This is the second article by Clifford Goldstein that we’ve written about. He’s the editor of something called the Adult Bible Study Guide. Like his earlier article — see Seventh-Day Adventists and Galileo — this one appears in Adventist Review Online, which describes itself as “the web site of the Adventist Review magazine. In print for more than 150 years, the Adventist Review is the flagship journal of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
Clifford’s latest is titled Why Science Gets Origins So Wrong. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Why does science, which gets so much “right,” get so much wrong about origins? It’s because of two principles upon which science works and, probably, couldn’t function without.
And what are those two troublesome principles? Clifford says:
The first is that science, which studies the natural world, must look only to the natural world for answers. This notion, hundreds maybe even thousands of years old, asserts that we should not resort to supernatural causes to explain natural effects. Biologists must not explain, for instance, the extremely complicated process of blood clot formation by attributing the enzyme cascade to divine intervention. Science would not, could not, progress if everything, or anything, not understood were explained away as supernatural meddling.
That’s not an arbitrary whim of science. It’s unavoidable, because science has no way to research supernatural phenomena. We’ve discussed that before — see Bring Me An Angel Detector! Here’s Clifford’s other problem with science:
The second principle is that the laws of nature must remain constant. All things being equal (which they rarely are), what a law does today it did yesterday, and will do tomorrow, and any variations result from another law-like pattern that itself resulted from another law-like pattern, and on and on.
Clumsily expressed, but true. There’s no evidence that the laws of nature change. If they were changeable, the universe would be chaotic and science would be impossible. Clifford continues:
However reasonable and fruitful, both principles are philosophical assumptions, not itself problematic (science was called “natural philosophy” longer than it has been called “science”), except that both assumptions happen to be false.
This should be good. He tells us:
Take the first one, which requires [he probably meant “rejects”] supernatural causes for natural events. That’s fine for hurricane tracking or for analysis of whooping crane endocrinology. But it is worse than worthless for origins that start out with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), and from there unpack a display of supernaturalism that so spectacularly transcends the thought patterns of minds (like ours) suffused with naturalism that many deny the biblical account because they can’t conceive of it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Science must be wrong if it rejects the supernatural creation account in Genesis. Let’s read on:
And the constancy of nature? Makes sense, except that [biblical quote about the sin of Adam & Eve] presupposes a natural environment discontinuous, and qualitatively different, from anything that science now confronts.
To learn about the origins of life by studying what is here now — thousands of years after the physical changes brought by Adam’s fall (Gen. 3:17-19), Cain’s sin (Gen. 4:12), and Noah’s worldwide flood (Gen. 6-10) — would be like studying streetwalkers in Paris to learn the origins of human sexuality. [Great analogy!] Science as now constituted denies that the kind of environment depicted in Genesis 1-2 even existed; thus, how much could it teach us about that environment?
He’s right. Those rules of science make it incompatible with The Truth™ of the bible. Another excerpt:
Hence, our conundrum: two principles upon which science works are false, at least when it comes to origins (though one could argue, justifiably from a biblical perspective, that the first principle [denial of the supernatural] is false even with the present world because, at the core, God alone sustains physical reality [scripture references].
Scientists are fools! Here’s more
No wonder science gets creation wrong. It denies two crucial aspects of creation: the supernatural force behind it, and the radical physical discontinuity between original creation and what’s before us now.
He keeps saying the same thing over and over again. Anyway, here’s the end:
Science doesn’t just miss the mark, kind of; it goes disastrously astray. Yet, considering the two assumptions from which it works (and that’s all they are, assumptions), what else could it do regarding origins but go not just wrong, but so wrong?
So there you are, dear reader. Now you understand everything.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.