Creationists' "Statements of Faith", or How Creationists Disqualify Themselves from the Right to Claim that they are Scientists.
https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/aig-statement-of-faith.htm
This goes to the heart of what is rotten about creation "science" and why it is inimical to science and to science education. Several for-profit creationist covens have similar declarations. As usual, on my pages, my comments are in red, commenting on creationist material which is in black.
From Kenny Ham,
This goes to the heart of what is rotten about creation "science" and why it is inimical to science and to science education. Several for-profit creationist covens have similar declarations. As usual, on my pages, my comments are in red, commenting on creationist material which is in black.
From Kenny Ham,
- "In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly."
- "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Whose definition is this, I wonder? Is it yours, Ken? Are you an infallible person who possesses all information? Clearly, by your own admission, you cannot be.
As for the "scientists" who write for Answers in Genesis and for similar for-profit creationist blogs, acceding to this statement is tantamount to abdicating your positions as scientists. Regardless of whether or not you have scientific qualifications and a track record of scientific achievement, to relinquish the basic scepticism inherent in the scientific mindset is to relinquish science. Presuppositionally plumping on an outcome and seeking to promote it, whatever the evidence actually suggests, is an anathema to science. Indeed, we gain confidence in scientific ideas precisely because we seek to destroy them and see if they withstand our examinations and tests, rather than shield them from such examination. The fact that they withstand testing is the way in which we gain confidence in their veracity. If creationist ideas were true, they would not need to be corralled away and protected from examination in this way. To sign up to a faith statement like this is essentially to admit to having no confidence whatsoever in the truth of creationism! It should be an unnecessary statement if creationism is indeed true. A statement like this is only necessary because creationism is fundamentally unsupportable.
Creation Ministries International, also has, on its "What we believe page", https://creation.com/what-we-believe,
We can tell from this that scientific evidence is of no value or significance whatsoever to these people. They will only try to sound "sciencey" if they can cherry-pick or distort evidence to try and fool their marks. It is a thoroughly cynical and dishonest activity. And it is also the height of arrogance to believe that the nature of the universe has to meet with your personal approval.
See also, "The Doctrine of Personal Infallibility" https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2019/02/the-doctrine-of-personal-infallibility.html?
Here's a summary from AI GPT-4.
As for the "scientists" who write for Answers in Genesis and for similar for-profit creationist blogs, acceding to this statement is tantamount to abdicating your positions as scientists. Regardless of whether or not you have scientific qualifications and a track record of scientific achievement, to relinquish the basic scepticism inherent in the scientific mindset is to relinquish science. Presuppositionally plumping on an outcome and seeking to promote it, whatever the evidence actually suggests, is an anathema to science. Indeed, we gain confidence in scientific ideas precisely because we seek to destroy them and see if they withstand our examinations and tests, rather than shield them from such examination. The fact that they withstand testing is the way in which we gain confidence in their veracity. If creationist ideas were true, they would not need to be corralled away and protected from examination in this way. To sign up to a faith statement like this is essentially to admit to having no confidence whatsoever in the truth of creationism! It should be an unnecessary statement if creationism is indeed true. A statement like this is only necessary because creationism is fundamentally unsupportable.
Creation Ministries International, also has, on its "What we believe page", https://creation.com/what-we-believe,
- "Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
We can tell from this that scientific evidence is of no value or significance whatsoever to these people. They will only try to sound "sciencey" if they can cherry-pick or distort evidence to try and fool their marks. It is a thoroughly cynical and dishonest activity. And it is also the height of arrogance to believe that the nature of the universe has to meet with your personal approval.
See also, "The Doctrine of Personal Infallibility" https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2019/02/the-doctrine-of-personal-infallibility.html?
Here's a summary from AI GPT-4.
"The blog post criticizes creationist organizations, particularly Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, for their "Statements of Faith," which, according to the author, disqualify them from being considered as scientists. The "Statement of Faith" asserts that no evidence, regardless of the field, is valid if it contradicts scriptural records. The author argues that such a statement rejects the skeptical mindset inherent to science and the principle that scientific ideas gain credibility through rigorous testing and examination. The author further alleges that these organizations cherry-pick or distort evidence to align with their beliefs, disregarding the inherent value and significance of scientific evidence."
"Cargo cult science" is a term introduced by the great Richard Feynman to describe pseudosciences that assume all the trappings of real science. It is a "pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis". https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/kkk-kreationist-kargo-kult-science.html
"Cargo cult science" is a term introduced by the great Richard Feynman to describe pseudosciences that assume all the trappings of real science. It is a "pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis". https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/kkk-kreationist-kargo-kult-science.html
Of primary importance is that scripture is interpreted by fallible human beings, whereas the evidence of God's Hand is literally written in the stars. With our naked eyes we see 2 million year old light from the Andromeda Galaxy (if you're in the Northern Hemisphere) and 180,000 year old light from the Magellanic Clouds (if you're in the Southern Hemisphere). This is the work of God's Hand saying the universe is indeed more than 6,000 years old, and puny humans who read the Bible to deny God's Hand are in error.
ReplyDeleteYes Randall. If there is a creator God, would He incorporate so much unnecessary and misleading evidence of deep time and of evolution into his creation? To believe so would make God out to be a liar and a deceiver. Much more likely (and non-blasphemous) to think that scripture is not intended to be read in a woodenly literal fashion.
DeleteSince there is a Creator God, why must Genesis 1-2.4 be opposing ideas about evolution ? Maybe the authors and compilers were concerned with questions entirely different from those which concern 20th-century readers,
DeleteThank YOU, Randall Winn. The error, IMO, is in imagining that because the Bible can be easily read once the language is learned as a child, the reader has insight to the language of Creation itself. Might just be laziness or an inability to appreciate the complexity of Creation that bases the appeal and function of religion to give its followers comfort and self-assurance in their innate superiority, but science (when properly understood) can only make one uncomfortable and doubtful about knowing anything for certain.
DeleteJon Grover "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
ReplyDeleteThe Bible indicates that the evidence in nature is valid. (Psalm 33:4) Therefore it does not contradict scriptural record. If it seems to contradict scriptural record then either the scripture is misunderstood or the evidence is corrupt. It is your job to determine which of these is true through a deeper analysis of both the scripture and the evidence to identify the mismatch.
"Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Well, so is scripture.
"to relinquish the basic skepticism inherent the scientific mindset is to relinquish science."
If you understand that your knowledge of both scripture and the evidence is likely to be flawed, then this does not relinquish basic skepticism. It relies on it.
Someone said, "Science is repeatable testable falsifiable and observable. Evolution is not."
ReplyDeleteAll science is built on observations, either observations of the natural world, or observations made under carefully controlled conditions (experiments).
All theories are falsifiable in the sense that an observation may demonstrate it to be false. The way we gain confidence in the veracity of a theory is by the number of potentially falsifying tests it passes.
Contrast the above with the approach taken by Answers in Genesis and their likes, which declare that their presuppositions cannot, even in principle, be falsified, no matter what experiment or observation is conducted.
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
The irony of that is that it was written by a fallible person.
Most observations require us to rub a few brain cells together to tell us what they mean. A brain that is handicapped by such a presupposition is, by definition, unqualified to make an objective evaluation of scientific data.
I think people make a common error, and that is confusing atheism with science. Many scientist, and others who accept mainstream science, believe in the divine.
ReplyDeleteWhere creation "science" differs with them, is the nature of their "God". When faced with obvious evidence of deep time and of evolution, creationists will insist that it is false. Misleading. They won't admit it, but a natural consequence of this idea is that their god is a deceiver. The data can't be trusted. God could have embedded it in his creation just because. If you cannot count on any fact being genuine, the rug is pulled out from under the feet of science.
Many people don't understand the concept of falsifiability.
ReplyDeleteA proposition can be falsifiable, or unfalsifiable.
It doesn't mean that it is either true or false.
A falsifiable proposition may be either true or false, but if it is falsifiable, it means that there are tests that we can conduct that, should they fail, would prove it to be false.
An unfalsifiable proposition is one that cannot, even in principle, be falsified. Such propositions are of no interest to reason or science. An example of an unfalsifiable proposition would be that an unnatural entity produced false evidence, by magic, to fool us into believing false things about the nature of the world, or even supposedly true things about the nature of the world.
Science gains confidence in the view that it is correct by the fact that it passes potentially falsifying tests. Contrast this with professional creation "science" that forces its thralls to concede with its statements of "faith".
There is no actual evidence to be found on this site. This blog consists principally of repackaged, unproven theories. Barry barely finished High School.
ReplyDelete