Jump to content


Photo

Part 03 - Beyond All Reasonable Doubt


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:48 PM

Part 03 - Beyond All Reasonable Doubt
 
Science views creation not as Gods cultural artefacts but as naturally occurring phenomena.
 
This is because Science is limited by the philosophy of naturalism which insists upon mindless unguided processes to account for the origins of Gods works. 
 
Science rejects any inference that they are observing and documenting created artefacts.
 
Naturalism is the scientific paradigm, it is the lens through which all of Gods works are investigated.
 
When it comes to the origins of creation, science only presents one perspective, one alternative and one reality. Unguided, mindless, random, natural processes. 
 
The Bible states clearly that God intended to create in a way that impresses humanity overwhelmingly with his power, his intelligence and his design. Simple observation, common sense and the world foremost atheist all affirm that he has achieved this objective in an “overwhelmingly” “impressive” and “powerful” display of design and planning. Dawkins words not mine. 
 
From a scientific view point you could be the world’s foremost scientist on human Biology and harbour the belief that life was seeded by Aliens, a possibility which Dawkins himself is willing to entertain. Such a belief is not naturalistic and does involve an intelligent agent, but this does not impact Dawkins ability to be an extremely good Biologist. In fact a scientist might even believe that the alien in question just happened to be the flying spaghetti monster who blasted off from the distant planet Nard seconds before it was destroyed by meteorites. None of these beliefs would impact his ability to observe, measure and apply the scientific method in the field of Biology. His closet belief in the flying spaghetti monster would only affect the formulation of his theories explaining where life came from, an event which cannot be observed, cannot be tested, and cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other.
 
This point of distinction is very important to keep in mind. If special creation is indeed Gods modus operandi, it seems incredulous to some that science can, on the one hand, get so much right when it comes to documenting what they can observe, yet be so wrong when it comes to explaining where it all came from. 
 
Is there a gigantic scientific conspiracy to hide the Truth, do all scientists undergo a secret initiation process where they swear on the skull of the missing link to never reveal the Truth about creation? Is science waging a war against God? Are all scientists atheists? 
 
How is it that science could be so right about so many observable attributes, yet so wrong about where it all came from? Surely if 99.9% of biologists accept natural unguided processes can account for where life came from they are the experts, they are qualified, some have Nobel prizes, some are even Christian. So there is no atheist conspiracy, these men are simply honest people engaged in the rigorously honest process which is science. 


#2 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:50 PM

Besides, who are we to argue with the combined weight of science?  Can a plumber reveal more about DNA than a biologist? Can an accountant provide a better explanation on the workings of the brain than a neuroscientist? Surely we are simply setting ourselves up for an embarrassing fall which will bring God, the Bible and our community into disrepute. Why don’t we simply trust scientists to do science and humbly submit to the fact that God will always tell the truth in the divinely written, physical record he left us and science is best placed to interpret that record for us.
 
Sounds like a very plausible argument, however it is built around the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. Whether or not someone finds it impossible to believe that qualified and decorated experts could be fallible is incidental to the very distinct possibility that qualified and decorated experts could well be fallible.
 
After all how are these matters decided in human society? When all the forensic experts, the homicide detectives, the professors, the psychiatrists and eye witnesses have had their day in court and submitted their findings and presented their theories. Who decides the truth of those  testimonies. Experts? No!
 
Plumbers, accountants, cleaners, gardeners and even podiatrists. Ordinary, everyday people armed with nothing more than common sense and reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt…..reasonable doubt.
 
Or in the case of deciding a clear verdict of guilty or innocent, beyond all reasonable doubt. 
 
No judge or jury would reach a verdict by counting the number of experts on both sides and awarding the verdict to the side with the most qualifications. Neither does the prosecuting lawyer rail against the jury for their lack of qualifications and cast doubt on their ability to use common sense to weigh the validity of an argument and rightly divide between for and against. 
 
So stepping aside from the logical fallacy that an expert will always be right and thousands of experts cant be wrong, let us re-examine this from another perspective. 
 
When we look at what Dawkins described as an overwhelming impression of purpose and design in creation, an impression that is also overwhelmingly confirmed in the Bible. Does the scientific explanation, limited as it is by the philosophy of naturalism, provide grounds for reasonable doubt? Let Dawkins answer the question for us.
 
"Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant." 
 
Based on that expert testimony the jury would then need to decide if what appeared to be overwhelming design was just an illusion because of a prejudicial belief in origins through natural unguided processes. Or whether the inclusion of a designer, something science can neither confirm nor deny, would remove the illusion leaving only design. Such a question is completely unscientific in its scope and implications, but it is certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt.
 
Objection your honour science has evidence, lots of evidence, peer reviewed evidence, evidence which enjoys the consensus of 99.9% of the scientific community. 


#3 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:51 PM

So you have evidence which proves that God did not specially create the earth?
 
No we don’t, we can’t comment on that, but we do have evidence that supports our premise that life developed through a natural, unguided processes.
 
Can you prove that life originated via the same unguided, mindless process?
 
No we can't, but we have been working on it for decades now and we are confident we will find a naturalistic explanation.
 
Have you investigated the possibility that life could have been specially created by a higher intelligence?
 
No, such a possibility is outside of naturalism and outside of the scope of science.
 
So do you have evidence which resolves the question objectively? Or do you only have evidence which supports your position?
 
We have evidence which supports naturalism but we all agree it is fact because we are all very qualified individuals.
 
Do you agree with Richard Dawkins that life has the appearance of being designed, engineered and suited for a purpose?
 
Yes, but we are confident that natural selection and millions of years can account for all the apparent design and complexity of life.
 
So you have investigated this possibility and engaged in a process of elimination?
 
No we have not, but we have evidence to support our position.
 
In my line of work that is generally the reason why two opposing sides come to me for a decision, because they both have evidence to support their position.
 
But there is no scientific evidence to support intelligent design, there is not even a single peer reviewed paper which even explores the possibility.
 
I don’t doubt that and it seems to me that your prejudicial adherence to naturalism is part of the problem.
 
With respect your honour, this is science you are talking about. Look at our track record, look at what we have achieved, look at our qualifications. Without us you would not have a court room, electricity or the car you drove to work with. Without us you would most likely have died prematurely of some curable disease. 
 
Have you quite finished?
 
Yes your honour.


#4 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:53 PM

Thankyou, according to your expert testimony, you can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. You can neither confirm nor deny his possible superintendence over creation. The absence of any peer reviewed paper exploring intelligent design demonstrates you have never seriously investigated the possibility. You admit that you have not found a naturalistic explanation for the origins of life despite trying in vain for decades, yet, by your own admission, not once, in all that time, did you explore the possibility that life might have been designed that way. By your own admission, when it comes to ruling on the possibility that life was intelligently designed, science has never once objectively and without bias considered the possibility and unless you can provide me with a peer reviewed paper demonstrating otherwise all of your evidence is but a defence of your own prejudiced position. Leaving people like me to objectively hear both sides of the story and rule against the account which evokes the most reasonable doubt.
 
Science can provide expert testimony, science can witness to what it observes, science can defend its theory on origins which conforms to its prejudicial belief in naturalism. Science can provide evidence which supports their naturalistic prejudice. 
 
But science cannot confirm or deny the existence of a creator, science cannot comment on whether God has or has not specially created the earth, there has not been a single scientific study examining the case for intelligence and design in creation despite the obvious evidence demonstrating that creation is better engineered and utilises more advanced technology than anything man has made.  
 
No one needs a scientist to conclude that the human body controlled by the brain is the most intelligent, the most advanced and the most powerful example of technology in the known observable universe. Even upholstery cleaners can be made to understand this.
 
The unscientific explanation which attributes this miracle to a consequence of being made in God's image and likeness ticks all the boxes as a reasonable explanation which covers all bases.
 
The scientific explanation which classifies the human brain as the product of a mindless unguided process may tick the naturalism box, but when it comes to satisfying our God given powers of logic and common sense not to mention the spirit of creation as a visible manifestation of Gods genius, it is the scientific explanation which evokes the most reasonable doubt.


#5 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 01:35 AM

Constructive feedback (in this thread) regarding the above article - Beyond All Reasonable Doubt - is welcome :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users