Unmasking the Hijackers of Science - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)

  • 116 views
Uploaded on

How did the modern scientific enterprise get started? …

How did the modern scientific enterprise get started?

Has there been a philosophical "paradigm shift" in the scientific establishment? What was it?

What do the greatest and most recent scientific discoveries of physics, cosmology, microbiology, and information science indicate about reality?

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
116
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Unmasking the Hijackers of Science Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2010
  • 2. Outline I. The Origin of Science in Creation
  • 3. Founders of Modern Science Bacon Kepler Galileo Newton
  • 4. A. The Founders of Modern Science Believed in a Creator Johannes Kepler (1571 1630) Celestial Mechanics,‑ Physical Astronomy Blaise Pascal (1623 1662) Hydrostatics‑ Robert Boyle (1627 1691) Chemistry,‑ Gas Dynamics Nicolaus Steno (1638 1687) Stratigraphy‑ Isaac Newton (1642 1727) Calculus, Dynamics‑ Michael Faraday (1791 1867) Magnetic Theory‑ Charles Babbage (1792 1871) Computer Science‑
  • 5. Louis Agassiz (1807 1873) Glacial Geology,‑ Ichthyology James Simpson (1811 1870) Gynecology‑ Gregor Mendel (1822 1884) Genetics‑ Louis Pasteur (1822 1895) Bacteriology‑ Lord Kelvin (1824 1907) Energetics,‑ Thermodynamics Joseph Lister (1827 1912) Antiseptic‑ Surgery James Maxwell (1831 1879)‑ Electrodynamics Statistical Thermodynamics William Ramsay (1852 1916) Isotopic‑
  • 6. B. Belief in Creation was the Basis of Modern Science 1. Francis Bacon [1620] “The beginning is from God” (Novum Organum 1.93, 91). “God on the first day of creation created light…” (1.70, 68). Bacon spoke of “the Creator’s own stamp upon creation…” (1.124, 114). "Only let the human race recover that right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest [in Gen. 1:28]…” (1:129, 119).
  • 7. "The faith in the possibility of science… is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology" (Science in the Modern World, 13). 2. Alfred N. Whitehead: Science Was Based in Christian Theism
  • 8. "What is the source of the un-Greek elements which...constitute the modernity of modern philosophy? And...what is the source of those un-Greek elements in the modern theory of nature...? The answer to the first question is: The Christian revelation, and the answer to the second: The Christian doctrine of creation" (Mind 1934, 448). 3. M. B. Foster: Science Based in Creation
  • 9. 4. Professor Langdon Gilkey: ““The religious idea of aThe religious idea of a transcendent Creatortranscendent Creator actuallyactually made possiblemade possible rather than hinderedrather than hindered the progress of thethe progress of the scientific understandingscientific understanding ofof thethe natural order.”natural order.” Modern scienceModern science “was provided for Western“was provided for Western culture byculture by the idea of creation”the idea of creation” ((Maker ofMaker of Heaven and EarthHeaven and Earth, 110, 120)., 110, 120).
  • 10. C. Principles Used by Early ScientistsC. Principles Used by Early Scientists 1. The Principle of Causality Bacon: He speaks of “knowledge by causes" (Novum Organum 2.2, 121). Hume: "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (Hume, Letters, 1:187). Laplace: He speaks of “the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).
  • 11. 2. The Principle of Regularity2. The Principle of Regularity Galileo (1546-1642):Galileo (1546-1642): God created regular and discoverableGod created regular and discoverable laws by which the world operates. So,laws by which the world operates. So, “You simply“You simply cannot change the experimental conclusions aboutcannot change the experimental conclusions about natural phenomena and the heavens,natural phenomena and the heavens, as you can alter theas you can alter the terms of a contract, raise the interest rate or change aterms of a contract, raise the interest rate or change a business deal” (“Letter to Duchess,” 17).business deal” (“Letter to Duchess,” 17). In fact, “even all of the verses of Scripture are notIn fact, “even all of the verses of Scripture are not obligated toobligated to function as rigorously as every law of nature.function as rigorously as every law of nature. AndAnd it is no less excellent to discover the works of God init is no less excellent to discover the works of God in naturenature than in the sayings of Holy Scripture” (“Letter tothan in the sayings of Holy Scripture” (“Letter to Duchess,” 8).Duchess,” 8). Nature has “Nature has “fixed lawsfixed laws” (Bacon, NO, 2.2, 122),” (Bacon, NO, 2.2, 122), ““uniform”uniform” (Hume,(Hume, EnquiryEnquiry, X),, X), “steady”“steady” (Hutton,(Hutton, TheoryTheory of the Earth,of the Earth,19),19), “constant,”“constant,” “undeviating”“undeviating” (Lyell,(Lyell, Principles of GeologyPrinciples of Geology, 143, 89), and even, 143, 89), and even “immutable”“immutable” (Laplace,(Laplace, ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 177)., 177).
  • 12. 3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity) Laplace:Laplace: ““AnalogyAnalogy is based upon the probability thatis based upon the probability that similar things have causes of the same kindsimilar things have causes of the same kind and produceand produce the same effects." And "thisthe same effects." And "this probability increases as theprobability increases as the similitude becomes more perfect"similitude becomes more perfect" (Laplace,(Laplace, Prob.Prob., 180)., 180). Thus,Thus, scientific views about the pastscientific views about the past are derived withare derived with "the aid of proofs drawn from these"the aid of proofs drawn from these analogiesanalogies [with the[with the present]"present]" (ibid., 100).(ibid., 100). DarwinDarwin: If artificial selection can produce small changes in: If artificial selection can produce small changes in a short time, thena short time, then likewise (analogously)likewise (analogously) naturalnatural selection can produce large changes over a long periodselection can produce large changes over a long period of time (Darwin,of time (Darwin, OriginOrigin, Chaps. 1-2)., Chaps. 1-2).
  • 13. 3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity) General Principle:General Principle: “The“The present is the key to the past.”present is the key to the past.” Application to Science:Application to Science: “Causes similar in kind and“Causes similar in kind and energy to those now acting,energy to those now acting, have produced the formerhave produced the former changes of the earth’schanges of the earth’s surface…” (seesurface…” (see Principles of Geology, 1Principles of Geology, 1stst ed.ed. 1830; 111830; 11thth ed. 1878, p. 88).ed. 1878, p. 88). Charles Lyell (1797-1875)
  • 14. 4. Principle of Knowability:4. Principle of Knowability: Nature and its Cause [God] can be Known Bacon: “The Creator’s own stamp [is] upon creation…” (N.O., 1.124, 114). Nature is “the book of God’s works…a kind of second Scripture” (N.O., 282) in which we discover “the ideas of the divine” (ibid., 114). Galileo: “The glory and greatness of God are marvelously discovered in all his works, and…things about God are to be read in the open book of the sky” (Galileo, Duchess, 20). Kepler: “God who founded everything in the world…has endowed man with a mind which can comprehend these norms” (cited by Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, 84).
  • 15. a. Education Based on Creationa. Education Based on Creation McGuffy’s Reader (c. 1830-1930): “God is the Creator, and His creation enables us to understand Him. In proportion as we investigate the secrets of the natural world, we are able to understand the nature of God.”
  • 16. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 1776: Declaration of Independence b. Government Based on Creation ““Nature’s Laws”Nature’s Laws” fromfrom ““Nature’s God”Nature’s God”
  • 17. 5. There are Two Kinds of Causes Primary Cause—deals with origin of World, named a “Creator” or “Mind” (Hutton, TE, 551), “supreme intelligence” (ibid., 223), or “Author of Nature” (Lyell, PG, 4). Bacon speaks of “The efficient and… remote causes… [i.e., primary cause]” (Novum Organum [1620] No. 2.2,121) and even that “the beginning is from God” (1.93, 91). Secondary Cause—deals with the operation of the world. Lyell wrote: “The present mountains and valleys of the earth are due to secondary causes…” (PG, 58). These are causes that “belong to the present order of nature” (ibid., 76). He
  • 18. 6. Two Kinds of Science for Early Scientists6. Two Kinds of Science for Early Scientists Cosmogony CosmologyCosmogony Cosmology Biogeny BiologyBiogeny Biology Anthropogeny AnthropologyAnthropogeny Anthropology Primary Cause Secondary CausesPrimary Cause Secondary Causes Origin Science Operation ScienceOrigin Science Operation Science
  • 19. 7. The Universe Needs an Intelligent Cause
  • 20. "May God make it come to pass that my delightful speculation have…the effect which I strove to obtain in the publication; namely, that the belief in the creation of the world be fortified through this external support, that thought of the creator be recognized in its nature, and that his inexhaustible wisdom shine forth daily more brightly” (cited by Gerard Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought [1973], 84). Universe Needs Intelligent Cause Johannes Kepler (1571 1630)‑ :
  • 21. “It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits.... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being" (Newton, "Scholium," 369). The Universe Needs Intelligent Cause (1642 1727)‑
  • 22. 8. Life Needs an Intelligent Cause Harvard’s Louis Agassiz (1807 1873)‑ “[Darwin] lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which permeates the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind…and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature” (American Journal of Science, 1860).
  • 23. Outline I. The Origin of Science in Creation II. The Mistakes of Creation Views
  • 24. A. Focusing Science on Secondary Causes (to the neglect of the Primary Cause) Bacon said: “The final cause rather corrupts than advances the sciences…. The efficient and …remote causes…are but slight and superficial, and contribute little, if anything, to true and active science" (Novum Organum, 2:2:122;). He speaks of secondary causes or "fixed laws” (1:129:119) and of “Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, who can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought through the course of nature. Beyond this he neither knows anything or can do anything” (N.O. 1.1, 39).
  • 25. B. Separation of Science & the Bible Bacon warns against any “…attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, the book of Job and other parts of Scripture … because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give faith that only which is faith’s” (N.O. 1.65, 62).
  • 26. Galileo (1564 1642):‑ Affirmed Separation of Science from the Primary Cause of Things He said that "It is the intention of the Holy Spirit [in Scripture] to teach us how one goes to heaven, and not how the heavens go" (Duchess..., 11). Note: He believed that the supernatural is the source of the natural world, but the proper domain of science is “natural phenomena” (ibid., 17).
  • 27. C. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727): “God-of-the- Gaps” Error Newton invoked divine intervention to explain the irregular orbit of some planets. This opened him to the criticism that God was used to fill in the gaps in our ignorance of natural causes. Many things (like meteors and eclipses) were once thought to have a divine cause. Hence, it came to be believed that acts of “creation” also resulted from natural causes yet to be discovered.
  • 28. Other “God-of-the-Gap” ErrorsOther “God-of-the-Gap” Errors ““Let us recall that formerly, and at no remoteLet us recall that formerly, and at no remote epoch, an unusual rain or an extreme drought, aepoch, an unusual rain or an extreme drought, a comet having in train a very long tail,comet having in train a very long tail, thethe eclipses, the aurora borealis, and in general alleclipses, the aurora borealis, and in general all the unusual phenomena were regarded as sothe unusual phenomena were regarded as so many signs of celestial wrath.many signs of celestial wrath. Heaven wasHeaven was invoked in order to avert their baneful influence.invoked in order to avert their baneful influence. [However,] No one prayed to have the planets[However,] No one prayed to have the planets and the sun arrested in their courses;and the sun arrested in their courses; observation had soon made apparent the futilityobservation had soon made apparent the futility of such prayers” (Laplace,of such prayers” (Laplace, ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 5)., 5).
  • 29. D. Literalistic Misinterpretations of the Bible Used to Reject Scientific Observations Lactantius (c. 300): He ridiculed those who taught the earth was a “sphere” (Galileo, Duchess, 5). Many believed the earth is square since the Bible speaks of “the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1). Hutton: Natural disasters are not divine judgments: “A volcano is not made on purpose to frighten superstitious people into fits of piety and devotion…” (Hutton, Theory of the Earth, 146). Luther: He is quoted as rejecting Copernicus by saying, “I believe Scripture, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, “Table Talk,” June 4, 1539).
  • 30. E. Cuvier: Animal Species are Fixed Founder: Comparative Anatomy Author: Lessons on Comparative Anatomy (1800-1805), 5 vols. Fixity of Species: He believed that "animals have certain fixed and natural characters." But modern science has challenged this (e.g., micro- evolution). “Kinds” of Genesis: These were identified with “species.” George Cuvier 1769-1832
  • 31. Summary of Creationist’s Errors 1. Focusing science on secondary causes (which drew attention from study of a primary cause). 2. Separating science from matters relating to God took science out of matters of origin. 3. Invoking God to explain unusual events in the universe which have since been explained by natural causes. 4. Using literalistic misinterpretations of the Bible to reject scientific observations. 5. Assuming the fixity of species which has since been challenged by micro-evolution.
  • 32. Outline I. The Origin Science in Creation II. The Mistakes of Creation Views III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views
  • 33. A. Philosophical Roots of Naturalism 1. Benedict Spinoza (1632-77) "Nothing then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, for...she keeps a fixed and immutable order." Hence, "a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity" (Theologico- Politico Tractatus [1670], 1.83, 87, 92).
  • 34. 2. Hume’s Argument for Only Natural Causes (1748) 1. Natural laws describe regular events. 2. A miracle is by definition a rare event. 3. The probability for the regular is always greater than the probability for the rare (based on past experience). 4. Wise persons base their belief on the greater probability. 5. Hence, wise persons should not believe in
  • 35. B. Manifestation of Naturalism in Science 1. Limiting Science to Secondary Causes ““Therefore, there is no occasionTherefore, there is no occasion for having recourse to anyfor having recourse to any unnatural [cause]…or to theunnatural [cause]…or to the agency of any preternaturalagency of any preternatural cause,cause, in explaining that whichin explaining that which actually appears…. All theseactually appears…. All these [geological phenomena] are the[geological phenomena] are the effects ofeffects of steady causessteady causes; each of these has its proper; each of these has its proper purpose in the system of the earth.” Further,purpose in the system of the earth.” Further, “What“What reason have we to look out for any other causes, besidesreason have we to look out for any other causes, besides those which naturally arise from that constitution ofthose which naturally arise from that constitution of things?”things?” ((Theory of the Earth [1795]Theory of the Earth [1795], 1:167; 2:468)., 1:167; 2:468). 1726-17971726-1797
  • 36. 2. All Causes are Natural Causes Laplace concluded that "all the effects of nature are only mathematical results of a small number of immutable laws.” For "All events…are a result of it [nature] just as necessarily as the revolutions of the sun” (Probabilities [1814], 177). (1749 1827)‑
  • 37. 3. Immanuel Kant (d. 1812): The Cause of the physical universe is Natural Cause "I find matter bound to certain necessary laws. Out of its universal dissolution and dissipation I see a beautiful and orderly whole quite naturally developing itself. This does not take place by accident, or of chance; but it is perceived that natural qualities necessarily bring it about" (Universal Natural History, l3-14).
  • 38. 4. Kant: The Cause of Life is a Natural Cause Too "We can here say with intelligent certainty and without audacity: 'Give me matter, and I will construct a world out of it!' i.e. give me matter and I will show you how a world shall arise out of it." And "...are we in a position to say: `Give me matter and I will show you how a caterpillar can be produced?'" (Kant, Universal Natural History, 17).
  • 39. Kant's answer was a bold Yes! However, he believed that "...the origin of the whole present constitution of the universe, will become intelligible before the production of a single herb or a caterpillar by mechanical causes, will become distinctly and completely understood" (UNH, 17).
  • 40. 5. “God-of-the-Gaps” is Rejected Laplace on Newton: "I must here remark how Newton has erred on this point, from the method which he has otherwise so happily applied" (Exposition on the System of the World [1796] 2:4:331). Such an error arises when "the imagination, impatient to arrive at the causes, takes pleasure in creating hypotheses, and often it changes the facts in order to adapt them to its work” (Probabilities [1814], 183).
  • 41. Laplace to Napoleon: When asked by Napoleon about the absence of God in his work, Laplace is said to have replied: “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.” (1749 1827)‑
  • 42. “God-of-the Gaps” Lyell citesLyell cites Cirillo Generelli (1749) who, based onCirillo Generelli (1749) who, based on Lazzaro Moro (1740), declared “Nor is it reasonable toLazzaro Moro (1740), declared “Nor is it reasonable to call the Deity capriciously upon the stage, and to makecall the Deity capriciously upon the stage, and to make him work miracles for the sake of confirming ourhim work miracles for the sake of confirming our preconceived hypothesis….preconceived hypothesis…. I hold in utter abomination,I hold in utter abomination, most learned Academicians! Those systems which aremost learned Academicians! Those systems which are built with their foundations in the air, andbuilt with their foundations in the air, and cannot becannot be propped up without a miracle…propped up without a miracle… I undertake with theI undertake with the assistance of Moro, to explain to you how these marineassistance of Moro, to explain to you how these marine animals were transported into the mountains byanimals were transported into the mountains by natural causes [like earthquakes]” (Lyell, PG, 53).natural causes [like earthquakes]” (Lyell, PG, 53).
  • 43. 6. No Need for an Intelligent Cause Laplace also rejected Newton's contention that a blind force "could never make all the planets move thus….” He asked, "...could not this arrangement of the planets be itself an effect of the laws of motion; and could not the supreme intelligence which Newton makes to interfere, make it to depend on a more general phenomenon? such as, according to us, a nebulous matter distributed in various masses throughout the immensity of the heavens" (Systems, 2:4, 332).
  • 44. 7. The Principle of Continuity: Eliminates an Original Cause Laplace believed "we ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow." So, "present events are connected with preceding ones by a tie based upon the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).
  • 45. 8. The Principle of Regularity Rules out a Supernatural Cause “There are things so extraordinary that nothing can balance their improbability." Hence, “All events, even those which…do not seem to follow the great laws of nature, are a result of it just as necessarily as the revolutions of the sun…” (Pierre Laplace, Probabilities, 144, 3). These natural laws were called “fixed” (Bacon), “uniform” (Hume, EHU, X), “steady” (Hutton, TE, 19), “constant,” “undeviating” (Lyell, PG, 143, 89), and even “immutable” (Laplace, P, 177).
  • 46. Science Allows No Divine Foot in the Door “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, …we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes…. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (Richard Lewontin of Harvard in New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).
  • 47. Methodological Naturalism “It is not by its conclusions but by its methodological starting point that modern science excludes direct creation. Our methodology would not be honest if this fact were denied…such is the faith in the science of our time, and which we all share” (C. F. von Weizsacker, The Relevance of Science; cited in Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, 60-61).
  • 48. How Science Bit the Hand that Fed It The very natural laws, which were made possible by the supernatural Creator who made them, were used to deny Him a role in the natural world He made!
  • 49. How Science Bit the Hand that Fed It The very natural laws, which were made possible by the supernatural Creator who made them, were used to deny Him a role in the natural world He made! Creation which made science possible was denied a place in the very science that it made possible.
  • 50. How Science Bit the Hand that Fed It The very natural laws, which were madeThe very natural laws, which were made possible by the supernatural Creator whopossible by the supernatural Creator who made them, were used to deny Him a rolemade them, were used to deny Him a role in the natural world He made!in the natural world He made! Creation which made science possible wasCreation which made science possible was denied a place in the very science that itdenied a place in the very science that it made possible.made possible. Operation science, which was madeOperation science, which was made possible by a supernatural cause,possible by a supernatural cause, swallowed the supernatural cause whichswallowed the supernatural cause which made it possible.made it possible.
  • 51. Father of Modern Science Warned about Stress on Secondary Causes . Ironically, Francis Bacon warned “…that experience demonstrates how learned men have been arch-heretics, how learned times have been inclined to atheism, and how the contemplation of second causes doth derogate from our dependence upon God who is the first cause” (Advancement of Learning I.2).
  • 52. Outline I. The Origin of Science in Creation II. The Mistakes of Creationists III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists
  • 53. IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists: A. The Nature of the Mistake: Assuming all causes are natural causes 1. Methodological Naturalism 2. Nature-of-the-Gap Fallacy B. The Result of the Mistake: Courts Rulings
  • 54. (McLean Court (Jan 5, 1982): “Such a concept is not science because it depends upon supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law” (176). “Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative” (Geisler, Creator in the Courtroom, 177). “Scopes II” Court Used It
  • 55. Supreme Court was Based on It: (The Edwards Decision, 1987) “The Act impermissibly endorses the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.” (1. (b)) “Concepts concerning God or a supreme being of some sort are manifestly religious.” (V, A) “The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created mankind.” (III, B) Note: If this is true, then The Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional!
  • 56. Phillip Johnson Pinpointed It “It is easy to see why scientific naturalism is an attractive philosophy for scientists. It gives science a virtual monopoly on the production of knowledge, and it assures scientists that no important questions are in principle beyond scientific investigation” (p. 121).
  • 57. C. The Basis of the Mistake: Hume (1748) 1. Natural laws describe regular events. 2. A miracle is by definition a rare event. 3. The probability for the regular is always greater than the probability for the rare (based on past experience). 4. Wise persons base their belief on the greater probability. 5. Hence, wise persons should not believe in
  • 58. Hume’s Error: He confuses probability (based on past events) and evidence (for an observed event). Illustration: The improbability of a perfect hand of bridge being dealt (based on past experience) should not outweigh the evidence of four honest reliable witnesses when a perfect hand is dealt. The same is true of a hole-in-one in golf. Even Naturalists Accept Improbable (Rare) Events: 1. Big Bang origin of the universe is rare. 2. Spontaneous generation of first life is rare. 3. Macroevolution (from microbe to man) is rare.
  • 59. D. Manifestations of the Mistake: 1. Failing to Distinguish Two kinds of Causes Natural Intelligent This is so no matter how long ago it was.
  • 60. NaturalNatural IntelligentIntelligent TWO TYPES OF CAUSESTWO TYPES OF CAUSES Sand Dune Sand Castle
  • 61. Repeated Experience Shows by the “Principle of Regularity” Natural Cause Intelligent Cause Water Falls Power Plant Crystals Chandelier Sand Dunes Sand Castle Round Stone Arrowhead Principle of Uniformity demands that similar past events also have a similar intelligent cause to present ones.
  • 62. 2. Overlooking the difference between Two Kinds of Science Origin Science Operation Science (Forensic Science) (Empirical Science) About origin of things About operation of things Past singularities Present regularities Based on: Based on: causality observation analogy repetition Intelligent causes possible Only natural causes Note: Neither creation nor macro-evolution is an empirical science. Both are forensic in type.
  • 63. Illustration: a Motor Its Origin Its Operation How it Originates How it Operates (by an intelligent cause) (by natural laws) Conductor Current (spark) Power source (gas) Law of gravity Laws of friction Laws of motion Laws of tension Laws of combustion (which laws never produce a motor)
  • 64. 3. Confusing Uniformity and Uniformitarianism 1. Principle of uniformity (analogy) only demands that like effects have like causes, not that all effects have natural causes. 2. In fact, uniformity of causal connection with certain effects demands that some causes are intelligent, not natural (e.g., arrow heads, language, codes, forensic evidence, and archaeological artifacts).
  • 65. 4. Darwin’s False Analogy between Artificial Selection and Natural Selection 1. Analogies are good when the similarities are1. Analogies are good when the similarities are strong.strong. 2. But analogies are bad when the differences are2. But analogies are bad when the differences are great, such as those between artificialgreat, such as those between artificial selection and natural selection.selection and natural selection.
  • 66. A False Analogy: Crucial Differences Artificial Selection Natural Selection Intelligently Guided Not Intelligently Guided Goal in Mind No Goal in Mind Choice of Breeds No Choice of Breeds Interruption to Reach Goal No Interruption for Goal Protection from No Protection from Destructive Forces Destructive Forces Freaks Preserved Freaks Eliminated Preferential Survival No Preferential Survival Note: Evolution is based on crucial similarities of these, and these are different in almost all crucial respects.
  • 67. MicroevolutionMicroevolution within typewithin type:: YESYES MacroevolutionMacroevolution across types:across types: NONO SurvivalSurvival of an existing kind differs fromof an existing kind differs from arrivalarrival of aof a brand new kind.brand new kind. Small changesSmall changes withinwithin a typea type of life differ from bigof life differ from big changeschanges fromfrom one type to another typeone type to another type of life.of life.
  • 68. 5. Failing to See How the Principle of Uniformity Supports Creation “Analogy is based upon the probability that similar things have causes of the same kind and produce the same effects." And "this probability increases as the similitude becomes more perfect" (Laplace, Probabilities, 180). Thus, scientific views about the past are derived with "the aid of proofs drawn from these analogies [with the present]" (ibid., 100). But repeated experience in the present shows us that some things have intelligent causes. The same is true of similar events in the past.
  • 69. 6. Assuming an Unbroken Continuity of Causes 1. This assumes (not proves) there is no beginning to the universe and/or life. a. We know there is a beginning of life. b. There is good evidence that there is a beginning of the universe (see below). 2. It misunderstands the principle of causality. a. Every cause does not need a cause. b. Only every effect needs a cause. 1) Everything that begins needs a cause, but--. 2) The Beginner does not need a cause.
  • 70. Voiding the Principle of ContinuityVoiding the Principle of Continuity "There is a kind of religion in science. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe.... Every effect must have its cause: There is no first cause.... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning …(Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113- 114). The principle of continuity is based on false premises that: 1) Every cause has a cause rather than every effect has a cause; 2) The universe is eternal (which the scientific evidence shows it is not).
  • 71. 7. “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection Fails on Origins 1. The “God-of-the-gaps” argument is a valid objection when applied to empirical science, that is, the operation of the universe (because regular patterns are always produced by natural causes, even if we do not know what these causes are). 2. But singularities like the origin of matter and of life are not regular events. Hence, they do not automatically call for a natural cause. 3. When applied to singularities, “God-of-Gaps” is based on the false premise that all causes are natural causes. 4. It is not the absence of evidence that calls for an intelligent cause; It is the presence of specified complexity that calls for an intelligent cause. 5. It is not the absence of evidence that leads to positing a supernatural Cause of the Universe but the presence of unique evidence from the Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle.
  • 72. Summary: Basic Mistakes of Anti-Creationists A. Limiting science to only natural causes (“nature-of- the-gaps” fallacy= Methodological Naturalism). B. Failing to see that only regular events demand natural causes (Empirical science deals only with regular events. Singularities may have an intelligent cause. Only the evidence can tell). C. Failing to see how principles of regularity and uniformity (analogy) point to an intelligent cause. D. Confusing Uniformity and Uniformitarianism. E. Failing to distinguish Origin Science from Operation Science. F. Assuming an Unbroken Continuity of Causes. Conclusion: Given these mistakes, naturalism fails, and positing an intelligent Creator is scientific.
  • 73. Outline I. The Origin of Science in Creation II. The Mistakes of Creationists III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists V. The Reemergence of Origin Science A. New Discoveries
  • 74. 1.1. Reopening the Door to God:Reopening the Door to God: With a Big Bang!With a Big Bang! "The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation…” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115).
  • 75. Guillermo Gonzalez 2. Discovering--2. Discovering--
  • 76. 3. Looking inside-- .
  • 77. Intelligent Design of Life: "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science." "Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity" (Behe, DBB, 193).
  • 78. B. Old Principles 1. The Principle of Causality Bacon: He speaks of “knowledge by causes" (Novum Organum., 2:2:121). Hume: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (Hume, Letters, 1:187). Laplace: He speaks of “the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).
  • 79. 2. The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy)2. The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy) Hume (1748):Hume (1748): “All our reasoning concerning matter of“All our reasoning concerning matter of fact are founded on a species offact are founded on a species of analogyanalogy, which, which leads usleads us to expect from any cause the same eventsto expect from any cause the same events, which we, which we have observed to result from similar causes.have observed to result from similar causes. Where theWhere the causes are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect…” (causes are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect…” (AnAn Enquiry Concerning Human UnderstandingEnquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sect. IX)., Sect. IX). Laplace (1814):Laplace (1814): “Analogy is based upon probability, that“Analogy is based upon probability, that similar things have causes of the same kind and producesimilar things have causes of the same kind and produce the same effects.the same effects. This probability increases as theThis probability increases as the similitude becomes more perfect” (similitude becomes more perfect” (ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 180)., 180). Lyell (1887):Lyell (1887): “Causes“Causes similar in kindsimilar in kind and energy to thoseand energy to those now acting, have produced the former changes of thenow acting, have produced the former changes of the earth’s surface…” (Lyell,earth’s surface…” (Lyell, Principles of GeologyPrinciples of Geology, 88)., 88). Charles Lyell (1814)
  • 80. 3. The Principle of Regularity David Hume (1748):David Hume (1748): Causal connections are positedCausal connections are posited based on constant conjunction (custom).based on constant conjunction (custom). ““All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects ofAll inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom....custom.... Custom, then, is the great guide of humanCustom, then, is the great guide of human life” (Enquiry, Sect. 5, Part I).life” (Enquiry, Sect. 5, Part I). This “constant conjunction” or “uniform experience”This “constant conjunction” or “uniform experience” can be so regular that we may even call it a “proof”can be so regular that we may even call it a “proof” (Sect. 6, note 8; Sect X, Part I). In fact, “there are some(Sect. 6, note 8; Sect X, Part I). In fact, “there are some causes, which are entirelycauses, which are entirely uniform and constant inuniform and constant in producing a particular effect;producing a particular effect; and no instance has everand no instance has ever been found of any failure or irregularity in theirbeen found of any failure or irregularity in their operation. Fire has always burned, and wateroperation. Fire has always burned, and water suffocated every human creature…and gravity issuffocated every human creature…and gravity is anan universal lawuniversal law, which has hitherto, which has hitherto admitted of noadmitted of no exception”exception” (ibid., Sect. 6).(ibid., Sect. 6).
  • 81. V. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceV. The Reemergence of Origin Science A. New Discoveries B. Old Principles C. New Conclusions 1. A Supernatural Cause 2. A Super-intelligent Cause 3. An Intelligent Designer
  • 82. Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world…; the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy" (God and the Astronomers, 14).
  • 83. In the Beginning God... "The scientists’ pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'" (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115).
  • 84. Second Law of Thermodynamics • • “Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be restored to its original state. Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in stars, the supply of this element in the universe grows smaller” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16).
  • 85. UNUSABLE ENERGY
  • 86. The Logical ConclusionThe Logical Conclusion 1. The natural world had beginning. 2. Whatever began, had a cause. 3. The natural world had a supernatural Cause. (The Cause of all of nature can’t be natural. It is beyond nature).
  • 87. Big Bang Points to Genesis 1:1Big Bang Points to Genesis 1:1 “Whatever its name, as far as most physicists are concerned, the Big Bang is now part of the established structure of modern physics…. If the Big Bang expresses a new idea in physics, it suggests an old idea in thought: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, 70).
  • 88. Former Atheist: “The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces us to the conclusion that nature had a definite beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a super-natural force that is outside of space and time could have done that” (p. 67).
  • 89. The Anthropic Principle "The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" (Jastrow, Christianity Today [1982], 17).
  • 90. Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Life 1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life. 2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist. 3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life. 4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life. 5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life. 6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life. 7. The speed of light is proper amount for life. 8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together. 9. The distance between stars is necessary for life. 10. The cosmological constant (energy density of space) is minutely right for matter to exist. 11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life. 12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.
  • 91. Just the right place
  • 92. Just the Right TimeJust the Right Time The earth is not onlyThe earth is not only (1) in the best place(1) in the best place in the solar systemin the solar system for life, and (2) thefor life, and (2) the best place in thebest place in the universe for life, butuniverse for life, but (3) it now is the best(3) it now is the best time to view its placetime to view its place in the universe!in the universe!
  • 93. V. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceV. The Reemergence of Origin Science New Evidence from: 1. The Big Bang 2. The Anthropic Principle 3. Micro-biology
  • 94. V. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceV. The Reemergence of Origin Science New Evidence from: 1. The Big Bang 2. The Anthropic Principle 3. Micro-biology Plus three venerable scientific principles: 1) The Principle of Causality 2) The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy) 3) The Principle of Regularity
  • 95. Life Needs an Intelligent Cause Harvard’s Louis Agassiz (1807 1873)‑ “[Darwin] lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which permeates the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind…and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature” (American Journal of Science, 1860).
  • 96. One Ameba =1,000 Sets One Ameba =1,000 Sets
  • 97. WhoseWhose Signature in the CellSignature in the Cell?? Stephen MeyerStephen Meyer ““Indeed, ourIndeed, our uniformuniform experience affirmsexperience affirms thatthat specified information—specified information—whetherwhether inscribed in hieroglyphics,inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in awritten in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in aradio signal, or produced in a simulation experimentsimulation experiment—— alwaysalways arise from an intelligentarise from an intelligent source,source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.from a mind and not a strictly material process. So the discovery of the specified digital information inSo the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferringthe DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of the DNA….that intelligence played a role in the origin of the DNA…. Intelligent design best explains the DNA enigma”Intelligent design best explains the DNA enigma” (347).(347).
  • 98. a bacterial rotary motora bacterial rotary motor Analogy calls for an intelligent Cause of
  • 99. Non-Theist Ally of Intelligent DesignNon-Theist Ally of Intelligent Design He says he see “big holes inHe says he see “big holes in Darwinism. It’s inadequate as aDarwinism. It’s inadequate as a theory, and I feel verytheory, and I feel very sympathetic, very warm, towardssympathetic, very warm, towards Intelligent Design….Intelligent Design…. We have toWe have to maintain a completely openmaintain a completely open mind, andmind, and I see no reason thatI see no reason that the insights of Christianthe insights of Christian theology…should be ruled out oftheology…should be ruled out of court at the very beginningcourt at the very beginning because they’re incompatiblebecause they’re incompatible with a certain idea of whatwith a certain idea of what science is really about” (cited inscience is really about” (cited in WorldWorld, 12/19/09)., 12/19/09). David Berlinski, Ph.D.David Berlinski, Ph.D.
  • 100. How Science was Hijacked and now has- “Returned to the Hand that Fed It” Bacon Kepler Galileo Newton
  • 101. Where have all the flowers gone? • Nature returns to its supernatural roots. • The natural creation points to its supernatural Creator. • Evidence of thought in living things leads to the Thinker behind it.
  • 102. The Supernatural Reemerges – • "That there are what I or anyone would call super natural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact" (Jastrow in Christianity Today [1982], 8).
  • 103. “It is simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act…. A force field does not plan or think. So…the world of living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate in a living Source, a Mind” (There is a God, 183). Anthony Flew: Former World-famous Atheist
  • 104. Get The Whole Story
  • 105. For More InformationFor More Information www.normgeisler.com
  • 106. Languages Have Specified Complexity Hubert Yockey: “The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written languages and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981).
  • 107. Information Theory Letter sequence reveals whether information is being conveyed by a series of letters, even if one does not know the language.Claude E. Shannon
  • 108. 2. Failing to Understand the Science of Intelligent Causes. Sciences Using Intelligent Causes: 1. Forensic Science 2. Archaeology 3. Cryptology 4. Information Theory 5. SETI Program 6. Intelligent Design (ID) Science