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 4 weeks, 1 day ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by  michael17.

[Author]

Posts