Response to a debate with “Creationism Rocks”…

 
The dialogue for the full debate can be found by clicking THIS LINK. 

 
Kingdom Christian University said...

 
I am quite simply gobsmacked that you do not get it! Science does not work from the evidence uninterestedly.

 

• Well no kidding. I would hope science would have an active interest in evidence as empirical justification demands it.
  

 
Every time someone takes evidence they invest their own ideas into that evidence.

 

• Well yeah, we attempt to interpret the world we experience, so yes absolutely. But in science, those interpretations have to survive testing, prediction, and explanatory power.
  

 
Christianity is a revelation based faith.

 

• So it gets a free pass from the previous criteria and skepticism you just held science to?? If I told you Mohammad revealed my faith to me, does this justify a devout belief in Islam? Why not? They have millions of followers too. Explain why this helps your argument.
  

 
The objective nature of this is evidenced by the fact that Christ died and then rose from the dead.

 

• Where is the proof of this? The bible? So the bible proves the bible? That's a tautological fallacy. If the bible proves the bible, does the Koran prove the Koran by the same logic? Explain this to me.
  

 
The evidence is unassailable.

 

• All evidence is assailable by doubt. Unless you're trying to say that evidence for religion gets a special pass from the criteria you hold science to. Beliefs are not your own unless they have survived your own doubt.
  

 
It is shown by the scriptures and it is shown in the lives of those who follow Christ.

 

• Well unfortunately there are many scriptures for thousands of religions, and how does the story in yours help persuade me over the stories in others? And the lives of those who follow Christ are generally not more or less tragic or privileged than any other social group (I wrote a blog to that affect challenging divine providence.  Christians die at the same rate as anyone else; of disease, natural disaster, circumstance, or crime. So I'm not sure how it's evidenced in the lives of Christians.
  

 
Do you not know your history of science? What do you make of Charles Singer's statement that the science of one age becomes the magic of the next?

 

• I'm well educated in the history of science. That being said, I'm not sure how an appeal to the authority of Charles Singer reduces all science to the level of magic that (you seem to imply) ironically escapes your religion. And Singer's statement (though I couldn't find the source you derived this from) only implies that the knowledge of science is updated and revised throughout every generation. For example, when we look back at Aristotelian physics we see it as a nice attempt, and with some operational hypotheses, but ultimately it is silly compared to the knowledge of physics we have today.
  
• I'm also not sure why you keep citing atheist/agnostic scientists and scholars, that are mostly critical of religion, as authorities to help your case.

 
Science is rapidly outdated.

 

• How? Did they forget to update your iPhone 4? Your laptop? Your microwave? Your vacuum cleaner that never loses suction? Do you like advancements in healthcare? Last time I checked, religion didn't make any breakthroughs in medicine or technology. Science seems to have a better winning streak than the wars and avarice religion has caused amongst civilization.
  

 
The scriptures speak clearly to every age!

 

• Then why are there over 5000 denominations of Christianity alone? Why have the Protestants and Catholics been slaughtering each other for so long? Why are there millions who believe in Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.?? Why are there millions who don't believe in the supernatural? Why were the Crusades such a disaster? The dark ages? The inquisition? If it speaks so clearly... how come no one agrees on the one true religion?

 
The wisdom of God is far above the pathetic musings of men.

 

• How do you come across such amazing knowledge of god's wisdom if it is far above the pathetic musings of man? See this is why religion disgusts me. You see man as a pathetic and horrible sinner. Well if everyone saw it that way we would never advance as a society.
  

 
Take for example the oft stated claim that evolution 'explains' our origins! It does nothing of the sort. It merely provides a poor description of someone's idea.


 

• It sounds like you have no idea what evolution is. But it does explain our origins quite well, with far more explanatory and predictive power than the postulation of "god did it," which explains nothing but a non-falsifiable opinion.
  
• It WAS someone's idea! Finally something we can agree on. But that idea was formulated to be falsifiable, and tested many times in chemistry, biology, and of course archeology. We can actually watch evolution take place with microorganisms like viruses and bacteria. We use the theory of evolution's natural selection to breed dogs using artificial selection. Pomeranians didn't exist naturally before man. Humans created them by breeding traits (runts of the litter with desired big eyes and long hair) that would look cute to sell to rich aristocrats. Hell we use the theory of evolution all the time in botany. Bananas we eat today were not what existed naturally either. You couldn't even peal those, and they had to be cooked like potatoes. Fun video related to that point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&feature=related
  
  

 
Only Christ can explain satisfactorily and completely how we came to be. I notice you mention the development of atomic theory. It is one example of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of science. It can never get to the truth!


 

• So it didn't get to the truth of electricity? It didn't discover gravity? It didn't send men to the moon, create nuclear energy, design plastics, or produce the microprocessor?
  
• I forgot Jesus and the bible did all those things for us

 
We delve deeper and deeper (or so we think) and then we make newer and newer models but none satisfy because there is always evidence that doesn't fit.

 

• Actually we revise building on old models, and we reconstruct those models to get at the truth of nature. We keep revising because science understands it is fallible (as is all knowledge of man), and cannot produce absolute certainties, only well tested theories that produce results. But where the evidence doesn't fit, science certainly gets excited about that. When evidence doesn't fit, it means a theory needs to be revised, or a new one discovered. Scientists get SO excited when a theory has been falsified, or when new evidence turns up which demands a revision to theory, or new data explaining what went wrong in the tests. Why is this? Because science wants to learn the truth!
  

 
Or what of the many aspects of the universe which cannot be explained satisfactorily by big bang ideas?

 

• Ignorance is not evidence of god. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge. If it were, that would be like saying ignorance of the rain forests is evidence of fairies. Ignorance also does not disprove science because science is a model used to discover things we are ignorant about. In fact,  science attempts to operate from an unbiased view, or from a veil of ignorance, and all tests and theory are modeled on phenomenon we were currently ignorant about. Why do you think science is always about testing, testing, testing?? Because science looks for what works, and when it does, it tentatively states that "it may be very close to the truth."  It is humble.
  

 

 
And with that, people of the sentient puddle, I will leave you with these fun quotes:

 
"If infinitely good, why fear him? If infinitely wise, why interest ourselves about our fate? If omniscient, why tell him of our wants or fatigue him with our prayers? If everywhere, why erect temples to him? If master of all, why make him sacrifices and offerings? If just, whence has arisen the belief that he will punish man, whom he has created weak and feeble? If reasonable, why would he be angry with a blind creature like man? If immutable, why do we pretend to change his decrees? And if inconceivable, why presume to form any idea of him?" - Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach, The System of Nature (1770)

 
"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences." - H. P. Lovecraft

 
"At first glance, science might seem to drain the world of its mystique, replacing the lovely unknown with mundane explanation. Peer deeper, though, and you will find that the appreciation of mystery is the foundation of science, and that science reveals to us a world far more profound and beautiful than common sense or superstition can behold." - Amanda Gefter, New Scientist