Does the JWST support Creation?

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Michael17, Science is about postulates and theories based, respectively, on contingent interpretations of observations, and on the latest and most verifiable evidence. This is also how the science of medicine works; In the long run, in spite of previous beliefs and incorrectly purported proofs, demonstrably successful treatments of ailments and preventions of diseases become increasingly common, but it requires time and perseverance.

I.e., unlike sacred scripture, scientific documentation and practices are not expected to have divine or unquestionable perfection. Scientific doctrines are maintained for the sake of universal consistency as much as possible, but with the humble admission that new discoveries and improvements must be perpetually sought and verified.

There was a day when we didn’t have vaccines, antibiotics, heart surgery… but we kept on improving in spite of mistakes and imperfections. Science is like a rough sculpture that requires increasingly fine chiseling to increasingly approach perfection, whether it’s currently far from or near to perfection.

Revered scripture is the complete opposite, where humans claim that what they’ve written is the perfect, unquestionable word of an unquestionably divine source. The presumption of perfection in scripture originates in the imagination of its only-human authors.

As for wondering how dependable is a belief in science, where its doctrines are updated so often? Newton defined physical laws that were useful enough to fly rockets to the moon and back. While those laws were later amendable by finer observations, e.g. as per Einstein, and e.g. quantum physics. Same is true for astronomy, and cosmology. While charlatans like Chopra see opportunities to customize their depictions of reality according to recent scientific discoveries, scientists are more concerned with verifying or disproving each others work, time after time, until more and more knowledge can bring more and more reality into accurate focus. Perfection is a nice target, never actually achieved, but inexorably gotten closer to over time.

One thing we can agree on is how imperfect humans are, while we keep aiming for perfection. Actual perfection will only ever exist in fictional works (e.g. various scriptures), and in our hopes and dreams. As soon as we can finally explain the appearance of those 700 million year old galaxies, we’ll have ten more baffling questions to address. Books of scientific knowledge will keep getting bigger, and broader, in spite of past and present imperfections and misunderstandings.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Thanks Pope,

That was amusing for me. Pretty accurate too. Only one aspect majorly off in its analysis.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

PopeBeanie,

Apologies on the misspelling of “Randee of the Redwoods.”. It has been a while since I watched him myself, but Jake’s speaking-in-tongues in a wilderness-like setting on YouTube did bring back the memory almost completely. 😁

[PopeBeanieModerator]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Apologies on the misspelling of “Randee of the Redwoods.

NP. IMO typos are insignificant IRL. I even catch myself mixing up their they’re and there, strangely only in quick, shorthand texting mediums. YMMV. Some language perfectionists must feel uncomfortably challenged by these episodes of cultural evolution.

Michael17, I’ll write less this time… it’s just that the difference between science and religion is so notable, in this topic. Obviously the Discovery Institute is on top of Creationist-compatible narratives, including wrt JWST.

I can sometimes even hypothetically presume that God’s behind physics. E.g. “His Physics” led to universal constants and dynamics that make scientists wonder if there are other universes in a multiverse that could never be conducive to the biogenesis and evolution of life. But these hypotheticals pretty much never produce great science, even as committed to selling Creationism as the DI is. If most humans could learn as much real science as DI can consistently lay on the table in support of Creationism, I’d consider that a good intro to real science, as long as those DI consumers can keep earnestly watching for inevitable, new scientific discoveries. I predict that in a sense, DI is digging its own grave.

While even if God made all of it happen, scientists can still only rely on scientific methods to discover how He did it. Fallible-human written scriptures certainly couldn’t spell it out.

[michael17Participant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Michael17, Science is about postulates and theories based, respectively, on contingent interpretations of observations, and on the latest and most verifiable evidence. This is also how the science of medicine works; In the long run, in spite of previous beliefs and incorrectly purported proofs, demonstrably successful treatments of ailments and preventions of diseases become increasingly common, but it requires time and perseverance. I.e., unlike sacred scripture, scientific documentation and practices are not expected to have divine or unquestionable perfection. Scientific doctrines are maintained for the sake of universal consistency as much as possible, but with the humble admission that new discoveries and improvements must be perpetually sought and verified. There was a day when we didn’t have vaccines, antibiotics, heart surgery… but we kept on improving in spite of mistakes and imperfections. Science is like a rough sculpture that requires increasingly fine chiseling to increasingly approach perfection, whether it’s currently far from or near to perfection. Revered scripture is the complete opposite, where humans claim that what they’ve written is the perfect, unquestionable word of an unquestionably divine source. The presumption of perfection in scripture originates in the imagination of its only-human authors. As for wondering how dependable is a belief in science, where its doctrines are updated so often? Newton defined physical laws that were useful enough to fly rockets to the moon and back. While those laws were later amendable by finer observations, e.g. as per Einstein, and e.g. quantum physics. Same is true for astronomy, and cosmology. While charlatans like Chopra see opportunities to customize their depictions of reality according to recent scientific discoveries, scientists are more concerned with verifying or disproving each others work, time after time, until more and more knowledge can bring more and more reality into accurate focus. Perfection is a nice target, never actually achieved, but inexorably gotten closer to over time. One thing we can agree on is how imperfect humans are, while we keep aiming for perfection. Actual perfection will only ever exist in fictional works (e.g. various scriptures), and in our hopes and dreams. As soon as we can finally explain the appearance of those 700 million year old galaxies, we’ll have ten more baffling questions to address. Books of scientific knowledge will keep getting bigger, and broader, in spite of past and present imperfections and misunderstandings.

A well written essay, but I’m still rooting for it to be evidence of creation :). Galaxy created  perfectly as they are, foregoing billions of years of galactic evolution. “He spoke and it was done, he commanded and it stoodfast”

• This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.

[TJParticipant]

More accurately,  scientific discoveries can be presented agnotologically.

This typically results in incorrect interpretation of the data, for the express purpose of misrepresenting it.

The purpose of misrepresenting the data, is typically driven by no credible data being available to use instead.

So, finding that stars formed in better accordance with faster models than with slower models,  after building a telescope designed to be able to test the faster and slower models…

… in no way shape or form supports creationism.

😀

 

[michael17Participant]

TJ wrote:

More accurately, scientific discoveries can be presented agnotologically. This typically results in incorrect interpretation of the data, for the express purpose of misrepresenting it. The purpose of misrepresenting the data, is typically driven by no credible data being available to use instead. So, finding that stars formed in better accordance with faster models than with slower models, after building a telescope designed to be able to test the faster and slower models… … in no way shape or form supports creationism. 😀

There are no faster models, moreover the galaxies have been found 400-600 millions years after the Big Bang that are larger than the Milky Way with stars that are at least 1 billion years old, predating the Big Bang itself.  If that is not a conundrum enough, galaxies that are 13 billion light years away suppose to be red shifted and appear larger than proximal galaxies , instead they are appearing relatively the same sizes, which first cause scientists to posit that they may indeed be observing proximal galaxies instead, however that is not the case,  The evidence so far is that the universe is not expanding. Astro-physicists are currently baffled and going back to the chalk board.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

@michael

“Astro-physicists are currently baffled and going back to their chalk board.”

We know your conclusion, Michael, even when you don’t state it explicitly.

“Therefore, God must exist,” right?

We already know that things at the time of the Big Bang were not “normal” in the sense of comporting with the physics that became normal. The Big Bang was not a normal everyday kind of event.

Scientists being baffled is nothing new, Michael. They’re baffled until they aren’t.

There are relatively familiar things which continue to be baffling until they get figured out. Gravity raises all kinds of questions. Why is it so weak? Is it even a force inherent to our universe or dimension or is it leaking into ours from somewhere else? And of course at the subatomic level there are myriad unanswered questions and things that happen for which there is no rational explanation…yet.

So…just wait. There’s no need to jump to the God explanation, much less your God.

[michael17Participant]

Unseen wrote:

@michael “Astro-physicists are currently baffled and going back to their chalk board.” We know your conclusion, Michael, even when you don’t state it explicitly. “Therefore, God must exist,” right? We already know that things at the time of the Big Bang were not “normal” in the sense of comporting with the physics that became normal. The Big Bang was not a normal everyday kind of event. Scientists being baffled is nothing new, Michael. They’re baffled until they aren’t. There are relatively familiar things which continue to be baffling until they get figured out. Gravity raises all kinds of questions. Why is it so weak? Is it even a force inherent to our universe or dimension or is it leaking into ours from somewhere else? And of course at the subatomic level there are myriad unanswered questions and things that happen for which there is no rational explanation…yet. So…just wait. There’s no need to jump to the God explanation, much less your God.

Likewise, just because tbere is theory, like evolution, you can not jump to the conclusions that there is no god as was done in the Victorian age. Moreover evolution may address change within a phylum but not the creation of  phylums nor biogenesis nor the efficient engineering of  thermodynamic, electrical and  mechanical systems better than engineers, mindlessly, relaying on cosmic rays to produce mutations in existing systems.

• This reply was modified 10 months ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 10 months ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 10 months ago by  michael17.

[UnseenParticipant]

michael17 wrote:

Likewise, just because tbere is theory, like evolution, you can not jump to the conclusions that there is no god as was done in the Victorian age. Moreover evolution may address change within a phylum but not the creation of  phylums nor biogenesis nor the efficient engineering of  thermodynamic, electrical and  mechanical systems better than engineers, mindlessly, relaying on cosmic rays to produce mutations in existing systems.

I can live without explanations where there are blank spaces in what is known. “Explaining” something with something else for which there is no rational explanation is, well, irrational.

I can disbelieve in your God for making no sense. Conceptually, your God makes no sense. For example, an all-powerful being is incompatible with an all-knowing being since for an all-knowing being the future already exists, because he knows it. But if it already exists, then he’s powerless to change it. But of course a cosmic sorcerer can fix that through an act of magic.

But I don’t believe in magic. If you believe in magic, there’s no end to the nonsense you could believe.

Your God is just a handy-dandy way of continuing to believe your core belief, which is a belief in magic.

[michael17Participant]

Unseen wrote:

michael17 wrote:

Likewise, just because tbere is theory, like evolution, you can not jump to the conclusions that there is no god as was done in the Victorian age. Moreover evolution may address change within a phylum but not the creation of phylums nor biogenesis nor the efficient engineering of thermodynamic, electrical and mechanical systems better than engineers, mindlessly, relaying on cosmic rays to produce mutations in existing systems.

I can live without explanations where there are blank spaces in what is known. “Explaining” something with something else for which there is no rational explanation is, well, irrational. I can disbelieve in your God for making no sense. Conceptually, your God makes no sense. For example, an all-powerful being is incompatible with an all-knowing being since for an all-knowing being the future already exists, because he knows it. But if it already exists, then he’s powerless to change it. But of course a cosmic sorcerer can fix that through an act of magic. But I don’t believe in magic. If you believe in magic, there’s no end to the nonsense you could believe. Your God is just a handy-dandy way of continuing to believe your core belief, which is a belief in magic.

The miraculous simply means we are powerless to do the same. UAPs defy Newtonian physics, and we are powerless to do the same. Being non-baryonic helps.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Michael17,

Likewise, just because tbere is theory, like evolution, you can not jump to the conclusions that there is no god as was done in the Victorian age. Moreover evolution may address change within a phylum but not the creation of phylums nor biogenesis nor the efficient engineering of thermodynamic, electrical and mechanical systems better than engineers, mindlessly, relaying on cosmic rays to produce mutations in existing systems.

Of course, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution never proported to do any of those things, whether making claims about God or phylums or biogenesis or physics or how mutations are formed. It was simply about the change of species over time in response to changing environmental conditions. So, if there is a criticism of Darwin’s Theory here, it is a Strawman.

[UnseenParticipant]

michael17 wrote:

The miraculous simply means we are powerless to do the same. UAPs defy Newtonian physics, and we are powerless to do the same. Being non-baryonic helps.

Your defense of miracles only makes sense if miracles actually happen, and you cite everything we can’t do or explain as evidence of God. And not just any God (for example, not Visnu or Ahura Mazda) but only the one you have decided to follow.

Your God fits into what’s been called “the god of the gaps.” In other words, anytime we can’t explain something, you see evidence of God’s existence.

Sadly for you, this space containing what remains to be understood is getting smaller by the day.

[michael17Participant]

 

Unseen wrote:

michael17 wrote:

The miraculous simply means we are powerless to do the same. UAPs defy Newtonian physics, and we are powerless to do the same. Being non-baryonic helps.Your defense of miracles only makes sense if miracles actually happen, and you cite everything we can’t do or explain as evidence of God. And not just any God (for example, not Visnu or Ahura Mazda) but only the one you have decided to follow. Your God fits into what’s been called “the god of the gaps.” In other words, anytime we can’t explain something, you see evidence of God’s existence. Sadly for you, this space containing what remains to be understood is getting smaller by the day.

UAPs are examples of the miracles,  Newtonian physics defying.

• This reply was modified 9 months, 4 weeks ago by  michael17.

[UnseenParticipant]

michael17 wrote:

UAPs are examples of the miracles,  Newtonian physics defying.

So, UAP’s have, umm, angels at their helms. Or The Big Guy himself?

[Author]

Posts