Assumptions
Being a rather ardent creationist I’ve begun looking more closely at what the materialist actually believe. Now you might think that this was pretty well known given the fact that public schools teach evolution and materialist causes with a vengeance, but you’d be wrong. While most people think that science has proven these things when you dig a little deeper you’ll find a philosophical assumption at the base of all materialist teachings. Know too they deliberately try to keep these problems from becoming common knowledge. Question any proof of darwinian theory, even those that have been discarded by materialist themselves, and you'd better be ready for a fight.
The Big Bang, hereafter on this blog BB, is built on a foundation of assumptions. It assumes a centerless, boundryless, and homogeneous universe. This however is unproven, and indeed a needless complicating of actual observations. This is done on the basis of "The Copernican Principle". The problem is Copernicus never made this claim, indeed he never addressed anything beyond our solar system. It also assumes either matter/energy was self-generating or eternal. This of course is not proven either. These claims are not falsifiable, and as such are not really science.
Evolution assumes that only material causes can be invoked. But this is not derived from an observation, it’s a given. It also assumes a mechanism for information to generate itself by random events selected by nature. The problem is that nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Information does not arise on its own; it must be created by intelligence. When someone claims, "one must remind themselves that what they see was not designed even though it appears that way" then you know you’re not dealing with science but with philosophy.
Geologists assume that the features we see arose gradually, but when we observe nature the geological formations we see are usually formed by catastrophic events. The story goes that the Grand Canyon was formed by water running through the canyon for millions of years and forming layer upon layer of sediment. Yet when we look at the events of Mt. Saint Helens we see 30 foot embankments of layered sedimentary deposits which formed in about six hours. Another questionable method they use to date formations is radioisotope dating of the rocks in the formation. Here again the process is based on assumptions of the beginning levels, steady rates of decay, ect. Also the various methods give widely varying results, and when you scratch the surface you find that they simply discard results which they don’t like.
So when someone claims that the materialist view is "rational" and the theist view is superstition understand that they are not expressing a rational view, but instead are doing so for philosophical reasons. The materialist views are needlessly complicated and counter intuitive. It is a longer leap of faith to believe in a view that violates its own rules than in one directed by a Being with intelligence. The fact of the matter is that materialism is no more founded in proof than deism, and requires far more faith than a Christian has to muster.
The Big Bang, hereafter on this blog BB, is built on a foundation of assumptions. It assumes a centerless, boundryless, and homogeneous universe. This however is unproven, and indeed a needless complicating of actual observations. This is done on the basis of "The Copernican Principle". The problem is Copernicus never made this claim, indeed he never addressed anything beyond our solar system. It also assumes either matter/energy was self-generating or eternal. This of course is not proven either. These claims are not falsifiable, and as such are not really science.
Evolution assumes that only material causes can be invoked. But this is not derived from an observation, it’s a given. It also assumes a mechanism for information to generate itself by random events selected by nature. The problem is that nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Information does not arise on its own; it must be created by intelligence. When someone claims, "one must remind themselves that what they see was not designed even though it appears that way" then you know you’re not dealing with science but with philosophy.
Geologists assume that the features we see arose gradually, but when we observe nature the geological formations we see are usually formed by catastrophic events. The story goes that the Grand Canyon was formed by water running through the canyon for millions of years and forming layer upon layer of sediment. Yet when we look at the events of Mt. Saint Helens we see 30 foot embankments of layered sedimentary deposits which formed in about six hours. Another questionable method they use to date formations is radioisotope dating of the rocks in the formation. Here again the process is based on assumptions of the beginning levels, steady rates of decay, ect. Also the various methods give widely varying results, and when you scratch the surface you find that they simply discard results which they don’t like.
So when someone claims that the materialist view is "rational" and the theist view is superstition understand that they are not expressing a rational view, but instead are doing so for philosophical reasons. The materialist views are needlessly complicated and counter intuitive. It is a longer leap of faith to believe in a view that violates its own rules than in one directed by a Being with intelligence. The fact of the matter is that materialism is no more founded in proof than deism, and requires far more faith than a Christian has to muster.
posted by eklektos | 3:41 PM
<< Home