high school students struggle to understand the comedy and subtleties of Shakespeare, simply because the language is unfamiliar. And Shakespeare is written in English, supposedly the native tongue of the readers.
However, as to the reliability of the existing manuscripts consistency with the original, there are few if any ancient documents which are as well evidenced to support the conclusion that we have reliable copies of the original text. And to the veracity of the translations, no translation is perfect, but there are several decent and practically useful versions in modern languages. I would not split hairs, theologically without studying the original texts, but for the basics, any commonly accepted translation is sufficient for a person to understand.
By inspired, I mean that in the original, the exact words that God wanted written were transcribed onto the pages by over 40 authors on three continents in three different languages over a period of nearly 1,500 years.
By inerrant, I mean that the original text contains not a single mistake or contains anything that is incorrect or false. That which is historical is historically accurate. That which is prophetic can be trusted to occur. Those claims which it makes concerning the condition of mankind and spiritual matters are trustworthy.
I intentionally caveat my statements by referring to the original, because only in the original did God direct the writing. Transcriptions, translations and the passage of manuscripts through time and various owners all are subject to the inconsistencies which plague any ancient text.
Additionally, only in the original language in the form it was used at the time of the writing is the text perfectly accurate. Changes in connotation and usage can vastly alter the inferred meaning of a text long after it has been written. Consider how many American high school students struggle to understand the comedy and subtleties of Shakespeare, simply because the language is unfamiliar. And Shakespeare is written in English, supposedly the native tongue of the readers.
However, as to the reliability of the existing manuscripts consistency with the original, there are few if any ancient documents which are as well evidenced to support the conclusion that we have reliable copies of the original text. And to the veracity of the translations, no translation is perfect, but there are several decent and practically useful versions in modern languages. I would not split hairs, theologically without studying the original texts, but for the basics, any commonly accepted translation is sufficient for a person to understand.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Value #1: Truth is Absolute
Those things that are true are always true. Often we confuse this because what is true is complicated, difficult to understand, subject to a myriad of conditions, and most often, because the truth is not what we want. So, we prefer to live in a world where truth is relative, where our own opinion can actually alter the veracity of a given statement. But some things are true no matter what we want to believe. If you add a single unit integer to another single unit integer you get a value of two units. It doesn't matter if you express it as 1+1=2 (decimal system) or 1+1=10 (binary) or if you insist that it equals three units with all your heart, mind and soul. You cannot alter the underlying truth of the statement.
Not all truth is knowable. Some things because the knowledge is beyond our ability to obtain, such as the conditions on planets beyond our galaxy's local group. Some items are not knowable because they are beyond our capacity to understand. Such as the mind of God. According to the Bible, His thoughts are above our thoughts, in such a way that we don't even have a frame of reference.
Not everything we know is the truth. 1800 years ago, we knew the earth was flat. 500 years ago, we knew that the sun, the moon and the planets rotated around the earth. What we knew didn't change the truth. But as science progressed, we have corrected our knowledge and filled in gaps. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that our understanding now is the final perfected understanding of all truth. Even to assume that all we know to be "Scientific Law" is true is a claim of extreme arrogance.
But whether we want we can know the truth, whether what we know is true, the truth is still truth.
Not all truth is knowable. Some things because the knowledge is beyond our ability to obtain, such as the conditions on planets beyond our galaxy's local group. Some items are not knowable because they are beyond our capacity to understand. Such as the mind of God. According to the Bible, His thoughts are above our thoughts, in such a way that we don't even have a frame of reference.
Not everything we know is the truth. 1800 years ago, we knew the earth was flat. 500 years ago, we knew that the sun, the moon and the planets rotated around the earth. What we knew didn't change the truth. But as science progressed, we have corrected our knowledge and filled in gaps. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that our understanding now is the final perfected understanding of all truth. Even to assume that all we know to be "Scientific Law" is true is a claim of extreme arrogance.
But whether we want we can know the truth, whether what we know is true, the truth is still truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)