NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/origins/16095

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-08 | 6.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ulowell!m2c!jjmhome!smds!rh
From: [e-mail] (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: True Science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:09:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.
Lines: 125


        [Requested Reprint Follows]


    One of the problems that the evolutionists in this group
have is that they do not properly understand the role of science.
I shall show that if you understand what science really is and
what the proper role of science is, then you will readily see that
"evolution science" is not proper science whereas "creation science"
is proper science.

    Since the proponents of false science have distorted the
usage of the word "science" in ways to establish their position
by apriori definition it is important to go back to first principles
and ask the question, "How do we know and discover truth?".

    The answer to this is, clearly, in various ways.  However
these ways all fall into two classes -- by direct experience or by
inference.  For example, I may see an apple fall from a tree.  That
is direct experience.  Or the man down the street may tell me that
he saw an apple fall from the tree.  That is inference or indirect
experience.  If I walk to the tree and see an apple on the ground
that is confirming evidence for my inference that an apple fell from
the tree.  However all of my inferences, however strong, are not as
reliable as my direct observation and experience.

    At this point the skeptic will remind us that observation
and direct experience are not always reliable, that there are
such things as hallucination, delusion, and faulty memory.  This
is quite true.  However there are tests that we can apply to see
whether our observations and experiences are distorted.

    Of all forms of direct observation and experience the most
direct and immediate is revelation.  It is, therefore, the most
certain, provided, of course, that it is not subject to the distortions
that the skeptic has carefully reminded us of.

    And what have we learned from revelation.  For some of us,
and for others not, we have learned that there is a God, that His
only begotten Son died for our salvation, that He is good, that He
loves us, and that he has inspired the writing of a holy book, the
Bible, for our benefit, instruction, and salvation.

    At this point atheists and believers in other faiths will say
things like, "I have experienced no such revelation", or "Some other
truth has been revealed to me".  Clearly truth is not revealed to all
and to some it is revealed falsely.  It behooves us to test revealed
truth as to its nature and kind.

    We may, first of all, reject the counsel of those who have
experienced no revelation at all because they speak from a more
distant acquaintance with truth than those who have experienced
revelation.  Our task, therefore, is to sort between competing
revelations, remembering always that the indirect inferences of
Science and various ideologies are not relevant because they are
much weaker.  Revelation must be judged in terms of revelation.

    There are many tests that can be made -- does the purported
revelation lead to false prophecy is an example.  I will not burden
you with the various arguments and issues.  Let us take it for granted,
for the nonce, that the Christian revelation is true.  What does this
tell us?

    It tells us, first of all, that the Bible is true.  Now it
is to be expected that there may be minor errors and inconsistencies.
It was, after all, physically composed by human beings who are subject
to error.  However the Bible was given to us for our instruction and
benefit; the Lord would scarcely let it be in error in any signifigant
respect.  We know this because He is good and loves us.

    We know, therefore, that the account in Genesis of the creation
of the world and all in it must be true.  And yet we see that Scientists,
so called, are telling us that it is egregiously false.  How can this be?

    It is actually very simple.  Recall that our first and most
reliable source of truth is direct experience.  What is science?  It
is the systematization of inference.  Its inherent role is to amplify
and extend truth.  Some branches of Science, such as physics and chemistry,
are directly testable by immediate experience.  Others such as Geology
Evolutionary biology, and Astrophysics are not; they deal in hypothesized
events which no one, living or dead, has ever had direct experience with.
It is just these branches which are not directly confirmable which are
in conflict with revelation.  If we consider the matter we see a
progression of beliefs.

(1)    There are routes to truth other than direct experience and
    revelation.
(2)    Of these routes organized science is the most reliable route.
(3)    The proper role of the scientest is to deal only in those
    truths found within science by the scientific method.
(4)    The most reliable source of truth is Science
(5)    Science has shown that Genesis is false
(6)    Science has shown that the Bible is false
(7)    The Bible is false
(8)    Christianity is false
(9)    There is no God

    Some, such as Morris, would claim that this progression,
and the faulty branches of Science are Satanically inspired.  This
claim may be too strong; however it is clear that this progression
is to the benefit and profit of Satan.  In any case we have seen that
the clear cut error in this progression is step (4).  However the real
error is in step (3) wherein Scientists cut themselves off from the
sure and true source of knowledge.  In the case of the physical sciences
this specialization did little harm because those sciences can be
tested in the here and now.  In the case of those branches purporting
to deal with the physical history of the world it did enormous harm
because error could be built upon error without check.

    What then is the role of Creation Science?  Why it is
simply to investigate these branches of science properly, taking into
account all methods of ascertaining truth and their true reliability.
The task is daunting.  To begin with, Scientists have mostly accepted
as a credo a false criterion for determining truth, and have formed
a closed shop which excludes those who do not accept this criterion.
Furthermore the false branches of Science have had a long time to
build, compound, and elaborate their errors.  The Creationist Scientists
are in the position of tearing down a mountain of lies, equipped only
with a small pick-axe of truth.  However they are not discouraged,
for they know that the Lord is with them.
--
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: [e-mail] Phone: [phone]
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: [phone]
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.