The Absolute Existence of God 4

Does God Exist?

Our insistence on the Absolute Existence of God, although a bit tongue-in-cheek, has also drawn some comment in Twitter.  Here is the whole conversation.

M:  That's what makes it more of a delusion.  Humans created that give each other comfort.  Like Santa and the tooth fairy to kids.

R:  Comment was made in another language.

M:  Not true.  It's comforting it's poetic but it's not true.  Doesn't make it true just because it is comforting.

R:  Comment was made in another language.

M:  I see the evidence that refutes the existence of god.  Thus, he doesn't exist.

HS: This evidence is faulty because your sight is not ubiquitous.  Your evidence is merely your opinion.  You’re welcome to it.

M:  "This evidence" pointing to what?

HS:  Evidence that refutes the existence of God.

M:  So you don't believe in evolution despite the clear evidence?  What about how old the earth is?

HS:

A Fundamental Error

You have committed the logical error of jumping to a conclusion.  Actually, I do believe in scientific, special evolution.

The Necessity of Defining Terms

Since you have failed to define your terms, I shall define them for you.

There are two kinds of evolution.  Scientists, Christians, and many others frequently fail to distinguish these two kinds of evolution: which leads to a great deal of error and unnecessary misunderstanding.  While we are on the subject of evolution, there are also at least two major forms of Darwinism, which need to be addressed separately as well.

Special Evolution

Special evolution is that scientific theory which claims that random variation does occur within species.  This theory is easily demonstrated and is fundamental to our contemporary understanding of all biology and zoology studies.  The experimental evidence is so often experimentally replicated and repeated that one would be a colossal fool to doubt it.  The odds of false conclusion are in the trillions to one or better.  Denying the existence of special evolution is a statistical error of the magnitude of claiming that the Sun doesn’t exist.

General Evolution

General evolution is that speculative theory which claims that random variation occurs outside of species and across species boundaries.  Granted that the scientific definition and identification of exactly what a species is, is no small matter.  This theory has never been demonstrated and it is fundamental to nothing.  The experimental evidence is so completely absent that one would be a colossal fool to believe it.

One Source of Debate

Much of Darwin’s struggles over the impossibility and possibility of variation crossing species boundaries is driven by a theological question.  Nowadays, Presbyterian and Reformed Christians are pretty much the only ones that pay attention to these things.  The question is, “Does variation among creatures stem from God’s Creation or from God’s Providence?”  This is no easy question to answer; in fact, it is impossible to answer with any human certainty.  For Darwin this proved perplexing when so many of his observations as a naturalist seemed to defy the conventional wisdom of his day.  Darwin was hardly the only naturalist of his day to be so perplexed, and rightly so.

We, as well, should observe this seemingly endlessness of myriad variegation and stand in awe of its majesty.  Are the many variations of Finches (the bird) in all their wondrous variegation due to God’s Creation or God’s Providence?  It seems preposterous to believe that God created each of these distinct variations as distinct individuals in the Garden of Eden, so long ago.  When we consider that these variations come and go randomly within the species we find it difficult to believe that each was created distinctly.

Nevertheless, we know, or think we do, what Darwin did not know: that genetic code hidden in DNA strands (evidently) within all living beings allows for a great deal of seemingly random variability.  There is simply no good reason not to believe that such variability did not come from an intelligent designer we call God.

Physical Darwinism

Darwin speculated about many things based on his puzzling observations.  Intelligent informed speculation is what scientists do.  This is what inductive reasoning is.  Hopefully, a scientist[1] has observations with which to begin.  In general, man has three kinds of reasoning available: abduction, deduction, and induction.[2] [3] Abduction is that field of logic where one starts without any relevant observation whatsoever and is compelled to formulate a first hypothesis based only on raw guess or speculation.  No one wants to be caught in this predicament for very long, even though it happens to us all.  Deduction is that field of logic where one starts with well-established guidelines and works forward.  Engineering and medicine are common examples.  Induction is that field of logic where one starts with observations, carefully constructs a hypothesis, and proceeds with many, many experiments with all their replications and repetitions until the hypothesis is either probably established or disproved.  If no substantiating evidence is forthcoming, the hypothesis is abandoned as a lost cause, and the scientist moves on to new quests.  Darwin's many speculations make him an excellent inquisitive scientist.  They make him neither inerrant nor anti-Christian.  The fact that Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey, not far from Sir Isaac Newton, ought to warn us not to falsely accuse Darwin of wrongdoing.  It also ought to serve to remind us that most of this wonderful world of scientific discovery is due to inquisitive Christians, who never lost their sense of awe over God’s Created Universe.

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is that field of speculative philosophy, which asserts the superiority of various aspects of humanity, and is falsely attributed to Darwin.  Social Darwinism has led to many destructive and evil movements and corrupt social abuses: for example, the false claims that men are superior to women; one race is superior to another; etc....  It has led to movements of ethnic cleansing, racial extermination, and widespread prejudicial abuses.  It explains much of Adolph Hitler’s rise to power, many of the pogroms found in Communism, along with the cruel suppression of American blacks, Germans, Hispanics, Indians, Japanese, etc.  It results in people who continue to fight the Civil War, WWII, and other conflicts.  It caused the denial to many of equal opportunity at law, as well as their resultant poverty.  Even so, it is still commonly found in practice among us.

How Old is the Earth?

Only God knows how old the earth is.  I find it a difficult fact of life to choke down, that otherwise credible scientists have loaned their voices to this useless speculation.  All of the so called, reigning theories: namely, Big Bang and/or any other are just a load of speculative garbage.  We should abstain from discussing what we cannot and do not know.  To formulate a credible scientific theory of origins requires a credible scientific observer, an eyewitness.

Philosophically, there is only One such credible scientific observer possible.  Since you, sir, cannot possibly see or hear Him, you are left without any reasonable solution.  Since your eyes and ears are physically incapable of searching anywhere and everywhere in time or space, you are incapable of solving your own riddle.

Any evidence[4] that I might produce to the contrary will only fall on deaf ears, so you are doomed to die without knowing any answer, but only an endless and infinite uncertainty.  Sorry, there is no answer for your predicament; it is hopelessly lost in the infinite void, the abyss.  Sorry.

---

[1] For a thorough discussion of the Scientific Method please see http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/09/false-science-1.html

[2] The ever-popular Elementary TV series in which Sherlock claims to deduce is incorrect.  Sherlock induces, but if he said that, no one would know about what Sherlock is talking.  It is, after all, a minor aggravation in the popular misuse of words to which we all fall guilty somewhere or other.

[3] The well-informed student of logic will not neglect the exploration of apophatic and cataphatic reasoning, the causes and kinds of logical error or failure, and the full-orbed pursuit of statistical probabilities.  Since this path is strewn with so much error we all ought to listen carefully to the warnings expressed by O’Connor, Rory, Friends, Followers and the Future, City Lights Bookstore, San Francisco, 2012, 285 pages; and by Seife, Charles, Proofiness, Viking, New York, 2010, 295 pages.

[4] For example: http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-absolute-existence-of-god-1.html, http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-absolute-existence-of-god-2.html, http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-absolute-existence-of-god-3.html.  The very credible evidence is found in the Old Testament, but I have no hope whatsoever of ever getting folks like this to even read the Old Testament, let alone believe it.  For those who will believe it, the evidence has been there for thousands of years for all to examine.  If you will, come and meet the Glory, Three Living Persons who love you and seek your love in return.

False Science 1

The General Problem

There are many specific examples of False Science, but at the bottom line, most of them have some abuse of evidence.

Science is not the only method for the examination of evidence; and there are kinds of evidence for which science is inapplicable: principally, art, history, and literature, especially poetic literature.

Science is also inappropriate for the formation of ethical and moral, philosophical and theological conclusions.

The Scientific Method

General steps in the scientific method include:

·       The first step is Observation.  The scientist or other person gains experience in any subject area by making observations.  If another person observed, the scientist interviews the experienced observer to gather his or her wisdom.  This observed wisdom of the subject matter becomes the logical starting place.

·       The second step is Hypothesis Formulation.  Hypotheses are best written in the Null-Hypothesis form.  Such Null-Hypotheses are not easy to induce and are frequently left to statistics experts for appropriate wording.  We are not seeking to prove our hypothesis; this would require our ubiquity, which is impossible.  We wish to disprove or rather cast probable doubt on the Null-Hypothesis.  This is to say that under the given set of circumstances, we have a good idea about what happened.  But we don’t pretend to know all the circumstances.  This idea is commonly stated in the Uncertainty Principle of Science: the one thing about which we may be certain is that we will always have scientific uncertainties.  The reasons for this are very complicated.

·       The third step is Experiment Design.  The Experiment’s Design determines and plans what variables will be studied to fit the Null-Hypothesis, how they will be measured, what statistical plan will be used, what controls will be applied, how many repetitions and replications will be required, what locations will be employed, and what blind or double-blind safeguards are employed.

·       The fourth step is Apparatus Construction.  At least one apparatus or mechanism must be built or otherwise acquired that complies with the Experiment’s Design.

·       The fifth step is Experiment Conduction.  The experiments are conducted on the apparatus in accordance with the Design.  If only one apparatus is available, it may be disassembled, moved to another location, reassembled, and the whole repetition-set is replicated at one or more new locations, at differing altitudes and environmental conditions, preferably by different scientists.  With each repetition and replication, all the measurements are taken and carefully recorded.

·       The sixth step is Measurement Evaluation.  Measurements are usually evaluated by applying powerful statistical methods to sort out the influence of each variable: including possibly, human error, humidity, instrument error, location, pressure, temperature, time, and the interactions between all of these.  In this list of only seven variables, there would be 120 interactions, or a total of 127 things to evaluate.  The scientist is looking for things that have a high probability of being causes, usually 10:1 odds (significance) or better.  If one or more significant things are found, the Null-Hypothesis is disproved, and a new discovery may be under way.  Verification experiments may also be performed.

·       The seventh step is Logical Explanation.  The scientist attempts to induce a logical explanation for all the significant events.  Statistical correlation, in and of itself, does not establish a scientific discovery.  For example, something unknown may be confounding the data, creating a false analysis, a false positive.  The scientist then writes everything into a complete report, which is subjected to peer-review by others who are expert in the same field of science.  If the report passes peer review it may be selected for publication in a scientific journal.

Even with all of these careful steps, errors are still made.  The usual outcome at this point is not the unveiling of a new scientific discovery; but new observations, a sharpened hypothesis, improved designs of experiment, construction of a more reliable apparatus, better experiments, reevaluation, and fresh explanation.  Thus, the cycle is repeated, ever sharpening the understanding and focus of the subject matter until a rare breakthrough discovery is finally made.

Unfounded Speculation

When observations are made that might ultimately lead to something.  Then a hypothesis is constructed, based on these observations, but nothing else follows.  Nevertheless, if the hypothesis is published as fact, the outcome is not science; it is speculation.

Moreover, if the original observations themselves cannot even be substantiated, the outcome is dishonest.  Fraud was committed in the name of science.

Neither the original observer, the writer of the original hypothesis or the failure of anyone to follow on with the rest of the scientific method steps are to be blamed.  It may have been impossible even to design an experiment.

But those who published and continue to publish the unsubstantiated hypothesis as fact are culpable of a major crime, have put society to considerable expense, and have done great damage to science itself by undermining the confidence of the populace in a valuable tool.

In each and every case of claimed fact, we must ask the following questions:

·       Can the original observations be substantiated?

·       Is the hypothesis properly formed?

·       Have experiments been correctly designed?

·       Were adequate and appropriate apparatus acquired?

·       Were experiments thoroughly conducted?

·       How were the measurements evaluated?

·       What logical explanations were proposed and approved?

Infinite Extrapolation

Extrapolation is the mathematical technique of predicting an outcome outside of the data set.  Interpolation is the mathematical technique of predicting an outcome inside of the data set.

If we wish to cut a board on a 5° angle and we know for a fact that every 12 inches we need to offset the cut by 1.046 inches more from straight we will have a 5° angle cut (for example 1.046, 2.092, 3.138, 4.184, etc...).  But suppose we want to know what the offset for 3, 6, and 9 inches might be.  Or suppose our board is only 6 inches long.  We could calculate the differences: 1.046 – 0 and 12 – 0 and distribute the ratio evenly getting .261, .523, and .784 with a very small rounding error.  But if we were cutting a curve from the same data, we would have a much larger error of interpolation because we would be evaluating a curve with a straight line.  Although we could find ways to fix that.  So much for interpolation.

Extrapolation is a different matter.  Let’s use an automatic pitching machine to pitch balls to a batter.  We look at the tip of the rear sight and the tip of the front sight and line them up so they are exactly on the aiming point we have picked at the plate.  Our extrapolation says that the ball will go there exactly.  Will the ball hit that point every time?  No.  In fact, it may never hit that point.  Gravity will make the ball drop, and wind will make it move laterally, left or right.  It would be a strange accident if the ball actually hit the aiming point.

We are throwing a distance of 60 feet 6 inches with a drop in elevation of 10 inches.  Today the wind is steady with absolutely no gusts, so we pitch a few balls and measure the distance from where balls actually cross our aiming plane.  Then we move the aiming point by that same amount in the opposite direction and pitch a few more balls to verify that we adjusted correctly.  We have an extremely accurate pitching machine, and one-hundred balls in a row are all within 1/8 inch of the exact target point.

To be sure that we are completely accurate we used laser interferometry to make all measurements.  At 60 feet 6 inches, our laser interferometer is accurate to one millionth of an inch, if there are no ground vibrations.  To insure that there are no ground vibrations, the interferometer is mounted on a viscously damped, 5-ton bed and monitored with a digital recording seismometer.  The error of measurement is less that 0.1%.

We have already extrapolated on the order of 5:1 because the sights on our pitching machine are 12.1 inches apart.  But we controlled this extrapolation by using the laser interferometer.

Now let’s move the pitching machine to 121 feet behind second base.  Does anybody believe that we can now maintain our target for one-hundred pitches within 1/4 inch of the target point, or even within a 1/2-inch circle anywhere at that range?  How about at 242 feet?  Can we maintain a 1-inch circle at 242 feet?  Can we maintain a 2-inch circle at 484 feet?  Our extrapolation is now 40:1 and we would be lucky to maintain a 24-inch circle at 484 feet.

No credible scientist is willing to work with extrapolated data of these magnitudes.  Instead, he figures out new methods of measurement and control because extrapolations of this kind are notoriously unreliable.  We add to our list of test questions:

·       Were all measurements correctly taken?

·       Was excessive extrapolation used to estimate outcomes?

Special Evolution

Special Evolution is that observation and hypothesis in biology that species vary randomly within themselves, but not outside of themselves.  A species is defined as individuals within a group that are theoretically capable of (not necessarily actually participant in) sexual reproduction.

For Darwin this was a serious theological question.  Naturalists of his day were concerned about the Biblical difference between the Miracles and Providences of God.  Nowadays, many folks pay little or no attention to the difference between Miracle and Providence, even though both are clearly stated in the Bible.

Miracle:

·       God created the universe by the breath of His mouth.

·       Moses crossed the Red Sea on dry land.

·       Joshua crossed the Jordan River on dry land.

·       Jonah lived three days and nights in the belly of an indescribable sea monster.

·       Daniel’s three friends endured Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace of blazing conflagration un-singed and smoke-odor free.

·       Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.

·       Jesus Christ raised from the dead after three days.

Providence:

·       The sun shines and the rain falls on the just and the unjust.

·       We have food and raiment, houses and businesses, spouses and children.

·       We are free to attend or not attend church on Sunday.

·       We receive relaxation and rest, medical treatment and medication, entertainment and sport, luxuries we do not deserve.

·       We have jobs and income, police and fire departments, governments and military.

·       We have sewer, water, and light.

We cannot fault Darwin for being concerned about a serious Biblical, theological, and scientific question.

There is ample evidence for Special Evolution.  This theory is thoroughly substantiated by vast mountains of evidence.  It passes all nine of our test questions.  From the Null-Hypothesis, there can be very little doubt species vary randomly within themselves, but not outside of themselves.  Or we might even say that there is no serious doubt that species vary randomly within themselves.  Every person that deals with living things of any kind has at-hand evidence that this is true.

Note: we did not prove that Special Evolution is true.  We demonstrated that there isn’t any good statistical reason to doubt it.

General Evolution

General Evolution is that observation and hypothesis in biology that species vary outside of themselves in accordance with a random rule of “survival of the fittest.”  A species is defined as individuals within a group that are theoretically capable of (not necessarily actually participant in) sexual reproduction.

There is no evidence for General Evolution.  Even the original observations have never been substantiated.  It fails the following four test questions.  From the Null-Hypothesis, there is no reason to believe that species vary outside of and across species boundaries.

 

The perpetuation of the theory of General Evolution is Unfounded Speculation, a fraud, and a hoax.  It has cost untold fortunes to society and wasted the valuable time of scientists.  It has discredited genuine science in the eyes of the populace, and taught children that science is about speculation.

In the form of further philosophical speculation, it has become the breeding ground for Social Darwinism (which should rather be called Social Evolutionism), Communism, and Nazism.

General Evolution is a blight on our society and a deplorable curse on humanity.  There is nothing good about it at all.

When biology in general and General Evolution in particular is used to propose theories of origins over eons based on carbon or other dating methods, both biology and General Evolution commit the further errors associated with Infinite Extrapolation, except that they extrapolate without evidence.  All the evidence is drawn from outside of the hypothesis of General Evolution.

Other False Theories Employing Infinite Extrapolation

·       Geological Theories of Origins of the Universe

·       The Big Bang

·       Theories of Origins of the Universe from Physics

Conclusion

My dear brothers and sisters, let us cease speculation about what we cannot and do not know.  If we must know, let us consult with Someone Who is an Eyewitness of creation.  Are you such a person?  No, of course not.  Then, be silent.  Do you personally know such a Person?  Yes, but the world will not believe you, you cannot prove it to them because they are blinded by unbelief.  So pray that they might believe, and be silent.

“A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Let us comfort our hearts with our prayers and if time permits, we will talk of the proofs among ourselves.  God bless you.

Yours in Christ
Herb Swanson
aka Augie