1
Noah's Flood / Re: Why Does The Fossil Record Contain So Many Extinct Species?
« on: September 16, 2018, 09:44:01 PM »
Faith & LXX, I was listening to the BRT playlist of Dr. Terry Mortensen (PhD, History of Geology), when I recalled your conversation about seminaries teaching evolution. The lecture, titled "Millions of Years", provides a history of the transformation of traditional Christian doctrine into conformity with the doctrines of mere men.
Dan,
Thanks for the making us aware of these lectures. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Mortenson's argument in this segment:
"So it's not comparing Scripture with Scripture that determines the meaning of the text; it's geology. My question is, how do they know what responsible geology is? What they're basically saying is the geological majority is what determines what the text means.
But what if we said, ultimately it's the scientific community that determines whether or not Jesus physically rose from the dead? Because, of course, the whole scientific community would say that dead men don't rise. Dead men stay dead! So, we can't believe in the historical resurrection?"
But what if we said, ultimately it's the scientific community that determines whether or not Jesus physically rose from the dead? Because, of course, the whole scientific community would say that dead men don't rise. Dead men stay dead! So, we can't believe in the historical resurrection?"
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eP_oGTZ4K4&index=9&list=PLrCQerz2L0IcfH6a9OX2JgG4hX4XEBJ6R&t=12m33s
The consensus (the "geological majority" in this case) does not determine what is science, nor is it even relevant, according to Michael Crichton:
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." [Michael Crichton, "Aliens Cause Global Warming." Wall Street Journal, [Updated 2008], 2003]
Jackie