06-14-2024, 02:13 AM
The deeper I dig into science, the mire I realize that there must be a creator.
That statement has been spoken, in similar words, quite often in the past, sometimes by very learned men. It is usually taken as either a direct affront to science or an invitation to spread theology. Yet, I see it as neither.
The simple fact is that any statement concerning the nature of creation* can be twisted around to be either of the choices mentioned above. But typically, at least in my experience, neither choice typically reflects the intent. Instead, the arguments I mentioned, whether they be toward science or religion, are themselves based in ignorance of the other.
(*Creation is an appropriate term here, because there is no disagreement that what we see around us was created. The question is whether it was created by random chance and natural forces or by a supreme being.)
Science is a search for knowledge; religion is a search for wisdom. Knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not knowledge. I can know, for example, much about how to program a computer... and still be incapable of writing a program that fulfills the needs and wants of the public at large. I can harbor knowledge, but lack the wisdom to use it properly. Likewise, I can have the wisdom to understand what is needed, but lack the knowledge to implement it. Both are needed for progress, and neither invalidates the other. Knowledge and wisdom are in fact, complimentary.
Here's where the ignorance comes in:
Those who reject Creationalism typically do so based on the fact that they believe Creationalism is some unevidenced concept that ignores the scientific method in an effort to prove the writings of a book, by any means necessary. It is not. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few aspects to Creationalism, and few if any have a consistent following. Creationalism looks to the Bible and other manuscripts from that era, and considers these writings as eye witness accounts. This is because these writings tend to support each other across millennia, across many multiple authors, and across many different aspects of creation. The data from present scientific knowledge is then applied to these writings and attempts are made to explain the creation of the universe based on this.
In contrast, the various scientific approaches take information from writings generally appearing in the last few centuries and authored by scientists, writings which agree with each other across centuries, across many different authors, and across many different aspects of creation. The data is then examined and attempts are made to explain the creation of the universe based on this.
OK, on second thought, not so different after all. The only real difference is the source of the written information.
Creationalism gets a bad name precisely because it is misunderstood, even by creationalists. It is a developing theory that has been vilified to such a degree that it is basically an underground movement instead of a fully thought-out and reasoned theory. Such movements tend to be misinterpreted by laymen. The vilification is distinctly unscientific: it presumes that everything knowable is already known and the "science is settled," which is the exact opposite of the scientific method upon which all science is based.
Scientific theories tend to get disdain from Creationalists (or more properly from the religious) because science refuses to examine that one body of writing in any way whatsoever, and tends to make statements declaring that science itself has proved a negative (a scientific impossibility in itself): there is no God. That is a statement that is purely unscientific. We cannot possibly devise an experiment to determine if an intelligent being exists, especially one who is, if extant, orders of magnitude more intelligent than we are by definition. Either way one chooses to believe on that subject, it is an opinion based on faith.
A common statement from those who wish to discount Creationalism is "show me the proof!" To that I respond, "Show me yours." All scientific theory concerning the Big Bang is purely theoretical. Yes, we can prove, using frequency shift observations from astronomical phenomenon around us, that the universe is expending based on present observations. Based on that, one would expect that all of the universe would have, at one time, been compressed into a singularity. However, suspicion is not proof. It is possible that the expansion we observe now is only a small part of a larger cyclical pattern. It is possible the expansion began from something larger than a singularity. There are actually many possibilities that could explain the origin of the universe as we know it; we have chosen the Big Bang Theory as what we believe is the most probable.
Most probable is not proof. It is at best evidence.
TheRedneck
That statement has been spoken, in similar words, quite often in the past, sometimes by very learned men. It is usually taken as either a direct affront to science or an invitation to spread theology. Yet, I see it as neither.
The simple fact is that any statement concerning the nature of creation* can be twisted around to be either of the choices mentioned above. But typically, at least in my experience, neither choice typically reflects the intent. Instead, the arguments I mentioned, whether they be toward science or religion, are themselves based in ignorance of the other.
(*Creation is an appropriate term here, because there is no disagreement that what we see around us was created. The question is whether it was created by random chance and natural forces or by a supreme being.)
Science is a search for knowledge; religion is a search for wisdom. Knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not knowledge. I can know, for example, much about how to program a computer... and still be incapable of writing a program that fulfills the needs and wants of the public at large. I can harbor knowledge, but lack the wisdom to use it properly. Likewise, I can have the wisdom to understand what is needed, but lack the knowledge to implement it. Both are needed for progress, and neither invalidates the other. Knowledge and wisdom are in fact, complimentary.
Here's where the ignorance comes in:
Those who reject Creationalism typically do so based on the fact that they believe Creationalism is some unevidenced concept that ignores the scientific method in an effort to prove the writings of a book, by any means necessary. It is not. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few aspects to Creationalism, and few if any have a consistent following. Creationalism looks to the Bible and other manuscripts from that era, and considers these writings as eye witness accounts. This is because these writings tend to support each other across millennia, across many multiple authors, and across many different aspects of creation. The data from present scientific knowledge is then applied to these writings and attempts are made to explain the creation of the universe based on this.
In contrast, the various scientific approaches take information from writings generally appearing in the last few centuries and authored by scientists, writings which agree with each other across centuries, across many different authors, and across many different aspects of creation. The data is then examined and attempts are made to explain the creation of the universe based on this.
OK, on second thought, not so different after all. The only real difference is the source of the written information.
Creationalism gets a bad name precisely because it is misunderstood, even by creationalists. It is a developing theory that has been vilified to such a degree that it is basically an underground movement instead of a fully thought-out and reasoned theory. Such movements tend to be misinterpreted by laymen. The vilification is distinctly unscientific: it presumes that everything knowable is already known and the "science is settled," which is the exact opposite of the scientific method upon which all science is based.
Scientific theories tend to get disdain from Creationalists (or more properly from the religious) because science refuses to examine that one body of writing in any way whatsoever, and tends to make statements declaring that science itself has proved a negative (a scientific impossibility in itself): there is no God. That is a statement that is purely unscientific. We cannot possibly devise an experiment to determine if an intelligent being exists, especially one who is, if extant, orders of magnitude more intelligent than we are by definition. Either way one chooses to believe on that subject, it is an opinion based on faith.
A common statement from those who wish to discount Creationalism is "show me the proof!" To that I respond, "Show me yours." All scientific theory concerning the Big Bang is purely theoretical. Yes, we can prove, using frequency shift observations from astronomical phenomenon around us, that the universe is expending based on present observations. Based on that, one would expect that all of the universe would have, at one time, been compressed into a singularity. However, suspicion is not proof. It is possible that the expansion we observe now is only a small part of a larger cyclical pattern. It is possible the expansion began from something larger than a singularity. There are actually many possibilities that could explain the origin of the universe as we know it; we have chosen the Big Bang Theory as what we believe is the most probable.
Most probable is not proof. It is at best evidence.
TheRedneck
