How respond to unusually "rational" creationist?

[Darth Hoth]

So I am arguing with this guy, who, apart from treating every jot and tittle of the Bible as . . . ehrm, Gospel . . . and generally being a reactionary right-winger on issues where he considers its moral teachings applicable, is fairly decent and intelligent most of the time, and he says this (or, roughly this, in paraphrase from what I recall of it and translated from my native Swedish):

I do not agree with most "creation science". 99 per cent of what is peddled as such is usually pseudoscience cooked up by people who are either ignorant of science or deliberately dishonest. For the same reason I disagree with theistic evolution; the people who support this are either ignorant of the Bible, or they represent it dishonestly.

I believe in science, and the scientific method. I believe that as Chistians, we have a responsibility to understand the world as well as we can. And science is our best tool for doing that. We should encourage biology, astronomy, geology, the works - encourage and learn as much as we can from them, and accept the best interpretation of their findings as our best current model, regardless of how it might appear to clash with the teachings that we, as Christians, believe to be unalterably true and divinely inspired. This is what I do. I believe that, to the best of our knowledge, humans have evolved over time from a common ancestor, Earth was created billions of years ago as part of a planetary system, which is part of a galaxy in an expanding universe, et cetera.

However, this does not mean that I do not also believe in the literal creation account in Genesis; I do, completely.

How do I reconcile these two apparently contradictory beliefs? Well, because I believe that science is a work in progress. Our current scientific understanding of cosmology is not perfect; it is the very opposite of perfect. And one can even argue that our current understanding of Genesis is imperfect, given that some uncertainties in translation remain, so we can improve there, as well.

To use the field of physics as an example, theoretical physicists believe in both quantum theory and general relativity, even though these, according to our current understanding of either, contradict each other. They can do this because they find each to be the single most useful model for describing part of our existence, and because they believe that future discoveries will let us learn more, enough so that we can reconcile them. The same is true for me: I believe that, if and when science has progressed far enough, it will not contradict, but in fact validate everything that Genesis has told us. Not in the way the "creation scientists" of the current day claim, but in a scientific way - explaining all the observations without bias and showing why Genesis is not at odds with science, in much the same way as a unified field theory would explain both micro- and macroscale physics without disregarding what we have learned of either. That is in itself a reason why Christians should support scientific inquiry, and why I do.

The mistake both creationists on the hand and liberals on the other make is that they attempt to doctor either one theory or the other - depending on religious and political bias - to fit the other, disregarding reality in the process, rather than waiting for the improved knowledge that can allow us to understand both together. They butcher one incomplete model to fit another, when neither is necessarily or even probably the final word. This is both unscientific and disrespectful in the extreme of the God that created our wonderfully complex universe and gave us of His [sic, you can hear the capitals when fundies talk about Jehovah] spirit, so we can even begin to understand its wonders.

How do I respond to this? By and large, it is by far the most "enlightened" creationist position that I have come across, in that it does not appear to be actively harmful or adversarial to science . . . and yet, it appears to basically depend on wishful thinking and still supposes that Genesis is literal truth.

[Surlethe]

The same is true for me: I believe that, if and when science has progressed far enough, it will not contradict, but in fact validate everything that Genesis has told us.

Why? You need to challenge him on epistemological grounds: this quote is his weak spot. He thinks we have knowledge beyond what we observe empirically; otherwise, he is just arbitrarily deciding that science will converge to his beliefs, which is irrational. But how could we have knowledge beyond what we observe empirically?

[Twoyboy]

Ok, why not...

I do not agree with most "creation science". 99 per cent of what is peddled as such is usually pseudoscience cooked up by people who are either ignorant of science or deliberately dishonest. For the same reason I disagree with theistic evolution; the people who support this are either ignorant of the Bible, or they represent it dishonestly.

Not exactly a valid comparison. In three paragraphs time he's about to say we don't understand all of Genesis, but apparently right now he knows that he's right and the "theistic evolutionist" is wrong. On the other hand good science is unambiguous. It doesn't mean we've filled in ALL of the gaps, but what we know, we flat out KNOW.

I believe in science, and the scientific method. I believe that as Chistians, we have a responsibility to understand the world as well as we can. And science is our best tool for doing that. We should encourage biology, astronomy, geology, the works - encourage and learn as much as we can from them, and accept the best interpretation of their findings as our best current model, regardless of how it might appear to clash with the teachings that we, as Christians, believe to be unalterably true and divinely inspired. This is what I do. I believe that, to the best of our knowledge, humans have evolved over time from a common ancestor, Earth was created billions of years ago as part of a planetary system, which is part of a galaxy in an expanding universe, et cetera.

This is really easy to pay lip service to, and Mike's hate mail has a few people who started along the same lines.

However, this does not mean that I do not also believe in the literal creation account in Genesis; I do, completely.

How do I reconcile these two apparently contradictory beliefs? Well, because I believe that science is a work in progress. Our current scientific understanding of cosmology is not perfect; it is the very opposite of perfect. And one can even argue that our current understanding of Genesis is imperfect, given that some uncertainties in translation remain, so we can improve there, as well.

The difference being the science is getting better and the Bible staying the same. We have more and more evidence of the Big Bang, Evolution, Abiogenesis and all those other fun things every year. But the Bible will ALWAYS be prone to misrepresentation and ambiguity.

To use the field of physics as an example, theoretical physicists believe in both quantum theory and general relativity, even though these, according to our current understanding of either, contradict each other. They can do this because they find each to be the single most useful model for describing part of our existence, and because they believe that future discoveries will let us learn more, enough so that we can reconcile them.

I'm sure a physicist will be along shortly to spew venom at this statement, but I'll give it a go. When we say we cannot reconcile these two, we don't mean they are incompatible. They are the best explanation of DIFFERENT THINGS. And one day they most likely will be reconciled, and at that point, like Newton's Laws of Motion, they will still be used as the best explanation of the specific cases for which they are used now. The reconciling theory will be a generalised theory which ties them together universally.

The same is true for me: I believe that, if and when science has progressed far enough, it will not contradict, but in fact validate everything that Genesis has told us. Not in the way the "creation scientists" of the current day claim, but in a scientific way - explaining all the observations without bias and showing why Genesis is not at odds with science,

He has got to be kidding. Light and dark separated before any matter was created? A firmament above the earth holding the waters of the rain? How is this shit in ANY way not at odds with science?

in much the same way as a unified field theory would explain both micro- and macroscale physics without disregarding what we have learned of either. That is in itself a reason why Christians should support scientific inquiry, and why I do.

Now apparently he understands the difference between quantum theory and general relativity...

The mistake both creationists on the hand and liberals on the other make is that they attempt to doctor either one theory or the other - depending on religious and political bias - to fit the other, disregarding reality in the process, rather than waiting for the improved knowledge that can allow us to understand both together.

And lets throw in a dig at liberals to boot!

They butcher one incomplete model to fit another, when neither is necessarily or even probably the final word. This is both unscientific and disrespectful in the extreme of the God that created our wonderfully complex universe and gave us of His [sic, you can hear the capitals when fundies talk about Jehovah] spirit, so we can even begin to understand its wonders.

Science is only butchered when you try to make it fit Genesis or indeed any other primitive dogma. It is incomplete, but the Bible adds nothing to it. Can he name a single instance in which the Bible aided human understanding of nature and was correct?

[Lagmonster]

Others have hit the salient points, but I will add this: Beware of the false protestations of honesty. Sometimes, a religious debater will say something like, "I agree that science brings knowledge, we should trust the scientific method, why, I myself want us to do real science."

These people either a) do not actually understand what science is, only the IDEA of "doing science", b) are lying, or c) think that you can make exceptions for things they take on faith and/or believe that science is the wrong tool for finding the evidence they claim to have.

[Kanastrous]

To use the field of physics as an example, theoretical physicists believe in both quantum theory and general relativity, even though these, according to our current understanding of either, contradict each other.

My understanding is that quantum equations yield the same outcomes when describing the behavior of macroscopic systems as do Einstein's equations, and that in turn Einstein's math will yield the same outcomes as Newton's equations when describing the motion of bodies in orbit etc.

Maybe this is a gross oversimplification, but then again my education on the subject is only adequate for reading oversimplified texts.

Gotta love the idea that a system freely advertised as imperfect and incomplete but based in systematic observation of the real world is somehow inferior - or even equivalent - to a system advertised as perfect and inerrant, based upon...nothing at all.

[General Zod]

He's approaching the whole thing backwards and dressing it up with a lot of meaningless fluff. Instead of asking "How was the universe made?" he's saying "The universe was made by god, how can I rationalize it?" Viable scientific theories don't start with conclusions.

[Kanastrous]

This is actually relevant...if a flippant take on the usual creationist shenanigans...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25-kqC4gNHA

...start it at 1:20 and watch 'til 3:05. If you have a couple minutes for something silly.

[PaperJack]

What if in the end, science discovers that, for example, buddhists are right? Isn't it a bit irrational to think that only christianity could be right ?

[Starman7]

He's approaching the whole thing backwards and dressing it up with a lot of meaningless fluff. Instead of asking "How was the universe made?" he's saying "The universe was made by god, how can I rationalize it?" Viable scientific theories don't start with conclusions.

That is a great deal of the flaw in his logic: furthermore, the theories and models we have are already pretty descriptive of the universe, and it is unlikely in the extreme that we would suddenly find something that overturns our current model of how the Earth developed and support something so ridiculous as the Genesis story.

We already have dated the Earth pretty well, so either the Earth started with artificially aged materials or all our radiological dating methods are somehow utterly wrong.

[Twoyboy]

What if in the end, science discovers that, for example, buddhists are right? Isn't it a bit irrational to think that only christianity could be right ?

While it is a point, it's best not to give ammunition to the idea that science might one day "prove" someone's dogma right. After all, the chances of any of them being right is sweet fuck all.

Like Zod said above, his major flaw is taking his faith as something he already knows and trying to rationalise it with science. It's best not to encourage that kind of behaviour.

We already have dated the Earth pretty well, so either the Earth started with artificially aged materials or all our radiological dating methods are somehow utterly wrong.

Oh man, you'd be surprised at some of the responses creationists have given to this. Some have actually calculated how much certain physical constants need to have changed by for our radiometric dating to give the answers it does to a 6,000 year old earth. Despite the fact that t it would a) negate the formation of matter for most of the earth's history and b) mean we should be able to measure things like the speed of light changing as we speak.

[Simon_Jester]

My understanding is that quantum equations yield the same outcomes when describing the behavior of macroscopic systems as do Einstein's equations, and that in turn Einstein's math will yield the same outcomes as Newton's equations when describing the motion of bodies in orbit etc.

Maybe this is a gross oversimplification, but then again my education on the subject is only adequate for reading oversimplified texts.

It's a true statement. Now, the two do have problems of approach- in quantum mechanics time is often treated as an invariant parameter, while in general relativity it's just another dimension- but they do not yield mutually exclusive predictions. That was never the problem; the problem is hammering the two theories together into a single framework from which both theories can be derived. And there are some hardware incompatibilities between the tools used by the two theories, hence the difficulty.

[Kanastrous]

I was responding to this:

To use the field of physics as an example, theoretical physicists believe in both quantum theory and general relativity, even though these, according to our current understanding of either, contradict each other.

Would you say that the 'hardware incompatibilities' rise to the level of the two disciplines actually contradicting one another?

[Crossroads Inc.]

I am in the camp, that if you REALLY wanted to push this gut to feel uncomfortable, ask him to point to a single instance in the bible that can be historically colloberated elsewhere in history.

Asian literature is full of large events we can track and document. Eclipses, Comets, Nova's etc. Like wise there are plenty of events in Greek, Arabic, and Indian texts as well that are historically found elsewhere.

Just as him to find a single event in the bible that can be verified elsewhere. Or shoot, you could also stump him by asking to privde a single instance of the Bible demonstrating a single scientific accuracy. Maybe the demonstration of a scientific princapel, or the application of something that later turned out to be scientificlly verified.

Go ahead ask him, unless he pulls out some big BS, he won't find anything.

[Kanastrous]

I'd point to the bit in Exodus about the Hebrews building with bricks to create the store-cities of Pithom and Ramases (sp?)

There survive archaelogical traces of such cities, although I don't know that those specific names have ever been conclusively put to those traces.

Or the remains of walled and gated cities in Israel that appear to correspond to places mentioned in the Bible.

There's the Tel Dan stele which bears an inscription mentioning King David ('House of David/King of Israel').

And the record of the Syrian Greek invasion of Israel and Judea in the Book of Judges (I think it was Judges...).

I don't know if these would be adequate in terms of the kind of corroboration you mean, though.

The idea that there were people whom we call Israelites who traipsed about the Middle East getting into trouble and causing headaches for their neighbors seems pretty un-controversial. It's the talking shrubbery and floating babies and flying pillars of whatever and Godly directives to do this or that which are the fiction inserted into what is probably just heavily distorted and gapingly incomplete ancient history...

[Anguirus]

He's no so much "rational" as "somewhat polite and eloquent."

[General Zod]

I am in the camp, that if you REALLY wanted to push this gut to feel uncomfortable, ask him to point to a single instance in the bible that can be historically colloberated elsewhere in history.

Asian literature is full of large events we can track and document. Eclipses, Comets, Nova's etc. Like wise there are plenty of events in Greek, Arabic, and Indian texts as well that are historically found elsewhere.

Just as him to find a single event in the bible that can be verified elsewhere. Or shoot, you could also stump him by asking to privde a single instance of the Bible demonstrating a single scientific accuracy. Maybe the demonstration of a scientific princapel, or the application of something that later turned out to be scientificlly verified.

Go ahead ask him, unless he pulls out some big BS, he won't find anything.

That's not completely fair, because the Bible does reference a few genuine historical events, such as the destruction of the Temples of Jerusalem. Whether or not the details are accurate is another matter entirely.

[Simon_Jester]

Would you say that the 'hardware incompatibilities' rise to the level of the two disciplines actually contradicting one another?

I don't think I would say so, not based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the math. They merely reflect the fact that it is mathematically much, much simpler to take the naive approach of (for instance) treating time as a parameter rather than a variable output of your equations.

[Kanastrous]

So the assertion in the OP is full of it, then.

[General Zod]

So the assertion in the OP is full of it, then.

A bit of Googling seems to imply that the "QM and GR contradict each other" thing is a rather popular myth. Frankly I doubt more than a fraction of the people making this claim are remotely qualified to confirm it.

[Kanastrous]

Well, by any rational standard I'm not personally qualified to deny it. But at least I can crack a fucking book and get the gist of what the qualified people have to say...

[Gil Hamilton]

I think that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity being at odds with each other comes out the fact that Einstein himself didn't like the implications of some of the things they (and indeed he) was deriving. Like quantum entanglement, where the state of a particle seemingly acts measured even though it wasn't, due to the measurement of the state a particle some distance away (the spooky action-at-a-distance Einstein was famously quoted as having an issue with).

The problem is that for someone who claims to think the scientific method is a good thing, he's making a whale of a mistake on that front. Scientific theory is an explanation or description of observations made. In his case, he's started with a preconceived notion (the theory) without observations and patiently stating that the observations that demonstrate the theory will exist. In other words, he's doing what alot of creationists who wish they were scientists do; approaching the method entirely backwards.

[Simon_Jester]

So the assertion in the OP is full of it, then.

Well... it's wrong, but it's subtly wrong. No one can be faulted for not knowing enough math and physics to fully grasp the nature of the problem- hell, I don't, just enough to get a sense for it, and I sank about six years into studying to get to my current level of understanding.

And since "QM and GR contradict each other" is common in science popularizations, I don't fault Creationist Guy for believing it. He's wrong, but not full of it, not on that.

I think that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity being at odds with each other comes out the fact that Einstein himself didn't like the implications of some of the things they (and indeed he) was deriving. Like quantum entanglement, where the state of a particle seemingly acts measured even though it wasn't, due to the measurement of the state a particle some distance away (the spooky action-at-a-distance Einstein was famously quoted as having an issue with).

There is more to it than that, I'm afraid; they do use different mathematical approaches to describe the universe. This makes it difficult to apply quantum mechanics in situations where general-relativistic effects strongly distort spacetime (like immediately around a black hole).

But I wouldn't say the two theories contradict each other. It's not like they predict mutually exclusive observations so that only one of them can be right. It's just that neither of them works in the other's backyard, because you can't use one's math to describe situations where the other is important.

[Zinegata]

Uh, I think you need to read more of SD.net's articles.

Your friend's basic claim is that "Genesis happened literally. We just haven't advanced science enough to prove it yet".

The problem is, that already violates Occam's Razor. Any theory must be based on variables that can be evaluated. "We just haven't advanced science enough" isn't something we can evaluate.

Thus, "Genesis happened literally" is an irrational theory.

Ironically, Occam's Razor was developed by a theologian. And the reason why he developed this was to prove that belief in God is irrational. It can only be rooted in faith.

(Which makes Occam a cool kid religious type in my book)

[Gil Hamilton]

There is more to it than that, I'm afraid; they do use different mathematical approaches to describe the universe. This makes it difficult to apply quantum mechanics in situations where general-relativistic effects strongly distort spacetime (like immediately around a black hole).

But I wouldn't say the two theories contradict each other. It's not like they predict mutually exclusive observations so that only one of them can be right. It's just that neither of them works in the other's backyard, because you can't use one's math to describe situations where the other is important.

I know what you mean, but I was kind of addressing where the public notion of quantum mechanics and general relativity came at odds. Alot of it did come from quotes by people like Einstein who were disturbed by the implications of quantum mechanics. One misquote that I get seen thrown around is "God doesn't play dice with the universe".

However, there are places where quantum mechanics and relativity interact. For example, fine structure in spectral lines are caused by relativistic effects, which in turn effects the basic electronic structure of atoms and thus makes chemistry interesting. First order corrections, spin-orbit coupling; it's good stuff, otherwise all atoms would act like a hydrogen atom and computational p-chemists would be forced to commit mass suicide as computing a better atom is what they live for.

[Kanastrous]

Actually I *would* say that the author of the OP is 'full of it,' because he presumes to make a definitive statement regarding complicated technical fields about which he evidently does not even have basic layman-grade knowledge (I'm basing this upon the fact that calling *my* knowledge on the topic 'layman grade' is probably giving me too much credit, and yet this is something that even I basically (dimly) understand).

If you're going to draw on a field of science of mathematics in order to try and under-write your theological argument, a proper grasp of the material is your responsibility and if you go off spouting popular misconceptions it *does* suggest that you couldn't bother cracking a book on the topic so as to grant your interlocutors the consideration of at least doing your own homework.

Most of my disgust with people who do that sort of thing is rooted in the fact that I am acutely conscious of my own under-education on the topic and am therefore unwilling to cut breaks for people equally uneducated who spout off as though they knew their subject.