I'm losing faith in science!

[KBertsche]

Phaster, the OP is talking about origins science, not operational science. He never said he was losing faith in gravity, f=ma, faucets or electronics. As I read it, his point is that he has lost (or is losing) faith in origins science as a means of discovering reliable truths about the past. So I think it is unfair to misrepresent his OP by implying he is losing faith in gravity, f=ma, etc. It is fallacious to claim that the same type of science that brings us running water and computers brings us the big bang and particles-to-people evolution. One relies in verifiable, repeatable experimentation and the other on inferences about the past (which are, of course, influenced by one's faith commitments about origins).

I disagree with this dichotomy between "origins science" and "operational science". I have never seen this distinction in mainstream science; I believe this is a YEC invention to let them deny parts of science.

I don't believe that there are two qualitiatively different forms of science. Origins science can be viewed as a "remote sensing" task, trying to deduce the past indirectly by viewing present-day effects. However, in cosmology time can be traded for distance. By looking at distant galaxies we are looking back in time, so can actually observe the early universe in the present. (It is still a "remote sensing" problem, but now with distance instead of time.)

But much operational science suffers from the same problem of indirectness and remote sensing. The basis of modern electronics (which you mention) is solid state physics and quantum mechanics. The atoms and subatomic particles involved cannot be directly observed; their presence and behavior are deduced indirectly. These fields of study proceed very much like "origins science"; the objects of study are sensed remotely and indirectly, through their effects.

So I don't see a qualititative difference between origins and operational science. There are quantitative (not qualitative) differences in science between how directly or indirectly something can be measured, but this does not break cleanly between "origins" and "operational" science. Much opertional science is every bit as indirect as origins science, as illustrated above.

Calminian, I agree with you that far too much stock is placed on naturalistic methods of looking into the past. I believe that we, as Christians, should not fall prey to the 'reed-in-the-wind' syndrome, where we change our interpretation of the Bible and our view of origins whenever we see something 'convincing' coming from origins science. You are correct that many YEC and OEC organizations (past and present) have taken a dangerous 'evidential' approach approach rather than standing firm on the Bible (a presuppositional approach.)

You've got a valid point here, but I think another fundamental problem is confusing "methodological naturalism" (the methodology of science) with "philosophical naturalism" (an atheistic philosophy often held by scientists). There is nothing wrong with searching for naturalistic methods, so long as we view God as the author and sustainer of all that occurs in the natural world.

[phaster]

I disagree with this dichotomy between "origins science" and "operational science". I have never seen this distinction in mainstream science; I believe this is a YEC invention to let them deny parts of science.

I don't believe that there are two qualitiatively different forms of science. Origins science can be viewed as a "remote sensing" task, trying to deduce the past indirectly by viewing present-day effects. However, in cosmology time can be traded for distance. By looking at distant galaxies we are looking back in time, so can actually observe the early universe in the present. (It is still a "remote sensing" problem, but now with distance instead of time.)

You've got a valid point here, but I think another fundamental problem is confusing "methodological naturalism" (the methodology of science) with "philosophical naturalism" (an atheistic philosophy often held by scientists). There is nothing wrong with searching for naturalistic methods, so long as we view God as the author and sustainer of all that occurs in the natural world.

The post was titled "loosing faith in science" so I just thought I'd add my own observations being catholic and having been brought up attening parochial school(s) up till the university level where I attempted to make a career of physics (but moved on to more lucrative areas cause I realized the pay sucked).

Anyway to my point which is the goal of traditional science taught at the university level say for a physics, chemistry or biology degree using the scientific method is to:

1) observe something in nature
2) for a hypothesis
3) expirment
4) model the expirment using math
5) if the math model is in consistent goto step 2 and repete until math model is consistent

therefore "origins-science" is an oxymoron when discussing human beings because it does not involve a key ingredient of the traditional scientific method which is using a mathmetical model and is "consistent."

The reason science uses math analysis, is because it is possible to check for consistency and is predictable. For example in simple newtonian physics, force always equals mass times acceleration. Newtonian physics is a first order approximation of realistic physics which einstein formulated to explain what happens when masses and velocities increase to large values. Granted math equations thus far start to diverge at the quantium level or at relativistic speeds, but new math theories are always being developed to try and unify the various math models of newton, einstein and schrodingers wave equation.

It does get pretty twisted, for example E8 right now is one interesting development of a model that has 248 dimensions and might unify various fundamential forces, just as the electricity and magnistion were shown to be math models of fundamential forces.

Math is the common key ingredient of all science, for example in biology it can be used to describe population growth of biologucal systems. "M" theory is another construct that is being used to try and model the multi-dimensional universes, which might explain the "big-bang" which is a theory that few people realize was proposed by a Belgian Roman Catholic priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

When proponents of "origins science" introduce a math model that can be tested and is consistent:

http://www.originscience.com/origin-...ison-chart.htm

only then will they be able to claim it really is science.

Without a math model, biblical stories are a matter of "faith" and should be looked upon and respected just like relligious beliefs of other people s no matter if they are, jewish, christian, muslim, hindu, buddists, etc.

[KBertsche]

therefore "origins-science" is an oxymoron when discussing human beings because it does not involve a key ingredient of the traditional scientific method which is using a mathmetical model and is "consistent."

I agree that much of biology is not very quantitative, including models of human origins. "Predictive value" is an essential element of true science, and this is best demonstrated with quantitative claims.

But your point does not extend to all "origins science". For example, the Big Bang theory has mathematical models and quantitative claims that can be tested and measured.

[Calminian]

Phaster, the OP is talking about origins science, not operational science. He never said he was losing faith in gravity, f=ma, faucets or electronics. As I read it, his point is that he has lost (or is losing) faith in origins science as a means of discovering reliable truths about the past.

Correct and thanks for clarifying that, zem. Science is simply a discipline seeking the understanding of natural processes and using that understanding to predict the future and discern the past and do all kinds of other great things. It requires uniformitarian assumptions about the past, present and future. It's a wonderful tool for understanding our currently world, and it's recent past and near future. The problem for me is, I don't believe our origin was a natural process. It was an act of God—a miracle. If true, pure science can't unlock its mysteries. It can play a role, but ultimately, natural processes cannot account for their own origin. Anyone whose world view allows for the existence of miracles must take this into account when forming his origins epistemology.

So I think it is unfair to misrepresent his OP by implying he is losing faith in gravity, f=ma, etc. It is fallacious to claim that the same type of science that brings us running water and computers brings us the big bang and particles-to-people evolution. One relies in verifiable, repeatable experimentation and the other on inferences about the past (which are, of course, influenced by one's faith commitments about origins).

Both operational and historical science must presuppose methodological naturalism (or material determinism). This is fine, since natural repeating processes are at work the vast majority of the time. Natural repeating processes are the way God's upholds our world normally and it is wise of us to understand these processes and use them to accomplish great things. I also believe forensic science should be embraced by christians which makes uniformitarian assumptions about the past. But when it comes to origins, the Bible is very clear we were not the result of natural repeating processes, but singular libertarian acts of God. Logic dictates the same thing.

Calminian, I agree with you that far too much stock is placed on naturalistic methods of looking into the past. I believe that we, as Christians, should not fall prey to the 'reed-in-the-wind' syndrome, where we change our interpretation of the Bible and our view of origins whenever we see something 'convincing' coming from origins science. You are correct that many YEC and OEC organizations (past and present) have taken a dangerous 'evidential' approach approach rather than standing firm on the Bible (a presuppositional approach.)

Well, the Bible is a collection of corroborative testimonial accounts, which is evidence, but I'll digress.

I do, however, think it is important to demonstrate that the world as it presently exists is consistent with Biblical claims. For example, it can be helpful to someone considering the Christian faith to see that it makes more sense of the world than materialism. E.g. we expect, after reading the Bible, to see evidence of a world-wide flood; there is nothing wrong with investigating the world to see if it is consistent with this event. In the same way we may investigate claims made by materialistic origins models to see if they hold water. Neither the Biblical model nor the materialistic model of origins must provide a complete explanation of everything at any given time, but it is still possible to find out which one gives the best explanation.

I think there is much "evidence" for the history the Bible reveals. But all evidence is not scientific evidence. Miracles served as evidence of the authenticity of God's prophets, but these can certainly not be referred to as scientific evidence. Pure science must assume the non-existence of singular events such as miracles. Hence the problem. Genesis reveals several large scale creative and world changing miracles which can't be ignored by the serious Bible student.

I think you may find this editorial article, "Swaying in the breeze" , helpful. Also see the first part of this feedback article . (Both come from CMI, a YEC organization which takes a refreshing, Biblically sound, presuppositional approach to the issue. It recognizes, and wishes to highlight, the philosophical issues involved with origins and origins science.)

Thank, I will check them out.

Note: My expansive scientific qualifications consist of high school curriculum. I may know more than your average school-leaver due to general interest, but I am not qualified to debate evidence of a technical nature. For this reason, I normally steer clear of the tWeb 'Science Building.' So, to Phaster and others who may wish to dispute my claims here using technical data, I'm afraid you'll be unlikely to receive a detailed reply. I may reference you to a more qualified source. In that event, if you wish to dispute the reference feel free to post your rebuttal here. But I also encourage you to send your rebuttal to the writers themselves, so that you may receive a qualified reply.

You may be better off than you realize. I firmly believe the real debate is on the philosophical side. Creation is an epistemological/ontological debate prior to a scientific one. The philosophical presuppositions must be sorted out first, especially when we understand the necessary philosophical assumptions necessary to science. And since they often are not, both sides tend to argue past one another. Even more tragically, many christians believe they must accept naturalistic scientific theories about the past, not realizing the unproven presuppositions science requires.

In other words, the real debate is actually way over the heads of many of the scientists that participate.

[Glenn P]

There are worse things to lose faith in than Science's adequacy to address questions of origins. It sure beats losing faith in Christ,

[Calminian]

Edit to add: Let me qualify that my lack of faith is in origin science, not operational science.

Well said. I also have faith (and think you should too) in historical or forensic science. I think it is reasonable to extrapolate backward using our knowledge of how things normally work in order to make assessments about the past. Scientific inductive thinking can tell us, for instance, how long a body has been dead, or from which location a gun was fired (from the bullet hole).

But origins (or the beginning or starting point of something's existence) is a totally different matter. The eternalness or finiteness of being is an ontological question and outside the realm of science. If one is a theist, then they believe our origin is the result of a miraculous intervention. A theist also believes in post creation miraculous interventions by God on both large and small scales. Not only can science not account for these past miracles, but it must assume a priori, no past events exist like this. Thus the term creation science, is actually oxymoronic.