Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

 2007 by David A. Prentice LOGIC AND SCIENCE IN THE STUDY OF ORIGINS By David A. Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: " 2007 by David A. Prentice LOGIC AND SCIENCE IN THE STUDY OF ORIGINS By David A. Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T."— Presentation transcript:

1  2007 by David A. Prentice LOGIC AND SCIENCE IN THE STUDY OF ORIGINS By David A. Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T.

2  2007 by David A. Prentice “In the beginning God created.” A number of school districts across the nation have tried to include “intelligent design” -- the mere possibility that an intelligence could be responsible for the universe -- in their curriculum. Every single one of them has been forbidden by the courts to even mention the possibility to students. The courts have decreed that we are an atheistic nation. WHICH PART OF GOD’S WORD IS UNDER THE GREATEST ATTACK?

3  2007 by David A. Prentice Nationwide reports indicate that a high percentage of Christian students – some say over 70% -- abandon the Christian faith within their first year of college. The most common reason: they cannot respond to evolutionary claims that contradict their faith, so they conclude Christianity is all a lie! How many Christian youths are “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15)? DOES EVOLUTION MATTER?

4  2007 by David A. Prentice THE FASTEST-GROWING RELIGION IN AMERICA: “NO RELIGION!” A 2009 survey by Trinity College shows that those who call themselves Christians have decreased to 76%, while “No religion” has increased to 15%. The biggest drop has been in churches that have abandoned the Bible.

5  2007 by David A. Prentice This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves… Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof… Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (2 Tim 3:1-8) Why such a decrease in many churches? Is there a “form of godliness” in the shrinking churches? Of course! They are churches! BUT HOW POWERUL IS THEIR GOD?

6  2007 by David A. Prentice As of 3/27/09, almost 12,000 American MINISTERS signed the “Clergy Letter Project” stating that they believe in evolution. As of 3/27/09, almost 12,000 American MINISTERS signed the “Clergy Letter Project” stating that they believe in evolution. 1,049 congregations held “Darwin Day” in February. Their God either: 1. Doesn’t care if he tells the truth about how everything began, 2. Lied about it on purpose, or 3. Was not intelligent enough to tell the truth until Darwin did it for him. Having a form of godliness but denying its power!

7  2007 by David A. Prentice EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATION ARE RELIGION WHAT WE ARE CONSTANTLY TOLD:

8  2007 by David A. Prentice HOW DO YOU K NOW WHAT YOU K NOW? Or at least what you think you know? HOW DO YOU K NOW WHAT YOU K NOW? Or at least what you think you know? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

9  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike. 1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike. 2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. 2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. 3. Logic. I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it. 3. Logic. I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it. 4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry. 4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry. 5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery! 5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery! 6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know evolution is a fact! 6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know evolution is a fact! WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING?

10  2007 by David A. Prentice WHAT CAN YOU BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN OF? If someone tells you “There is no such thing as absolute truth,” ask them: Are you absolutely sure? If someone tells you “There is no such thing as absolute truth,” ask them: Are you absolutely sure? The concept that each observer creates his own reality is not scientific, but religious! It is a fundamental part of Eastern philosophy (e.g., Hinduism), which assumes without proof that there is no personal God who determines truth.

11  2007 by David A. Prentice WHERE DID SCIENCE COME FROM? Eastern Religions 1. The physical universe is an illusion. 1. The physical universe is an illusion. RESULT: There is no point in studying nature. RESULT: There is no point in studying nature. 2. There is no such thing as objective reality. 2. There is no such thing as objective reality. 3. Because of this, it is not possible to accu- rately measure the uni- verse or know things about it with certainty. 3. Because of this, it is not possible to accu- rately measure the uni- verse or know things about it with certainty. Western Religions RESULT: The Scientific Method. RESULT: The Scientific Method. 1. The physical universe is real. 1. The physical universe is real. 2. There is such a thing as objective reality. 2. There is such a thing as objective reality. 3. It is possible to accu- rately measure the uni- verse and know things about it with varying degrees of certainty. 3. It is possible to accu- rately measure the uni- verse and know things about it with varying degrees of certainty. Science owes its very existence to Western religious belief. Science owes its very existence to Western religious belief.

12  2007 by David A. Prentice Though Eastern religions say the universe is just an illusion, those who claim to believe those religions still look both ways before they cross the street. They know those cars are really real! Though Eastern religions say the universe is just an illusion, those who claim to believe those religions still look both ways before they cross the street. They know those cars are really real!

13  2007 by David A. Prentice EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATION ARE RELIGION WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK: BUT EXACTLY WHAT DO THE WORDS “CREATION” AND “EVOLUTION” IMPLY? BUT EXACTLY WHAT DO THE WORDS “CREATION” AND “EVOLUTION” IMPLY?

14  2007 by David A. Prentice T I M E EVOLUTION: Initial Disorganization with later increase in complexity and unlimited diversification. EVOLUTION: Initial Disorganization with later increase in complexity and unlimited diversification. Evolutionary “Tree” All life came from one simple cell Not just change, but change in the direction of increasing complexity.

15  2007 by David A. Prentice 2 GENERAL MODELS OF EVOLUTION: Materialistic (Atheistic) Evolution Everything evolved by purely natural processes Theistic Evolution God used evolution as His method of creating 2 Specific Models About Evolution of Living Things: 2 Specific Models About Evolution of Living Things: Neo-Darwinism: Evolution occurred slowly and gradually. Many have abandoned this belief because of the fossil evidence. Punctuated Equilibria: Evolution occurred in sudden jumps. The biological evidence against this belief is overwhelming.

16  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. In science, the word “Theory” is a very powerful term. It means that an idea has been tested over and over and has never failed a single test. Calling an idea a Theory is a high compliment. 2. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it is impossible to test! It is a HYPOTHESIS instead. There is no way we could perform an exper- iment to make apes evolve into humans. Likewise, the “big bang” is not testable. It relies on computer models rather than experimentation. It, too, is a hypothesis rather than a theory. BIG MISTAKE: saying “Evolution is only a theory.” BIG MISTAKE: saying “Evolution is only a theory.”

17  2007 by David A. Prentice TIMETIME CREATION: Creationist “Forest” All life came from multiple complex ancestors. Initial Complexity with later deterioration and diversification within limits with later deterioration and diversification within limits Not just change, but change in the direction of decreasing complexity. Not just change, but change in the direction of decreasing complexity.

18  2007 by David A. Prentice 3 VARIATIONS OF CREATION: Recent Rapid Creation (perhaps within the last 10,000 years) The Gap Theory (creation and ruin in the distant past, recent re-creation) Progressive Creation or the “Day- Age” Theory (creation spread out over billions of years -- really a theistic version of Punctuated Equilibria evolution) All are forms of Intelligent Design.

19  2007 by David A. Prentice CONTRAST OF BASIC MODELS: CREATION: Initial Complexity with later deterioration and diversification within limits (complex to simple) EVOLUTION: Initial Disorganization with later increase in complexity and unlimited diversification (simple to complex)

20  2007 by David A. Prentice CAN SCIENCE (AND SCIENTISTS) ALLOW US TO KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, EARTH, AND LIFE?

21  2007 by David A. Prentice REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW” REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW” IS IT BECAUSE: (1) They claim to have personal experience, OR OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing? OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing? (2) They appeal to an authority we trust, OR (3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy? (3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy?

22  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. No living person has personal experience. 2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY. 1. No living person has personal experience. 2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY. THE PREHISTORIC PAST

23  2007 by David A. Prentice A FALSE CHALLENGE TO CREATIONISM “There is no evidence for creation.” Such a statement shows a misunderstanding of what evidence is. Evidence is not “for” one side or the other.  In a court of law, the prosecution and the defense refer to the same evidence – they just interpret it differently.  Likewise, both sides in the creation/evolution controversy use the same evidence, whether it be pieces of bone, rock strata, or the light from distant stars. We just interpret it differently.

24  2007 by David A. Prentice Both sides look at the same evi- dence… Both sides look at the same evi- dence… We just start with different logical premises to interpret it. We just start with different logical premises to interpret it.

25  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. INDUCTIVE. 2. DEDUCTIVE. THE TWO TYPES OF LOGIC Look at many phenomena and try to discover a pattern that points to a general principle. Inductive logic tries to determine the most reasonable (most likely) conclusion. This is the heart of the scientific method. Start with general principles accepted as true and apply them to specific cases. Deductive logic tries to establish absolute truth, i.e., the conclusion MUST be true. This is the basis of mathematics, NOT science.

26  2007 by David A. Prentice CONTRASTING LOGIC The conclusions of inductive logic result from examination of observable phenomena (a posteriori). They are testable. The premises of deductive logic may come from inductive conclusions, or they may just be statements accepted as self-evident (a priori). They are not necessarily the result of testing.

27  2007 by David A. Prentice Based on the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks, who believed that logic always leads to truth. Testing was unimportant to them. Based on the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks, who believed that logic always leads to truth. Testing was unimportant to them. SCIENCE” UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES: Most famous Greek philosopher: Aristotle (inventor of the logic still used today), whose ideas were taught as fact for about 2,000 years throughout Europe, west Asia, and Africa. Most famous Greek philosopher: Aristotle (inventor of the logic still used today), whose ideas were taught as fact for about 2,000 years throughout Europe, west Asia, and Africa.

28  2007 by David A. Prentice “Scientific” ideas of Aristotle TAUGHT AS FACT in European Universities for 2000 YEARS: 1. The earth is the center of the solar system. Falsified by Copernicus. 1. The earth is the center of the solar system. Falsified by Copernicus. EXAMPLES OF INCORRECT CONCLU- SIONS BASED ON FAULTY LOGIC 2. Heavier objects fall faster. Falsified by Galileo. 2. Heavier objects fall faster. Falsified by Galileo. 3. All objects possess an innate tendency to come to rest. Falsified by Newton. 3. All objects possess an innate tendency to come to rest. Falsified by Newton.

29  2007 by David A. Prentice ARISTOTLE’S MOST BASIC MISTAKE IN LOGIC: 1. He reasoned that if the stars were different distances, they should display parallax. 3. Therefore he decided “If I cannot see parallax then it does not exist.” 2. He could not detect any parallax. Assuming there was no parallax led him to be wrong about EVERYTHING ELSE!

30  2007 by David A. Prentice If I am at Mount Everest, then I am at the highest mountain in the world. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If I am at the highest mountain in the world, then I am at Mount Everest. ALSO TRUE. A converse is ONLY reliable if there is an exact one-to-one match between the “If” and “Then” parts. Common Errors in Logic: Converses

31  2007 by David A. Prentice If I am at Victoria Falls, then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world, then I am at Victoria Falls. FALSE. Common Errors in Logic: Converses

32  2007 by David A. Prentice PROPER LOGIC FLOW AT ONE OF THE LARGEST WATERFALLS IF AT VICTORIA FALLS IF AT NIAGARA FALLS IF AT ANGEL FALLS IF AT OTHER LARGE WATER- FALL IF AT KAIETEUR FALLS

33  2007 by David A. Prentice If evolution is true, then the universe and life would exist. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If the universe and life exist, then evolution is true. FALSE. All teaching of “evolution only” in schools rests on the invalid use of a logical converse. All teaching of “evolution only” in schools rests on the invalid use of a logical converse. If I am at Victoria Falls, then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world, then I am at Victoria Falls. FALSE. Common Errors in Logic: Converses

34  2007 by David A. Prentice UNIVERSE EXISTS ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT THEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT YOUNG-EARTH CREATION CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSE OLD-EARTH CREATION CORRECT

35  2007 by David A. Prentice EVEN WITH CORRECT LOGIC, FALSE PREMISES CAN LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. All dogs bark. (Or, “If an animal is a dog, then it barks.”) Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido barks. Not if Fido is a Basenji! Not if Fido is a Basenji! Basenjis do not bark. Basenjis do not bark. If any one of our premises is wrong, then our conclusion is unreliable.

36  2007 by David A. Prentice if P then Q To represent a syllogism graphically, anything inside the inner circle (“if”) is automatically inside the outer circle (“then”). To represent a syllogism graphically, anything inside the inner circle (“if”) is automatically inside the outer circle (“then”). if live in New Orleans live in La. live in U.S. live on earth Syllogisms can also be chained (transitive logic). Syllogisms can also be chained (transitive logic). DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND SYLLOGISMS If P is true, then Q is true. (Major premise) P is true. (Minor premise) Therefore, Q is true. (Conclusion)

37  2007 by David A. Prentice POSTULATES - Premises that are taken as self-evident and accepted without proof. Euclid’s Parallel Line Postulate says that for any line, there can be only one parallel line through a point not on the first line. First line Point not on the first line Only one parallel line BUT IS IT REALLY SELF-EVIDENT? Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometry say that space is curved, so there is no such thing as an infinitely long straight line in the sense that we understand “straight.” BUT IS IT REALLY SELF-EVIDENT? Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometry say that space is curved, so there is no such thing as an infinitely long straight line in the sense that we understand “straight.” One says space is positively curved, so there are an infinite number of parallel lines through a point not on a line. The other says space is negatively curved, so there are no parallel lines. All lines intersect at infinity. EACH OF THE THREE IS THE BASIS OF A DIFFERENT VERSION OF GEOMETRY, BUT NONE CAN BE PROVEN. EACH OF THE THREE IS THE BASIS OF A DIFFERENT VERSION OF GEOMETRY, BUT NONE CAN BE PROVEN.

38  2007 by David A. Prentice IT TAKES ONLY ONE COUNTEREXAMPLE TO DISPROVE A PREMISE. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

39  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. Known as either NATURALISM, MATERIALISM, or ATHEISM. 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God has had little involvement with nature. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. This is as far as Intelligent Design goes; Creation specifies that the intelligence is God. CREATION: EVOLUTION:

40  2007 by David A. Prentice EVERYTHING must be explainable by PURELY NATURAL PROCESSES. (If something is a physical phenomenon, then it must have a physical cause.) THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF EVOLUTION: But what if evolutionists find something that is NOT explainable by natural processes? Sure it is -- they just make up an expla- nation! And since they are smart enough to make up a clever story, therefore their story must be true.

41  2007 by David A. Prentice EVOLUTION: Natural Processes Only! "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature magazine, Sept “... the theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p.233

42  2007 by David A. Prentice EVOLUTION: Natural Processes Only! "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories*, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 * A reference to Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book “Just-So Stories”

43  2007 by David A. Prentice NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS GOD 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. GOD 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT.

44  2007 by David A. Prentice What if there is no God? Then the universe would have to be the result of a series of forces, processes, and events operating with no particular purpose for billions of years. We could call the whole series “evolution,” “quantum fluctuation,” or “accident.” Let’s use the term “Random Chance,” with the understanding that it represents the whole multibillion year series of forces, processes, and events. What characteristics would Random Chance have to have? What if there is no God? Then the universe would have to be the result of a series of forces, processes, and events operating with no particular purpose for billions of years. We could call the whole series “evolution,” “quantum fluctuation,” or “accident.” Let’s use the term “Random Chance,” with the understanding that it represents the whole multibillion year series of forces, processes, and events. What characteristics would Random Chance have to have? IF THERE IS NO GOD, THEN WHAT?

45  2007 by David A. Prentice NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS GOD 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. GOD 1. Only seen by what He does - INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELF- EXISTENT. RANDOM CHANCE 1. Only seen by what it does - INVISIBLE. RANDOM CHANCE 1. Only seen by what it does - INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws - SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 3. Preceded the universe - ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsi- ble for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made it - SELF- EXISTENT. 6. Nobody made it - SELF- EXISTENT. It is logically necessary to believe in SOME sort of God-like entity.

46  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God has had little involvement with nature. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. CREATION: EVOLUTION:

47  2007 by David A. Prentice ARE THERE LIMITS TO SCIENCE? Imagine a scientist who decides to learn what’s in the ocean. He makes a net 100 feet in diameter, with holes 2 inches across. He attaches the net to a 1 mile long rope, then repeatedly drops it into the deep ocean from a ship. Imagine a scientist who decides to learn what’s in the ocean. He makes a net 100 feet in diameter, with holes 2 inches across. He attaches the net to a 1 mile long rope, then repeatedly drops it into the deep ocean from a ship. His conclusion: EVERYTHING IN THE OCEAN IS AT LEAST 2 INCHES LONG AND HAS FINS. (If my net can’t catch it, it doesn’t exist.) His conclusion: EVERYTHING IN THE OCEAN IS AT LEAST 2 INCHES LONG AND HAS FINS. (If my net can’t catch it, it doesn’t exist.) His critics say, “You may be fishing in the wrong place, with the wrong net. There may be things in the ocean you can’t catch that way.” His critics say, “You may be fishing in the wrong place, with the wrong net. There may be things in the ocean you can’t catch that way.” His reply: “You’re being superstitious. All the scientific observation shows that I’m right.” His reply: “You’re being superstitious. All the scientific observation shows that I’m right.” He cannot prove that he is right (a universal negative), but the critics only need to produce one specimen to show that he is wrong. Their response: “You’re placing all your faith in your net and your choice of location.” Their response: “You’re placing all your faith in your net and your choice of location.”

48  2007 by David A. Prentice NO POSSIBILITY BUT EVOLUTION! “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery," by Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winner for co-discovery of the structure of DNA) In other words, “Our minds are made up. Don’t try to confuse us with the facts.” In other words, “Our minds are made up. Don’t try to confuse us with the facts.”

49  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. 3. Since evolution has never been seen in human history, it must be very slow. The universe and earth have to be billions of years old. 3. Creation does not automatically require a specific age. a. Recent Creation: The earth is prob- ably less than 10,000 years old. b. Gap Theory & Progressive Creation: Because evolutionists must know what they are talking about, the earth has to be billions of years old. 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God has had little involvement with nature. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. CREATION: EVOLUTION:

50  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. CREATION: EVOLUTION:

51  2007 by David A. Prentice THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION: Uniformitarianism. This is the UNPROVABLE geological assumption that everything happens by slow, gradual, uniform processes. (“The present is the key to the past.”) There can never have been a worldwide flood. THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION: Uniformitarianism. This is the UNPROVABLE geological assumption that everything happens by slow, gradual, uniform processes. (“The present is the key to the past.”) There can never have been a worldwide flood. The Bible warns us: First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation. They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. (2 Peter 3:3-7 RSV)

52  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: CREATION: LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance. 5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design. 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood.

53  2007 by David A. Prentice DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON ANCESTRY? DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON ANCESTRY?

54  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. EVOLUTION: CREATION: 5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance. 5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design. 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. 6. Scientists are the final authority in everything. Which scientists? The ones that agree with you! (At least until they change their minds next week.) 6. Authority. a. Recent Creation: The Bible is the final authority in everything. b. Gap Theory: The Bible is the final authority on most things, except the age of the earth and the origin of death. c. Progressive Creation: The Bible is the final authority only on some spiritual matters.

55  2007 by David A. Prentice REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW” REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW” IS IT BECAUSE: (1) They claim to have personal experience, OR OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing? OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing? (2) They appeal to an authority we trust, OR (3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy? (3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy?

56  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. No living person has personal experience. 2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY. 1. No living person has personal experience. 2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY. THE PREHISTORIC PAST But if any one of our premises is wrong, our logic is unreliable! But if any one of our premises is wrong, our logic is unreliable!

57  2007 by David A. Prentice SUMMARY OF BASIC PREMISES EITHER SET OF PREMISES MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. EVOLUTION: CREATION: 2. Impossibility of any process besides evolution. 2. Possibility of other processes besides evolution. 1. Possibility of supernatural involvement. 1. Impossibility of supernatural involvement. Natural processes only. 3. Earth must be billions of years old. 3. Earth could be any age. 4. Impossibility of a worldwide flood. 4. Possibility of a worldwide flood. 5. Impossibility of design. Similarities must be due to common ancestry or accident. 5. Similarities may be due to common design. 6. Scientists are the final authority in our knowledge of nature. 6. God is the final authority in everything. WHICH MAKES MORE SENSE TO YOU?

58  2007 by David A. Prentice IS IT LOGICAL TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION? IF man evolved from apes, your brain evolved from an ape brain. IF man evolved from apes, your brain evolved from an ape brain. IF your brain evolved from an ape brain, your logic evolved from ape logic. IF your brain evolved from an ape brain, your logic evolved from ape logic. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT EVOLVED RIGHT? Maybe you’re not even asking the right questions! HOW DO YOU KNOW IT EVOLVED RIGHT? Maybe you’re not even asking the right questions! Evolution is only logical if you are a modified ape.

59  2007 by David A. Prentice APE WISDOM What is the meaning of bananas?

60  2007 by David A. Prentice How can you be absolutely sure about ANYTHING? 1. While your senses are at least somewhat reliable, there is always some uncertainty. The only way to reach absolute certainty would be if you had an absolutely reliable authority to TELL you what’s really true. Absolute certainty could only come from God, not science. 2. Logic can lead to incorrect conclusions. 3. Your intuition can be wrong.

61  2007 by David A. Prentice CONCLUSION Despite what courts say, evolution and creation/intelligent design are both logical systems based on unprovable assumptions. Teaching made-up stories that depend on the absence of intelligent design is no more scientific, or less religious, than teaching alternatives that depend on the presence of intelligent design. Despite what courts say, evolution and creation/intelligent design are both logical systems based on unprovable assumptions. Teaching made-up stories that depend on the absence of intelligent design is no more scientific, or less religious, than teaching alternatives that depend on the presence of intelligent design.

62  2007 by David A. Prentice WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK: Evolution is science... Creation is religion. Not true. There are religious and scientific aspects to both creation and evolution.

63  2007 by David A. Prentice THINGS WE CAN TEST SCIENTIFICALLY: 1. Overall trends and tend- encies in nature. 2. Observable processes. 3. Processes and events that left direct evidence. THINGS WE CAN’T: 1.Who or what started the universe, and was there a motive? 2. Morality and meaning. 3. Specific details: the names of the first humans, what they wore, what they liked to eat, etc.

64  2007 by David A. Prentice HOW TO SET UP MODELS Use the basic ideas of Initial Disorganization versus Initial Complexity to make predictions in as many areas as possible: Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, Paleontology, Geology, etc. Whichever set of predictions better fits what we observe is much more likely to be correct.

65  2007 by David A. Prentice Big Bang Steady State THERMODYNAMICS - 1st LawPREDICTDENYDENY 2nd LawPREDICTDENYDENY INERTIA PREDICTDENYN/A Neo-Darwinism Punct. Equil. FOSSIL RECORD Clearcut systematic PREDICTDENYPREDICT gaps GENETICS Variation only within PREDICTDENYDENY limits Mutations destructivePREDICTDENYDENY Reproduction only of PREDICTDENYDENY same kind Life only from lifePREDICTDENYDENY VESTIGIAL ORGANS FEW OR NONEMANYMANY EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION DENYPREDICTPREDICT CREATION EVOLUTION CREATION EVOLUTION PREDICTIONS OF CREATION AND EVOLUTION

66  2007 by David A. Prentice THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1.Define the problem. What do you want to know? (E.g. “Does music affect how plants grow?”) 2. Gather information about the subject. (AUTHORITY) 3. Formulate a hypothesis. 4. Devise an experiment to test the hypothesis. 5. Observe the results of the test. (EXPERIENCE) 6. Draw a conclusion (INDUCTIVE LOGIC) and report your results so others can repeat the test.

67  2007 by David A. Prentice Present + Repeatable + Observable = SCIENCE Past + Non-Repeatable + Eyewitness Account = HISTORY Past + Non-Repeatable + No Eyewitnesses = BELIEF

68  2007 by David A. Prentice How Scientific Knowledge Increases 1. Start with a problem or question. 2. Formulate a hypothesis. 3. Test the hypothesis by experimentation, following the scientific method. 4. If your hypothesis is falsified, you learned something! 5. If your hypothesis seems to be confirmed, report your results (in a peer-reviewed journal) so others can repeat the test and check your work. But what if you can’t do experiments?

69  2007 by David A. Prentice SETTING UP MODELS OF THE UNOBSERVABLE IF YOU WERE BLIND: Would you think an elephant was like a wall, a spear, a snake, a tree, a fan, or a rope? Would you think an elephant was like a wall, a spear, a snake, a tree, a fan, or a rope?

70  2007 by David A. Prentice A Model is used to help us a get a mental picture of something that cannot be directly observed because it is: A Model is used to help us a get a mental picture of something that cannot be directly observed because it is: Too fast or too slow Too big or too small Too far away Past or future etc. Too fast or too slow Too big or too small Too far away Past or future etc. A model is not necessarily testable. Both evolution and creation are models or hypotheses – NOT theories. A model is not necessarily testable. Both evolution and creation are models or hypotheses – NOT theories.

71  2007 by David A. Prentice LAWS OF SCIENCE: Gravity, thermodynamics, planetary motion, etc. 1. Derived from observation. If exceptions ever observed, the law must be corrected. 2. Accurately predict the behavior of the systems they describe. 3. Can often be expressed mathematically. tells us how strong the force of gravity is, but doesn’t tell us why gravity exists in the first place. A law of science simply describes what happens, without trying to explain why it happens. For instance, the law of gravity A law of science simply describes what happens, without trying to explain why it happens. For instance, the law of gravity F grav = G m 1 m 2 d2d2

72  2007 by David A. Prentice SUMMARYSUMMARY A HYPOTHESIS is a tentative explanation for something observed in nature. A THEORY is a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested by many experiments. It is an attempt to explain WHY something happens. A LAW has also been tested by many experiments (usually for many years). It describes WHAT happens, without trying to say WHY it happens. A MODEL is a description, object, drawing, set of equations, etc. that helps us get a mental picture of something we cannot directly observe.

73  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. In science, the word “Theory” is a very powerful term. It means that an idea has been tested over and over and has never failed a single test. Calling an idea a Theory is a high compliment. 2. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it is impossible to test! It is a HYPOTHESIS instead. There is no way we could perform an exper- iment to make apes evolve into humans. Likewise, the “big bang” is not testable. It relies on computer models rather than experimentation. It, too, is a hypothesis rather than a theory. BIG MISTAKE: saying “Evolution is only a theory.” BIG MISTAKE: saying “Evolution is only a theory.”

74  2007 by David A. Prentice Why Neither Creation Nor Evolution Qualifies as a Law of Science or a Scientific Theory: 1. Neither has ever been observed. 2. Neither enables us to make accurate predictions about SPECIFIC future events. 3. There is no way to perform experiments to test what might have happened in the prehistoric past. 4. Either idea can be modified to account for any possible observation. Neither is falsifiable. Creation and Evolution should be considered models or hypotheses to guide future investigation. Creation and Evolution should be considered models or hypotheses to guide future investigation.

75  2007 by David A. Prentice WHO? WHAT? WHAT NOT? HOW? GOD? HOW TO TELL SCIENCE FROM STORYTELLING 1.WHO said they saw it? Can I trust them? 2. WHAT did they actually see? 3. WHAT are they NOT telling me? 4. HOW could I test this to see if it’s true? 5. What does GOD have to say about it? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

76  2007 by David A. Prentice For more information, contact David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. or For more information, contact David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. or

77  2007 by David A. Prentice


Download ppt " 2007 by David A. Prentice LOGIC AND SCIENCE IN THE STUDY OF ORIGINS By David A. Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google