OK. Another post that is not exactly related to creationism.
I'm currently listening to the podclass, Chemical Science (5.111), from MIT's OpenCourseWare. The professor (Dr. Elizabeth Vogel Taylor) has done a real nice job presenting the quantum mechanics wavefunction concept - something about which I never had a good grasp.
Today, while commenting on the periodic table, she mentioned that in the early part of the last century (1900's) people thought that elements next to each other on the periodic table were thought to be somewhat interchangeable.
In the late 1920's, 7-Up (the soft drink that is today part of the Dr. Pepper group) was introduced as “Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda” and which contained lithium citrate. The lithium remained in the drink until 1950.
I had heard about the cocaine in Coca-Cola, but I had not heard about the lithium in 7-Up.
A couple of side notes: Sprite currently uses sodium citrate - sodium is next to (just below) lithium on the periodic table. Today, lithium is sometimes prescribed to treat bipolar disorder.
By the way, I appreciate it when teachers and professors relate the subject matter to something else in one's experiences. It gives us students something to hang the information on.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Variable Constants?
Whether all the constants in science (especially physics) are truly constant is a question that sometimes comes up (often, with respect to the anthropic principle and a fine tuned universe). Obviously, such a thing would have huge implications for the assumptions and the conclusions of science.
I wanted to draw attention to a paper that has been recently submitted for peer review, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant" by John K. Webb (Univ. of South Wales), et. al., and which proposes that the fine structure constant is varying. Here is a nice summary at Technology Review, along with some interesting blog comments afterward.
Keep in mind that this paper's results may be refuted or they may be further verified (whether next month or 40 years from now). However, neither such results, nor the refutation thereof, affect the certainty of the creation account recorded in Genesis nor our God's promises to us in Christ.
I wanted to draw attention to a paper that has been recently submitted for peer review, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant" by John K. Webb (Univ. of South Wales), et. al., and which proposes that the fine structure constant is varying. Here is a nice summary at Technology Review, along with some interesting blog comments afterward.
Keep in mind that this paper's results may be refuted or they may be further verified (whether next month or 40 years from now). However, neither such results, nor the refutation thereof, affect the certainty of the creation account recorded in Genesis nor our God's promises to us in Christ.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Dr. James Dobson - Correction
A couple days ago I posted a blog commenting on the audio book, Bringing Up Girls by Dr. James Dobson since, in the book, there was a reference to "early hominoids." In my blog article, I attributed the use of this term (which is similar in thought to old earth viewpoints such as Hugh Ross) to Dr. Dobson. What I thought was a term used by Dobson was actually part of a longer extended quote from Marc Gellman's article in Newsweek (here is the link). While it is evident in the print edition as to how far Gellman's quote extends (because of the page formatting), it is ambiguous on the audio CD.
Yesterday, I was kindly contacted by Dr. Dobson through one of his representatives. He clarified that the term ("early hominoids") was not Dr. Dobson's but that of Marc Gellman. In fact, Dr. Dobson said that he disagrees with it. I was informed that Tyndale House (the publisher) will be editing this in future editions in both the book and audiobook to remove this ambiguity.
I wanted to point this out since, while I did delete the post from my blog, it still may remain on some blog readers and I don't want to misrepresent Dr. Dobson's viewpoint.
Yesterday, I was kindly contacted by Dr. Dobson through one of his representatives. He clarified that the term ("early hominoids") was not Dr. Dobson's but that of Marc Gellman. In fact, Dr. Dobson said that he disagrees with it. I was informed that Tyndale House (the publisher) will be editing this in future editions in both the book and audiobook to remove this ambiguity.
I wanted to point this out since, while I did delete the post from my blog, it still may remain on some blog readers and I don't want to misrepresent Dr. Dobson's viewpoint.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Mostly Empty Space
I've recently finished A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross as well as the "podclass," Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior (EEB122; Spring, 2009; Prof. Stephen C. Stearns) from Yale University (the podclass was obtained from iTunesU). I'm working on several comments for each as there are some noteworthy things that I want to point out.
In the mean time, I've started another podclass on chemistry, Principles of Chemical Science (MIT, 5.111, Fall 2008). In one of the opening lectures, the professor commented on the diameter of the atom (electrons, protons and neutrons) as well as the diameter of the atomic nucleus (only the protons and neutrons at the center of the atom). The diameter of the atomic nucleus is on the order of 10E-12 cm while the diameter of the entire atom is on the order of 10E-8 cm. So, the diameter of the atom is roughly four orders of magnitude larger than its nucleus.
What this means is, if we would think of an atom (i.e., the diameter of the electron cloud) as approximately the same diameter as that of a basketball then the atomic nucleus would be approximately the diameter of several human hairs. This is somewhat simplistic since I'm ignoring the moving electron cloud and the atomic forces. Still, I find it interesting that matter, as we currently understand it, is mostly made up of empty space.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Essential Tools for the Creationist - Introduction
Recently, I finished writing a short paper. I had made a number of entries on these same topics last year (here, here and here as well as my blog sidebar) because they are important for Christians to keep in mind and is why I also wrote the paper. However, because I better defined and clarified my thoughts and because I added a few new thoughts, I want to post the paper on my blog so that others could benefit as well. Note that I have divided the paper into three parts (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3) to keep it more managable for the reader.
Essential Tools for the Creationist - Part 1
[refer to some introductory comments here]
I have often asked myself, "What is it that God's people really need with respect to creation and evolution issues? What tools do they need in order to help them evaluate things like creation models and points of evolution from a Lutheran perspective?"
It is absolutely imperative that Christians begin by making certain fundamental distinctions in order to enable them to adequately assess creationist models and evolutionary viewpoints. Therefore, what is of great help to God's people is not necessarily providing a new creation model, but rather, and more importantly, providing a way of evaluating such models using distinctions.
Let's look at some distinctions which are essential to this evaluation process.
1) Thoroughly and persistently distinguish between scientific 1 issues and theological issues 2 .
This distinction is necessary because the answer will determine the criteria by which assertions and conclusions are to be properly evaluated. For example, the criteria by which we evaluate scientific assertions and conclusions would include such questions as: Is the hypothesis testable, measurable and repeatable? Is the phenomenon observable? Are the conclusions logical? On the other hand, the criterion by which we evaluate theological issues is the whole of Scripture as it is revealed to us in the Old and New Testaments.
When exposed to creation and evolution literature, Christians often find themselves asking only one question: "Is this right/wrong?" Rather, a better approach is to maintain the distinction between the scientific and the theological by asking two separate questions instead of only one, namely, "Is this conclusion theologically permissible?" and "Is this conclusion scientifically valid and logical?" This is a worthwhile practice because something that is theologically permissible may have more than one scientific opinion. It is even possible that two scientific opinions which are diametrically opposed to each other may both be theologically permissible.
1 I define "science" and "scientific" as they are commonly used, namely, that which is understood solely from observations and measurements of the natural, physical world around us.
2 There are differences in theological definitions among the different Christian denominations. This author takes the Lutheran Confessions, as expounded in the Book of Concord of 1580, as expressing the true doctrine of Scripture.
I have often asked myself, "What is it that God's people really need with respect to creation and evolution issues? What tools do they need in order to help them evaluate things like creation models and points of evolution from a Lutheran perspective?"
It is absolutely imperative that Christians begin by making certain fundamental distinctions in order to enable them to adequately assess creationist models and evolutionary viewpoints. Therefore, what is of great help to God's people is not necessarily providing a new creation model, but rather, and more importantly, providing a way of evaluating such models using distinctions.
Let's look at some distinctions which are essential to this evaluation process.
1) Thoroughly and persistently distinguish between scientific 1 issues and theological issues 2 .
This distinction is necessary because the answer will determine the criteria by which assertions and conclusions are to be properly evaluated. For example, the criteria by which we evaluate scientific assertions and conclusions would include such questions as: Is the hypothesis testable, measurable and repeatable? Is the phenomenon observable? Are the conclusions logical? On the other hand, the criterion by which we evaluate theological issues is the whole of Scripture as it is revealed to us in the Old and New Testaments.
When exposed to creation and evolution literature, Christians often find themselves asking only one question: "Is this right/wrong?" Rather, a better approach is to maintain the distinction between the scientific and the theological by asking two separate questions instead of only one, namely, "Is this conclusion theologically permissible?" and "Is this conclusion scientifically valid and logical?" This is a worthwhile practice because something that is theologically permissible may have more than one scientific opinion. It is even possible that two scientific opinions which are diametrically opposed to each other may both be theologically permissible.
1 I define "science" and "scientific" as they are commonly used, namely, that which is understood solely from observations and measurements of the natural, physical world around us.
2 There are differences in theological definitions among the different Christian denominations. This author takes the Lutheran Confessions, as expounded in the Book of Concord of 1580, as expressing the true doctrine of Scripture.
Essential Tools for the Creationist - Part 2
[this is a continuation from Part 1]
As we make this distinction between science and theology, it is also necessary to...
2) Clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and, especially, what the Bible does not say.
To clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and does not say is especially important because, on those issues where God has spoken the matter is settled, and on those issues where God is silent we must allow for a difference of opinion. On matters where God is silent, He leaves it up to our Christian freedom 3 to explore and observe, and to use our logic and reason to come up with models which describe this world. We realize to a large extent such models are human conclusions and not derived from God's Word. In scientific issues about which God's Word is silent, we not only allow for a difference of opinion in Christian love but also understand that a Christian may in good conscience feel free to select any position that he/she sees fit.
A method that may be used to evaluate the existence or absence of Christian freedom in creation/evolution issues might consist of something like the following thought process:
• First, ask, "Is this mentioned directly by Scripture?"
• Then, "Is this implied by Scripture?"
• Then, "Is this permissible by Scripture? If so, which parts are permissible by Scripture and which parts are not?"
• Then, "Do the scientific conclusions have a theological basis that needs to be evaluated?" The answers to these first four questions will enable the Christian to evaluate whether or not Christian freedom is involved by emphasizing the specifics about which Scripture speaks, or does not speak, on an issue.
• Finally, evaluate scientific conclusions based upon the science itself.
Failure to properly make this distinction between what the Bible says and what it does not say may result in a number of undesirable deficiencies:
• It may result in subtracting from or minimizing what the Bible states (sometimes referred to as "a half-truth").
• It may result in adding to what the Bible says (e.g. "a truth-and-a-half").
• It may result in a misapplication of the Scriptural doctrine of Christian freedom. This misapplication may unnecessarily bind the consciences of others with scientific conclusions as if they were theological conclusions. This binding might happen if someone takes a scientific question and presents what should be a scientific answer but rather passes it off as a theological answer. In so doing, he would be presenting the issue as theologically settled, whereas in reality the matter is open to Christian freedom of assessment and discernment.
This last point is certainly something to keep in mind as Christians apply the Gospel to their lives when creation and evolution issues are discussed. The latitude of Christian freedom to hold varying scientific conclusions about matters in which God's Word is silent is something that is often overlooked. This consideration needs to be regularly emphasized so that consciences are not unnecessarily bound in such matters when information is presented as if Scripture is speaking when, in fact, it is not.
Also understand that confessional Lutheranism offers some unique insights into the Scriptures - insights which enable the Christian to deal effectively with paradoxes between what God's Word says and our observations of the natural world. A Lutheran approach does not inherently seek to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world. An example familiar to many is the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper, where the communicant receives the bread and wine as well as the body and blood of Christ. This reception is certain, not because observation and logic, per se, are conclusive, but because the words of Christ are conclusive. It is because of Lutheranism's unique approach - one which does not find the need to completely understand and rationalize everything that God's Word says but simply accepts it in faith, and one that applies Christian freedom properly - that confessional Lutheranism can potentially offer some new approaches to creationism.
How might we apply these first two principles? To begin, let’s itemize a sampling of questions so that the reader better understands the science-theology distinction involved. First are some examples of theological questions which the Bible definitively answers:
• Were Adam and Eve the first humans and special creations of God?
• Was there only one creation event?
• Did creation occur over six 24 hour periods?
• Was there matter before creation?
Next are some examples of scientific questions about which the Bible does not address. Some examples are as follows:
• What is the circumference of the earth?
• How deep are the oceans?
• What is the life cycle timeline of a star?
• How far from earth is the Large Magellanic Cloud?
• Are the sedimentary layers that we see in the Grand Canyon the result of the Biblical Flood?
• What is the measured age of the earth?
Now, let’s continue with a specific example by looking at this last question and analyzing it further. In keeping with these distinctions, we will note that "What is the measured age of the earth?" and "When was the earth created?" are two separate questions. The former is a scientific question requiring scientific measurement while the latter is a theological question requiring us to search the Scriptures.
Somewhat analogous to the treatment of the Lord's Supper, a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily need to have the same answer for both questions since, as was mentioned previously, we do not need to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world. Our observations in nature may correlate well with the Scriptures but they don't have to. And if it is our experience that there is a lack of correlation between our observations in nature and the Bible, it is still the Scriptures that are more certain.
A rough approximation to "When was the earth created?" may be obtained by looking at the genealogies in the Bible. However, it need also be understood that since internal evidence 4 shows that these genealogies are not complete nor are the time periods consecutive, we would not be able to conclude a date for creation much more specific than some “multi-thousands" of years ago.
We will also recognize that, while Genesis describes the state of creation as being good, without sin and death, and fully functional, it stops short of providing specifics. For example, the Bible neither gives us the distances to the stars nor radioactive decay parameters. Therefore, the question "What is the measured age of the earth?" is a scientific one about which we are free to use our Christian freedom and scientific knowledge to assess.
From a confessional Lutheran perspective, an aged universe - that is, a scientifically measured age which may be orders of magnitude older than the elapsed time since God created the world 5 - may be theologically acceptable with respect to some aspects of creation as long as those aspects do not contradict with what the Scriptures specifically say.
Contemporary Lutheran theologian, Siegbert W. Becker properly applies these distinctions when he comments,
Former Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary president Carl Lawrenz also cautions, "Yet the creationist, in opposing the billions of years invoked by the evolutionist, needs to be conscientious in asserting nothing further concerning the age of the world on the basis of Scripture than is actually said there." 7
3 “Christian freedom,” “Christian liberty,” and “adiaphora” are related terms. For further explanation on the topic of Christian freedom, the reader is encouraged to look at the book of Galatians (especially Galatians 5:1-4) and Article X, Formula of Concord, Book of Concord.
4 That is, evidence from Scripture itself.
5 As described in Genesis 1 and 2
6 Becker, Siegbert. “Evolution and Genesis,” page 7. Available from Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Essay File.
7 Lawrenz, Carl. Reviewer’s Desk. “Darwin, Evolution, and Creation.” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Volume 57 No. 3 (July 1960): 223
As we make this distinction between science and theology, it is also necessary to...
2) Clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and, especially, what the Bible does not say.
To clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and does not say is especially important because, on those issues where God has spoken the matter is settled, and on those issues where God is silent we must allow for a difference of opinion. On matters where God is silent, He leaves it up to our Christian freedom 3 to explore and observe, and to use our logic and reason to come up with models which describe this world. We realize to a large extent such models are human conclusions and not derived from God's Word. In scientific issues about which God's Word is silent, we not only allow for a difference of opinion in Christian love but also understand that a Christian may in good conscience feel free to select any position that he/she sees fit.
A method that may be used to evaluate the existence or absence of Christian freedom in creation/evolution issues might consist of something like the following thought process:
• First, ask, "Is this mentioned directly by Scripture?"
• Then, "Is this implied by Scripture?"
• Then, "Is this permissible by Scripture? If so, which parts are permissible by Scripture and which parts are not?"
• Then, "Do the scientific conclusions have a theological basis that needs to be evaluated?" The answers to these first four questions will enable the Christian to evaluate whether or not Christian freedom is involved by emphasizing the specifics about which Scripture speaks, or does not speak, on an issue.
• Finally, evaluate scientific conclusions based upon the science itself.
Failure to properly make this distinction between what the Bible says and what it does not say may result in a number of undesirable deficiencies:
• It may result in subtracting from or minimizing what the Bible states (sometimes referred to as "a half-truth").
• It may result in adding to what the Bible says (e.g. "a truth-and-a-half").
• It may result in a misapplication of the Scriptural doctrine of Christian freedom. This misapplication may unnecessarily bind the consciences of others with scientific conclusions as if they were theological conclusions. This binding might happen if someone takes a scientific question and presents what should be a scientific answer but rather passes it off as a theological answer. In so doing, he would be presenting the issue as theologically settled, whereas in reality the matter is open to Christian freedom of assessment and discernment.
This last point is certainly something to keep in mind as Christians apply the Gospel to their lives when creation and evolution issues are discussed. The latitude of Christian freedom to hold varying scientific conclusions about matters in which God's Word is silent is something that is often overlooked. This consideration needs to be regularly emphasized so that consciences are not unnecessarily bound in such matters when information is presented as if Scripture is speaking when, in fact, it is not.
Also understand that confessional Lutheranism offers some unique insights into the Scriptures - insights which enable the Christian to deal effectively with paradoxes between what God's Word says and our observations of the natural world. A Lutheran approach does not inherently seek to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world. An example familiar to many is the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper, where the communicant receives the bread and wine as well as the body and blood of Christ. This reception is certain, not because observation and logic, per se, are conclusive, but because the words of Christ are conclusive. It is because of Lutheranism's unique approach - one which does not find the need to completely understand and rationalize everything that God's Word says but simply accepts it in faith, and one that applies Christian freedom properly - that confessional Lutheranism can potentially offer some new approaches to creationism.
How might we apply these first two principles? To begin, let’s itemize a sampling of questions so that the reader better understands the science-theology distinction involved. First are some examples of theological questions which the Bible definitively answers:
• Were Adam and Eve the first humans and special creations of God?
• Was there only one creation event?
• Did creation occur over six 24 hour periods?
• Was there matter before creation?
Next are some examples of scientific questions about which the Bible does not address. Some examples are as follows:
• What is the circumference of the earth?
• How deep are the oceans?
• What is the life cycle timeline of a star?
• How far from earth is the Large Magellanic Cloud?
• Are the sedimentary layers that we see in the Grand Canyon the result of the Biblical Flood?
• What is the measured age of the earth?
Now, let’s continue with a specific example by looking at this last question and analyzing it further. In keeping with these distinctions, we will note that "What is the measured age of the earth?" and "When was the earth created?" are two separate questions. The former is a scientific question requiring scientific measurement while the latter is a theological question requiring us to search the Scriptures.
Somewhat analogous to the treatment of the Lord's Supper, a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily need to have the same answer for both questions since, as was mentioned previously, we do not need to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world. Our observations in nature may correlate well with the Scriptures but they don't have to. And if it is our experience that there is a lack of correlation between our observations in nature and the Bible, it is still the Scriptures that are more certain.
A rough approximation to "When was the earth created?" may be obtained by looking at the genealogies in the Bible. However, it need also be understood that since internal evidence 4 shows that these genealogies are not complete nor are the time periods consecutive, we would not be able to conclude a date for creation much more specific than some “multi-thousands" of years ago.
We will also recognize that, while Genesis describes the state of creation as being good, without sin and death, and fully functional, it stops short of providing specifics. For example, the Bible neither gives us the distances to the stars nor radioactive decay parameters. Therefore, the question "What is the measured age of the earth?" is a scientific one about which we are free to use our Christian freedom and scientific knowledge to assess.
From a confessional Lutheran perspective, an aged universe - that is, a scientifically measured age which may be orders of magnitude older than the elapsed time since God created the world 5 - may be theologically acceptable with respect to some aspects of creation as long as those aspects do not contradict with what the Scriptures specifically say.
Contemporary Lutheran theologian, Siegbert W. Becker properly applies these distinctions when he comments,
The point that ought to be clear to all of us is that, entirely aside from the theory of evolution, we are taught by the biblical revelation of creation to expect to find a world that seems to be much older than it really is. If scientists would be truly scientific and say that the universe seems to be millions of years old, or even that it is millions of years old unless at some time in the past the whole natural world came into being in a supernatural, miraculous way, or that some catastrophic event or events speeded up certain processes of nature at one time or another, we would have no reason to quarrel with them; in fact, we would agree and say that the earth appears to be far more ancient than it is. We know that it is much younger than it seems to be only because God, who is the only one who really knows how all things came to be, has shared this secret with us in Genesis one and two. 6
Former Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary president Carl Lawrenz also cautions, "Yet the creationist, in opposing the billions of years invoked by the evolutionist, needs to be conscientious in asserting nothing further concerning the age of the world on the basis of Scripture than is actually said there." 7
3 “Christian freedom,” “Christian liberty,” and “adiaphora” are related terms. For further explanation on the topic of Christian freedom, the reader is encouraged to look at the book of Galatians (especially Galatians 5:1-4) and Article X, Formula of Concord, Book of Concord.
4 That is, evidence from Scripture itself.
5 As described in Genesis 1 and 2
6 Becker, Siegbert. “Evolution and Genesis,” page 7. Available from Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Essay File.
7 Lawrenz, Carl. Reviewer’s Desk. “Darwin, Evolution, and Creation.” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Volume 57 No. 3 (July 1960): 223
Essential Tools for the Creationist - Part 3
[this is a continuation from Part 2]
Finally, an additional tool that can be beneficial for the creationist when used consistently is to...
3) Clearly and fully understand the definition of terms that are being used.
The creationist need understand that there are often differences between the Scriptural definition of words and words that are used in science or in colloquial speech. One example is the word "truth."
There is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the criteria for determining a “truth” are different. Scientific truth is, to a large extent, based on repeatable observation, whereas in theology, truth is centered on the certainty of God's promises to us in Christ rather than what we observe and feel. The Christian is certain of God's truths in Scripture not because of his own abilities of perception and observation, but through faith worked by the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 2:5-13; John 8:31-32) Scripture is, therefore, the basis of absolute certainty.
An interesting side note and illustrative for our purposes of pointing out the importance of distinctions and definitions is the much publicized court case concerning Intelligent Design (ID) (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005). In that case, the question before the U.S. District Court was not "Is Intelligent Design true?" Rather, the question was "Is Intelligent Design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID meet the criteria that science has defined for itself?"8
Second, there is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the permanence of truth in the scientific realm is viewed differently than in the theological realm. In the Bible, we are assured that our God is unchanging (James 1:17) and that His words of truth are permanent (John 17:17; Matthew 24:3).
On the other hand, in science there is no such thing as a "final truth" as the National Academy of Sciences points out when they define scientific fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." 9 And also, "…the statements of science should never be accepted as "final truth." Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science.” 10
The University of California Museum of Paleontology also explains that, "science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it." "In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives." 11
They also note that "science is always a work in progress, and its conclusions are always tentative." This means that scientific conclusions are "not tentative in the sense that they are temporary until the real answer comes along. Scientific conclusions are well founded in their factual content and thinking and are tentative only in the sense that all ideas are open to scrutiny. In science, the tentativeness of ideas such as the nature of atoms, cells, stars or the history of the Earth refers to the willingness of scientists to modify their ideas as new evidence appears." 12
It is important that the Christian neither overestimate nor underestimate this tentativeness. When you board a flight in Chicago bound for L.A., you are fairly certain that you will arrive at your destination on time and intact. This is due to a certain level of understanding about aerodynamics, metallurgy, structural forces, electronics and software. If you undergo a medical procedure, it is often the case that the medical professionals have a fair grasp on the risks and benefits involved based upon a certain level of understanding about biochemistry, cellular biology and metabolic pathways.
I would not be employed as an engineer if science were not, to a large degree, reliable. On the other hand, it is the tentativeness in science due to incomplete knowledge, the uncertainty caused by how much one does not know and the misinterpretation of correlation instead of causation, that makes an engineer constantly concerned about potential product field failures and recalls. It is not necessarily what you know that catches you unaware, it is what you don't know - and you never know what you don't know.
Scientific knowledge is often perceived by people who do not work directly in scientific fields, as an impenetrable monolith of certainty. Rather, and more realistically, I have often represented scientific knowledge as a ball of varying porosity since the known and unknown are intermixed and outside of the ball there are an unknown amount of unknowns. There will always be some unknown variables, the existence of these are why scientists and engineers continue to be employed, and even an unknown number of scientific questions that have never been posed because not enough is known to ask those questions. In fact, if all the unknowns were to be answered, science would cease to exist since science thrives at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.
The primary reason why there is no "final truth" in science and why science is considered tentative is because science, by its very nature and definition, will always consist of an incomplete body of knowledge.
This even applies to so-called "creation science," that is, scientific evidence used to support Biblical creationism, and Christians would do well to remember to give appropriate qualifiers when presenting scientific evidence in creation models. Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the reader keeps this incomplete and tentative nature of scientific conclusions in their proper context - especially when applied to creation science issues. If this is not understood, it is my experience that our sinful nature (Romans 7:18-23; Galatians 5:17) will begin to substitute such scientific evidence in favor of creation in place of faith in God's Word and promise, and, if scientific evidence, which was incomplete in the first place, is later falsified, despair will prevail.
It is because science is incomplete that it should always be a necessary goal of any confessional Lutheran creation model to lead the Christian into the following mindset: If there is scientific evidence in favor of creation and it correlates well with the Scriptural account, that's great! And if such evidence is later falsified, that's OK, too, because in the end, it really doesn't matter -- the promises of God in Christ are certain.
8 "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." p 64; "To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." p89 (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005)
9 “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition” (National Academy of Sciences, 1999): 3.
10 "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science” (National Academy of Sciences, 1998): 30.
11 “Misconceptions about science.” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
12 “Characteristics of Science” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Finally, an additional tool that can be beneficial for the creationist when used consistently is to...
3) Clearly and fully understand the definition of terms that are being used.
The creationist need understand that there are often differences between the Scriptural definition of words and words that are used in science or in colloquial speech. One example is the word "truth."
There is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the criteria for determining a “truth” are different. Scientific truth is, to a large extent, based on repeatable observation, whereas in theology, truth is centered on the certainty of God's promises to us in Christ rather than what we observe and feel. The Christian is certain of God's truths in Scripture not because of his own abilities of perception and observation, but through faith worked by the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 2:5-13; John 8:31-32) Scripture is, therefore, the basis of absolute certainty.
An interesting side note and illustrative for our purposes of pointing out the importance of distinctions and definitions is the much publicized court case concerning Intelligent Design (ID) (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005). In that case, the question before the U.S. District Court was not "Is Intelligent Design true?" Rather, the question was "Is Intelligent Design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID meet the criteria that science has defined for itself?"8
Second, there is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the permanence of truth in the scientific realm is viewed differently than in the theological realm. In the Bible, we are assured that our God is unchanging (James 1:17) and that His words of truth are permanent (John 17:17; Matthew 24:3).
On the other hand, in science there is no such thing as a "final truth" as the National Academy of Sciences points out when they define scientific fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." 9 And also, "…the statements of science should never be accepted as "final truth." Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science.” 10
The University of California Museum of Paleontology also explains that, "science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it." "In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives." 11
They also note that "science is always a work in progress, and its conclusions are always tentative." This means that scientific conclusions are "not tentative in the sense that they are temporary until the real answer comes along. Scientific conclusions are well founded in their factual content and thinking and are tentative only in the sense that all ideas are open to scrutiny. In science, the tentativeness of ideas such as the nature of atoms, cells, stars or the history of the Earth refers to the willingness of scientists to modify their ideas as new evidence appears." 12
It is important that the Christian neither overestimate nor underestimate this tentativeness. When you board a flight in Chicago bound for L.A., you are fairly certain that you will arrive at your destination on time and intact. This is due to a certain level of understanding about aerodynamics, metallurgy, structural forces, electronics and software. If you undergo a medical procedure, it is often the case that the medical professionals have a fair grasp on the risks and benefits involved based upon a certain level of understanding about biochemistry, cellular biology and metabolic pathways.
I would not be employed as an engineer if science were not, to a large degree, reliable. On the other hand, it is the tentativeness in science due to incomplete knowledge, the uncertainty caused by how much one does not know and the misinterpretation of correlation instead of causation, that makes an engineer constantly concerned about potential product field failures and recalls. It is not necessarily what you know that catches you unaware, it is what you don't know - and you never know what you don't know.
Scientific knowledge is often perceived by people who do not work directly in scientific fields, as an impenetrable monolith of certainty. Rather, and more realistically, I have often represented scientific knowledge as a ball of varying porosity since the known and unknown are intermixed and outside of the ball there are an unknown amount of unknowns. There will always be some unknown variables, the existence of these are why scientists and engineers continue to be employed, and even an unknown number of scientific questions that have never been posed because not enough is known to ask those questions. In fact, if all the unknowns were to be answered, science would cease to exist since science thrives at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.
The primary reason why there is no "final truth" in science and why science is considered tentative is because science, by its very nature and definition, will always consist of an incomplete body of knowledge.
This even applies to so-called "creation science," that is, scientific evidence used to support Biblical creationism, and Christians would do well to remember to give appropriate qualifiers when presenting scientific evidence in creation models. Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the reader keeps this incomplete and tentative nature of scientific conclusions in their proper context - especially when applied to creation science issues. If this is not understood, it is my experience that our sinful nature (Romans 7:18-23; Galatians 5:17) will begin to substitute such scientific evidence in favor of creation in place of faith in God's Word and promise, and, if scientific evidence, which was incomplete in the first place, is later falsified, despair will prevail.
It is because science is incomplete that it should always be a necessary goal of any confessional Lutheran creation model to lead the Christian into the following mindset: If there is scientific evidence in favor of creation and it correlates well with the Scriptural account, that's great! And if such evidence is later falsified, that's OK, too, because in the end, it really doesn't matter -- the promises of God in Christ are certain.
8 "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." p 64; "To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." p89 (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005)
9 “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition” (National Academy of Sciences, 1999): 3.
10 "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science” (National Academy of Sciences, 1998): 30.
11 “Misconceptions about science.” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
12 “Characteristics of Science” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Disappointed, But Not Surprised
Some time ago, I was asked to do a book review of Persuaded By The Evidence (Eds., Doug Sharp and Dr. Jerry Bergman, ISBN 978-0-89051-545-7, copyright 2008).
I am only several chapters into the book, but something disappointing caught my eye as I finished the first paragraph of the Introduction (pg. 15). Doug Sharp writes, "... yet each one [that is, the personal testimonies of individuals in this book] has had his faith in God strengthened by scientific evidence for creation."
I am only several chapters into the book, but something disappointing caught my eye as I finished the first paragraph of the Introduction (pg. 15). Doug Sharp writes, "... yet each one [that is, the personal testimonies of individuals in this book] has had his faith in God strengthened by scientific evidence for creation."
In view of such a statement, a person needs to ask himself or herself, "What is Christian faith?" and "Is this faith something that is strengthened by scientific evidence?"
To answer those questions, we need to look at how the Bible defines Christian faith. There we find that:
- The Christian faith involves more than mere knowledge that the true God exists (James 2:19)
- Rather, Christian faith is, simply speaking, trust and certainty (Hebrews 11:1)
- Such faith trusts in what Jesus Christ has done for us and certain of what He promises to us (Acts 16:31)
- Through such faith, we are brought into God's family and into a personal relationship with God (Galatians 3:26)
- Through faith in Christ, we are able to approach God without fear and in confidence (Ephesians 3:12)
- Through faith in what Jesus has done for us, we are now free from God's condemnation (Romans 8:1; Romans 4:3; Philippians 3:8-9)
- And this gift of faith is worked in us through the Gospel promises of Christ (Romans 10:17)
Although it disappoints me when I see someone taking the position stated in this book, it does not surprise me. I have seen many, many Christian articles on creationism which make the assertion (either explicit or unstated) that our Christian faith is strengthened by, for example, scientific evidence in favor of a young earth. Such a position is not correct since our Christian faith is strengthened only by the promises of God's mercy to us through Christ.
Since scientific evidence which seems to support creationism does not strengthen a Christian's faith, then does such scientific evidence as offered by creationism serve any beneficial purpose for the Christian? Or, is it beneficial for the Christian to even read a book like "Persuaded By The Evidence", since one of its primary tenets (to strengthen one's faith by scientific evidence) is not true?
A book like this can certainly be beneficial to the Christian ... if viewed from the proper perspective.
First, scientific evidence for God's creation allows Christians to all the more be amazed at our God's creation and to be amazed at His power and wisdom evident in that creation (Psalm 19:1).
Secondly, this book is worthwhile to the Christian because it gives the reader a different perspective from which he or she might find pertinent and worthwhile arguments against evolution. For example, I found the second chapter by David Bradbury very enlightening when he presents his case about how the criteria for defining what is empirical science has changed over the years, especially as it applies to Darwinian evolution. This concept is something which I will need to follow up on at a later date.
I should also add that I appreciate reading the autobiographical sketches that are contained in this book. There are some names that may be quite familiar to readers who have followed the creationism movement for a while.
Therefore, even though a Christian's faith is not strengthened by the scientific evidence presented in this book, there is certainly something that may be gained by reading it.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Faster Than the Speed of Light?
{revised 10/14/10}
This post has nothing really to do with creationism/evolution but is an interesting scientific tidbit I recently found. I'm close to finishing a "podclass" (Nuclear Engineering 101, U.C. Berkeley, Fall 2009, Prof. Eric Norman; see iTunes U). It's been a real interesting class and the professor seems quite good in his teaching abilities.
This post has nothing really to do with creationism/evolution but is an interesting scientific tidbit I recently found. I'm close to finishing a "podclass" (Nuclear Engineering 101, U.C. Berkeley, Fall 2009, Prof. Eric Norman; see iTunes U). It's been a real interesting class and the professor seems quite good in his teaching abilities.
In one of the latest lectures, the professor notes how it is often heard that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. To be specific, Einstein said that nothing can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (it's always important to be specific about what is said). The mathematical notation "c" (from the Latin, celeritas, meaning speed or swiftness) is often used to denote the speed of light in a vacuum. However, when light travels through other media, it often travels at a speeds less than "c". An example of this is when light travels through water, it only travels at approximately 0.75c, that is, 3/4 the speed of light in a vacuum (as a sidelight, you can calculate this speed by using the refractive index of the material). What is interesting is that, in the same medium in which light travels less than "c" (in this example of a water medium, the velocity is 0.75c), very small charged particles (e.g. electrons or muons) can travel faster than 0.75c without violating the laws of relativity. When these particles travel faster than the speed of light, radiation/photons are emitted as something analogous to a sonic boom is produced (sort of like a photonic or electromagnetic shock wave). This radiation is called "Cherenkov Radiation" and has the characteristic blue glow that one sometimes sees in movies when nuclear reactors are depicted (see picture; obtained from Wikimedia Commons and is in the public domain).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
