Ken Blanchard at South Dakota Politics has replied to my post taking issue with assumptions passed off as facts by evolutionists. **Note that in this discussion I'm not trying to argue that creation is the correct theory, just that most evolutionists unquestioningly presuppose their position to be factual and refuse to approach the debate from an equal starting point.
Blanchard was kind and complimentary, but I think he's still missed my main point: just because evolutionists believe something, and despite the contention that because they're in the majority and believe they get to "make the rules" and define what is and is not valid, their contentions are still only theories built on assumptions--assumptions that are shaky.
Why do I believe Blanchard and I still aren't on the same page? Take this quote, responding to one of my analogies:
If a Christian concedes these fundamental elements of Islam, then there is no point in arguing about the truth of Islam, because you've already agreed that Islam is true. It may be "legitimate within the confines of Islamic thought," but that doesn't mean it's true or even legitimate in a broader sense. It's completely illogical to say, "Yes, your contention is true. But here's why it isn't true." You've already pulled the rug out from under yourself.
Also consider Blanchard's next statement:
No, evolutionists do not get to define what is legitimate, only what they consider legitimate. They don't have all the answers; like the rest of us, they are looking for answers.
Evolutionists also don't have the only scientifically viable theories. Creation scientists have scientifically viable theories; they only reason they aren't considered scientifically viable by some is because the dominant segment of the scientific community has redefined the study of science from "the pursuit of knowledge" to "the pursuit of knowledge within an exclusively naturalistic framework."
In other words, they refuse to consider any supernatural origin or cause, which is a closed-minded position. Naturalists say that ID'ers and creation scientists haven't come up with a viable framework for their theories; they have, but because that framework doesn't fit the naturalist's contention that there can be no supernatural influence in the universe, naturalists claim it isn't viable. Again, we're back to the illogical contention that you have to agree that someone is right before you can explain why they're wrong.
Just for a moment, stop and consider this possibility: If God does exist and did create the universe, then he is the author of science. Yet naturalists refuse to even consider this possibility; if God did create the universe, they they are arguing that the being who created all scientific laws--science itself--is unscientific and unworthy of consideration. No amount of evidence pointing to intelligent design will dissuade them from ignoring God, because they already assume He doesn't exist, and that assumption for them is already settled and not worthy of revisiting.
I don't object to assumptions; since no human being knows everything, we all have to make certain assumptions. What I do object to is when assumptions are accepted as incontrovertible truth, which is what materialists and naturalists do. I also find it disingenuous that practically all naturalists dogmatically deny that they hold any assumptions or presuppositions in the first place.
Blanchard says criminal investigation and scientific investigation "move in almost the opposite direction[s]." While it is true that there are some differences, they are actually very similar. Criminal investigations almost always involve scientific principles, and especially absent immediate and conclusive evidence, usually employs the scientific method (formulation of a question, gathering data through observation and experimentation, and the formation and testing of a theory).
And while eyewitness testimony isn't absolutely necessary for the formation of viable theories in either science or criminal investigation, it's a great boon to the accuracy of and confidence in your conclusions.
In fact, eyewitness observation is usually the beginning of a scientific investigation (you see lightning, wonder what it is, and begin experiments to define it; you witness an apple fall from a tree, wonder what made it fall, and begin your research; you see an organism reproduce, you wonder how that's possible, and investigate it). In each of these examples, there would have been no impetus for discovery without the initial witnessed observation. And that observation, both in the criminal and scientific investigation, acts as a standard or "measuring stick" for the accuracy and viability of any theories you form during your investigation. In fact, it will determine to some extent what experiments and tests you perform, because it's difficult to devise an accurate and appropriate test when you don't have some definable idea of what it is your're researching in the first place. In other words, if your experiments can't match what was witnessed, then you haven't found the answer yet. And if nothing was witnessed in the first place, how can you possibly have dogmatic certainty that your experiments prove something never even witnessed?
Blanchard's concluding paragraph says
While it is true that God could have used evolution as an engine for ongoing creativity and biological change, it is incompatible with the claims of both the Old and New Testaments. In fact, without even getting into the whole fact vs. symbolism argument, the claims of evolution are incompatible with most of the basic tenets of Christian theology. These include the fall/depravity of man, the need for redemption that Christ met, the source and cause for death and decay
Finally, Blanchard's last paragraph also indicates that he still defines "modern science" wholly by the naturalistic philosophy held by many in modern science. Science (the laws that govern the universe) is what it is; it doesn't change according to the worldview of a Christian or an atheist or someone who tries to harmonize the two worldviews. The bulk of the modern scientific community claims evolution to be true, but that does not mean that it is. They clearly assume it is, but you know what they say happens when you assume.
Which gets back to the key problem I have with evolutionists: they assume they are right, even though they have no more proof than the creationist, and arrogantly demand that all science must be addressed on their terms, or it isn't science at all.
Just saying your daddy can beat up my daddy doesn't make it so. Such a posture is worth a chuckle when we see children hold it. But when adults take such an attitude about the origin of a universe that has not been witnessed or documented, it is misleading and parochial.
But I'm grateful for the opportunity to debate the issue with the esteemed Professor Blanchard. Iron sharpens iron, as they say.
Blanchard was kind and complimentary, but I think he's still missed my main point: just because evolutionists believe something, and despite the contention that because they're in the majority and believe they get to "make the rules" and define what is and is not valid, their contentions are still only theories built on assumptions--assumptions that are shaky.
Why do I believe Blanchard and I still aren't on the same page? Take this quote, responding to one of my analogies:
If a Christian wants to take issue with Islam from a position that is legitimate within the confines of Islamic thought, then he would have to concede that there is no god but Allah and that Mohamed is his profit (sic).
If a Christian concedes these fundamental elements of Islam, then there is no point in arguing about the truth of Islam, because you've already agreed that Islam is true. It may be "legitimate within the confines of Islamic thought," but that doesn't mean it's true or even legitimate in a broader sense. It's completely illogical to say, "Yes, your contention is true. But here's why it isn't true." You've already pulled the rug out from under yourself.
Also consider Blanchard's next statement:
Evolutionists get to define the legitimate ground in biology for the same reason that chemists get to define the ground in chemistry: in each case they have the only scientifically viable theories and research programs.
No, evolutionists do not get to define what is legitimate, only what they consider legitimate. They don't have all the answers; like the rest of us, they are looking for answers.
Evolutionists also don't have the only scientifically viable theories. Creation scientists have scientifically viable theories; they only reason they aren't considered scientifically viable by some is because the dominant segment of the scientific community has redefined the study of science from "the pursuit of knowledge" to "the pursuit of knowledge within an exclusively naturalistic framework."
In other words, they refuse to consider any supernatural origin or cause, which is a closed-minded position. Naturalists say that ID'ers and creation scientists haven't come up with a viable framework for their theories; they have, but because that framework doesn't fit the naturalist's contention that there can be no supernatural influence in the universe, naturalists claim it isn't viable. Again, we're back to the illogical contention that you have to agree that someone is right before you can explain why they're wrong.
Just for a moment, stop and consider this possibility: If God does exist and did create the universe, then he is the author of science. Yet naturalists refuse to even consider this possibility; if God did create the universe, they they are arguing that the being who created all scientific laws--science itself--is unscientific and unworthy of consideration. No amount of evidence pointing to intelligent design will dissuade them from ignoring God, because they already assume He doesn't exist, and that assumption for them is already settled and not worthy of revisiting.
I don't object to assumptions; since no human being knows everything, we all have to make certain assumptions. What I do object to is when assumptions are accepted as incontrovertible truth, which is what materialists and naturalists do. I also find it disingenuous that practically all naturalists dogmatically deny that they hold any assumptions or presuppositions in the first place.
Blanchard says criminal investigation and scientific investigation "move in almost the opposite direction[s]." While it is true that there are some differences, they are actually very similar. Criminal investigations almost always involve scientific principles, and especially absent immediate and conclusive evidence, usually employs the scientific method (formulation of a question, gathering data through observation and experimentation, and the formation and testing of a theory).
And while eyewitness testimony isn't absolutely necessary for the formation of viable theories in either science or criminal investigation, it's a great boon to the accuracy of and confidence in your conclusions.
In fact, eyewitness observation is usually the beginning of a scientific investigation (you see lightning, wonder what it is, and begin experiments to define it; you witness an apple fall from a tree, wonder what made it fall, and begin your research; you see an organism reproduce, you wonder how that's possible, and investigate it). In each of these examples, there would have been no impetus for discovery without the initial witnessed observation. And that observation, both in the criminal and scientific investigation, acts as a standard or "measuring stick" for the accuracy and viability of any theories you form during your investigation. In fact, it will determine to some extent what experiments and tests you perform, because it's difficult to devise an accurate and appropriate test when you don't have some definable idea of what it is your're researching in the first place. In other words, if your experiments can't match what was witnessed, then you haven't found the answer yet. And if nothing was witnessed in the first place, how can you possibly have dogmatic certainty that your experiments prove something never even witnessed?
Blanchard's concluding paragraph says
I do not believe that Darwinian evolution contradicts the Biblical creation story. A Christian may well disagree, and choose to reject the former. He is deceiving himself if he thinks he can do so without rejecting modern science as a whole.
While it is true that God could have used evolution as an engine for ongoing creativity and biological change, it is incompatible with the claims of both the Old and New Testaments. In fact, without even getting into the whole fact vs. symbolism argument, the claims of evolution are incompatible with most of the basic tenets of Christian theology. These include the fall/depravity of man, the need for redemption that Christ met, the source and cause for death and decay
Finally, Blanchard's last paragraph also indicates that he still defines "modern science" wholly by the naturalistic philosophy held by many in modern science. Science (the laws that govern the universe) is what it is; it doesn't change according to the worldview of a Christian or an atheist or someone who tries to harmonize the two worldviews. The bulk of the modern scientific community claims evolution to be true, but that does not mean that it is. They clearly assume it is, but you know what they say happens when you assume.
Which gets back to the key problem I have with evolutionists: they assume they are right, even though they have no more proof than the creationist, and arrogantly demand that all science must be addressed on their terms, or it isn't science at all.
Just saying your daddy can beat up my daddy doesn't make it so. Such a posture is worth a chuckle when we see children hold it. But when adults take such an attitude about the origin of a universe that has not been witnessed or documented, it is misleading and parochial.
But I'm grateful for the opportunity to debate the issue with the esteemed Professor Blanchard. Iron sharpens iron, as they say.
0 comments:
Post a Comment