Once again I was having a discussion with my evolutionary coworker, this time about the moon. I appealed to him about several different facts about the moon that would lead us to believe that the moon and earth are only about 6,000 years old.
The next day he told me he had looked up stuff on the moon the previous evening. He told me that there were six theories about how we got our moon and the age of the moon. So I asked him if any of the six theories was that God created the moon and that it was young. None of the six theories posited the possibility of divine intervention.
This once again demonstrates the religious bias of "scientists". They are able to form theories, taking this data to substantiate their theory, yet all of the theories are atheistic theories. There is one place they cannot go in the interpretation of the data, and that is to God and a creation. Why? Because their religious presuppositions rule out this possibility. They are obligated by their religious beliefs to not even acknowledge the possibility of one theory (creation) while not having enough data to substantiate any of their own theories. Yet if a creationist took all of the evidence I bet all of it would fit perfectly into a young creation model. But thats not allowed. Why? Is it science or religion that prevents it? Well, science would allow all theories and then the theory which best explains all of the evidence would be "the most scientific". Yet to disallow a theory because it is not a naturalistic theory, because it appeals to something beyond what your religious beliefs will allow, well that isn't science, its religious intolerance. And such intolerance is vibrantly displayed on "scintific" websites such as the one my coworker visited.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Religious Rock Dating
I have much enjoyed a new found way of approaching the religious tenets of evolutionary thinking this week. The approach came from a simple chart that I saw last week. It simply showed that both evolutionists and creationists had a piece of data (fact), an unchanging assumption, and then a variable conclusion.
Now when I first looked at this it really didn’t impact me, but when I began to really think about its implications and how it could be used to illustrate presuppositions it was great. I have since used it several times in illustrating to evolutionists that their evolutionism is just as religious as creationism and Christianity. Let me explain.
First, we see that there is an observed fact, something both camps and scientists see. In this case it is a rock with an observed amount of an isotope in it. We agree about how mush of the isotope is in the rock. This is the fact. But it is at this point that we part ways, because now our religious presuppositions enter into the equation.
The next part of the chart is labeled the “unchanging assumption”. For creationists the unchanging assumption is the age of the earth. We believe the earth to be about 6,000 years old, based upon the Bible. This is an assumption that we bring to the table, and this is static, it doesn’t change. This is what we assume to be true, and therefore we examine the rock with the isotope in light of this assumption. Doing the math we then come to the conclusion about the rate of decay and starting isotope level within this rock.
Now the evolutionist uses exactly the same method but changes the assumption and conclusion. He believes that the rate of decay and the amount of isotopes that the rock began with are unchanging and then dates the rock according to the math.
What we need to see here is that both camps use unprovable assumptions. These are presuppositions that they believe to be true but cannot prove to be true. Take the evolutionists assumption about the unchanging rate of decay. Now lets say that he has found from scientific research that it takes 10 years to create .0001 milligrams of this particular isotope. This is then his rate of decay. So then he finds that the rock contains 100 milligrams of the isotope. Well, doing the math, this means that the rock is 1,000,000 years old. Pretty simple and straight forward. Or is it? Do you see all of the assumptions that have taken place? Here are a few.
1) The scientist has assumed that the rate of decay is the same now as it was a thousand years ago. Does he know it is the same? No! He wasn’t there and there weren’t scientists back then that studied the rate of decay. It is an assumption that he cannot prove.
2) The scientist has also assumed that there was none of this isotope existing in the rock when it was formed. He has assumed that there was 0 of this particular isotope and now there is 100 milligrams. How does he know there wasn’t 10 milligrams when it was created? 20? 99? He doesn’t. It is also an assumption.
3) He has also assumed that there was no contamination. This means that there was not some outer force that contributed some more of the isotope into the rock apart from the decay within the rock. Was he there a thousand years ago to know that there wasn’t something that contaminated this rock? Has he been able to observe the rock every moment the last thousand years to make sure there is no contamination? No. His belief that the rock has not been altered by contamination is also an assumption.
All of this is to say that both evolutionists and creationists base their interpretation of data upon assumptions, assumptions that are determined by their preexisting beliefs about the world (aka worldview).
Using this I simply ask my evolutionary friends how their assumption is scientific. Why is one set of assumptions scientific while another is not. There is, of course, no answer. And so once again we have another demonstration of the fact that evolutionists operate as much upon their religious assumptions as creationists do.
Now when I first looked at this it really didn’t impact me, but when I began to really think about its implications and how it could be used to illustrate presuppositions it was great. I have since used it several times in illustrating to evolutionists that their evolutionism is just as religious as creationism and Christianity. Let me explain.
First, we see that there is an observed fact, something both camps and scientists see. In this case it is a rock with an observed amount of an isotope in it. We agree about how mush of the isotope is in the rock. This is the fact. But it is at this point that we part ways, because now our religious presuppositions enter into the equation.
The next part of the chart is labeled the “unchanging assumption”. For creationists the unchanging assumption is the age of the earth. We believe the earth to be about 6,000 years old, based upon the Bible. This is an assumption that we bring to the table, and this is static, it doesn’t change. This is what we assume to be true, and therefore we examine the rock with the isotope in light of this assumption. Doing the math we then come to the conclusion about the rate of decay and starting isotope level within this rock.
Now the evolutionist uses exactly the same method but changes the assumption and conclusion. He believes that the rate of decay and the amount of isotopes that the rock began with are unchanging and then dates the rock according to the math.
What we need to see here is that both camps use unprovable assumptions. These are presuppositions that they believe to be true but cannot prove to be true. Take the evolutionists assumption about the unchanging rate of decay. Now lets say that he has found from scientific research that it takes 10 years to create .0001 milligrams of this particular isotope. This is then his rate of decay. So then he finds that the rock contains 100 milligrams of the isotope. Well, doing the math, this means that the rock is 1,000,000 years old. Pretty simple and straight forward. Or is it? Do you see all of the assumptions that have taken place? Here are a few.
1) The scientist has assumed that the rate of decay is the same now as it was a thousand years ago. Does he know it is the same? No! He wasn’t there and there weren’t scientists back then that studied the rate of decay. It is an assumption that he cannot prove.
2) The scientist has also assumed that there was none of this isotope existing in the rock when it was formed. He has assumed that there was 0 of this particular isotope and now there is 100 milligrams. How does he know there wasn’t 10 milligrams when it was created? 20? 99? He doesn’t. It is also an assumption.
3) He has also assumed that there was no contamination. This means that there was not some outer force that contributed some more of the isotope into the rock apart from the decay within the rock. Was he there a thousand years ago to know that there wasn’t something that contaminated this rock? Has he been able to observe the rock every moment the last thousand years to make sure there is no contamination? No. His belief that the rock has not been altered by contamination is also an assumption.
All of this is to say that both evolutionists and creationists base their interpretation of data upon assumptions, assumptions that are determined by their preexisting beliefs about the world (aka worldview).
Using this I simply ask my evolutionary friends how their assumption is scientific. Why is one set of assumptions scientific while another is not. There is, of course, no answer. And so once again we have another demonstration of the fact that evolutionists operate as much upon their religious assumptions as creationists do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
