Young-Earth Creationists’ Explanation of Dinosaur Extinction

9 comments

Seriously though…

All fun aside – realizing that some world views out there, I think, too quickly deny reason because of their faith – please don’t forget that faith and reason work together. :-) And that true faith, rather than contradicting reason, actually strengthens reason. When we forget that, we end up at two extremes, either with a non-sensical religion on one end or trapped in our own prison of reason on the other, limited by our own boring, small, limited minds. Good science is a friend to true religion. And true religion is not scared of good science, rather, it makes it that much more interesting and meaningful.

9 comments Add comment

Gary J. Sibio October 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm

You are correct that there is no dispute between faith and good science. You are incorrect in assuming that young-Earth creationism is bad science. Anyone who is intellectually honest and has studied the issue in detail will admit that that there are problems with evolution as it is being taught in the schools. In fact, the study of origins is not really science at all. It’s history and not subject to proof or disproofusing the scientific method.

Matthew Warner October 19, 2011 at 11:37 pm

Gary – I didn’t just assume YEC is bad science. I did, however, imply it. I also didn’t come anywhere close to claiming that evolutionary science isn’t without its problems.

Gary J. Sibio October 20, 2011 at 1:38 am

Like you said, you implied that YEC was bad science. What then should we have thought you were referring to as “good science”? And how can “good science” have problems?

Matthew Warner October 20, 2011 at 9:48 am

Gary – assuming something and implying something are completely different. I don’t assume YEC is bad science, I have looked at it and believe it to be. I could be wrong, of course. But I don’t think so. So, yes, I implied that it was bad science.

You are now incorrectly inferring even more from what I said that I did not actually say. I wasn’t referring to anything specific when I said good science, necessarily. Just getting across the point that good science (science that is getting at the truth about something) is helpful to our faith – not contradictory (something it seems you would agree with.). Unfortunately, a lot of Christians dont’ see it this way, so I think it’s a point worth making.

I would agree with Bobby on how “good science” can still have problems when we define “good science” as simply something that honestly and accurately follows the scientific method. Here, though, I more meant it in the sense that science can have a goodness to it in general when it is true (so perhaps “true science” would be more accurate, although easily misinterpreted as well).

The point is that science approaches the same Truth that religion and faith do. They work together.

As for evolution, there are many kinds of evolution and many aspects to it. So painting it with a broad brush is unhelpful. Certainly, there are a lot of parts of it that seem to fit well, and there are others that have gone too far in their conclusions, obviously driven and biased by a particular world view (making it “bad science”).

Additionally, in this very blog post I actually linked to another blog post of mine talking about if Catholics can believe in evolution. And I address some of this confusion more in depth there if you’re interested.

Thanks for reading!

Bobby Bambino October 20, 2011 at 7:39 am

Hi Gary.

Nice to talk with you. I don’t really have a dog in the evolution fight, but I did want to address your question about “how can science be good and still have its problems?” I might compare it to the fact that human beings can have rational, careful thoughts, and yet still come to contradictory conclusions or be in a state of cognitive dissonance. Let me give an example. Suppose you are doing a math proof, and there is a very, very subtle mistake in the proof. With this mistake, the proof yields one result, yet there is another theorem that claims a contradictory result. Even though one has made a subtle mistake, I would say that one is still doing good math but that there is definitely a problem there. I would say a similar thing can happen in the sciences. Either a very subtle mistake can be made, or perhaps there is something quite foundational in terms of their underlying assumptions that needs to be changed that seemed obvious and was quite justified, but upon much more very careful scrutiny, turned out to lead to absurdities.

This is not at all to defend Darwinian evolution. Perhaps it is true (I have no idea) but it is given a god-like place of pride in the academy, and for that reason alone I am sympathetic to anyone who dares to question it.

Gary J. Sibio October 20, 2011 at 8:53 am

Bobby,

Just a quick comment on yoour response: the problems with the evolutionary theory are not small. Although over 150 years have passed since the Origin of Species was published, the fossil record still does not support the theory. In addition recent discoveries in biochemistry have shown that the processes which take place at the cellular level are so complex as to make their appearance by random chance impossible. The simple fact is that evolution bass become more religion than anything else.

Bobby Bambino October 20, 2011 at 8:56 am

Right on, bro. That may be correct- like I said, I don’t know anything about evolution that is substantive. My only point was that in general, science can be good and still have problems. Whether or not the specific science of evolutionary biology is good or whether or not its problems are big, I can’t say. God love you.

Wade St. Onge October 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm

Matthew, as one who is undecided on this issue, I would be interested to hear an example of how you think YEC’s are wrong on the science (or in other words, how they are trying to take what is clearly round evidence and pound it through the square hole of a 6,000-10,000 year old earth).

Jason F December 1, 2011 at 7:47 pm

Gary,

I respect your belief but as a scientist I do take exception with “discoveries in biochemistry” has proven that at the cellular level things are too complex to happen ramdomly. In fact advances in DNA and cellular understanding have only strenghten elevolution. Elvolution is a thoery (just like gravity, or friction is a thoery) that is proven over and over again. As for fossil records once again that is not true. I am not sure why creationist seem to think that the last fossil found was “Lucy” but of course that is not true. Every year more and more fossil are found and every year they slowly fill in the records books. Now since 99.99 percent of the creatures on this planet are not human that same percentage of fossil found our also not human, but these fossil do fill in very nicely the elevolution of speices. Finally why is it that these “God hating” sciencetist seem to understand phyics well enough to send men into space, medicine well enough to perform life saving operations, biotech well enough to create amazing drugs, or fight invection, mathimatics to invent caluculus, biology well enough to understand the human body at the cellular level, and astronomy well enough to send rovers to other planets but when it comes to the science of elevoultion they are just stupid?

PBS did a great documentary on intelligent design involivng Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, please check it out.

Previous post:

Next post: