Posted By John on October 2, 2009
Hello cyberworld! Yes, I’m still alive and kicking. Wow, what a busy summer it’s been. The past year has been quite a journey for my wife and I as we wrestled with questions concerning the future of our family and my career. Early this summer after discerning that God would keep us plugged in at our church home here for the foreseeable future I finally committed to pursuing a career in financial services. The summer has been filled with classes, exams, some travel, and working whenever possible. I’m currently working towards my series 7 securities license ( a marathon in it’s own right) which should finally get me over the hump to get rolling. Hopefully I will soon be able to keep the blog updated more faithfully.
Category: General |
No Comments »
Tags:
Posted By John on July 30, 2009
I apologize for the disappearing act this summer. Because of schedule I’ve been forced to re-prioritize my time and activities and the blog has suffered for it. The blog will not be abandoned, but it is going to be slow for a while. I’m focusing on a business start-up along with several projects and events that will continue taking up significant portions of my time. I’m hoping by fall to have a more routine schedule. In the meantime I will continue with the occasional post. I appreciate your patience and your interest.
Blessings, John
Category: General |
No Comments »
Tags:
Posted By John on June 17, 2009
Here is a good article by Answers In Genesis kind of referring to the concepts I’ve been trying to explain in some of my earlier posts. It addresses interpreting science related news. You can check it out here.
Category: Creationism, Evolution, Faith, General |
3 Comments »
Tags: Add new tag, assumptions, axioms, Bias, creationist, evidence, Evolution, interpretation, science
Posted By John on May 31, 2009
In the past few posts I’ve been talking about how we all interpret the world (evidence, life, etc…) around us based on our existing framework of thought, our beliefs. I want to emphasize that I believe the biblical account of origins not because of the evidence itself even though I think it fits well, but because I believe the Bible as God’s Word is our standard of truth by which all things can and must be measured. When I interpret the world around me through that grid of thought, it is then that I have the best opportunity to correctly interpret (make decisions in life) the evidence I encounter whether it’s a scientific experiment or a circumstance in life. I want to clarify when I’ve mentioned in the past (e.g. my first post) that I believe in the biblical creationist position because the evidence compels me to, I mean that in the context of approaching science from the biblical perspective and seeing the evidence fitting and making good sense in that belief system. If the framework of thought is accurate the evidence should fit logically. To demonstrate this, as a biblicist I might ask the question, “If there was a global flood what kind of evidence would I expect to find?” Or if I believed in a naturalistic explanation of origins then my question would reflect that position as I examined the world around me. So why trust the Bible as my starting point? In one of my next posts I want to compile some statistics and reasons why the Bible is trustworthy.
Category: Faith, General |
2 Comments »
Tags: belief, Bible, evidence, interpretation, truth
Posted By John on April 24, 2009
This is something of an extension of the previous post, but it also sets the stage for my next several posts on the source of all information, natural selection, and genetic mutations.
When we understand how our axioms or presuppositions determine how we interpret evidence it becomes clear (in spite of the claims of many) the debate of creationism vs. evolution is not a faith vs. science argument. An evolutionary interpretation of our world requires faith just as any other belief system does. There are no exceptions. The test to validate a belief system lies in the reliability of it’s historical accounts or documentation and how logically the interpretation works out in light of experimentation. The problem with faith in an evolutionary interpretation compared to faith in a creator is how illogical it actually is. To believe in evolution would actually require me to go against what good operational science demonstrates. For example, nowhere in nature has science ever observed even one process that can generate new information. There are processes that affect change in populations by acting on existing information, but never has a process been observed to create new information. For evolution to be true that has to happen! Natural selection and genetic mutations are championed as the primary mechanisms of evolution, but those processes always represent either a loss of information or in the case of natural selection, sometimes a rearranging of existing information in the genetic pool represented. While beneficial traits can emerge as a result of these processes they cannot account for entirely new features that were not previously coded for in the gene pool. In everything science has ever observed information always comes from a greater source of information and the only logical answer for that is an original infinite source of information – God.
Category: Creationism, Evolution, Faith |
14 Comments »
Tags: axioms, Creationism, Evolution, Faith, genetic mutation, information, logic, natural selection, presuppositions, science
Posted By John on March 30, 2009
A common claim of evolutionists today is that evolution is science while creationism is religion. In the post below I specifically pointed out how our worldview or bias (presuppositions or axioms work as well) determines how we interpret evidence. It is impossible for anyone to be totally objective; our worldview colors every decision we make. In this post I want to expound on what true science really is.
To define science and illustrate it’s practical limitations I am going to talk about two different types of science. The first one I will call operational science and the second historical science (terms borrowed from Answers In Genesis). While evolutionists do not generally differentiate between the two types it is vital that we note the differences in order to understand the implications each has in our interpretation of the world around us.
When referring to operational science I am talking about observations, testing, and obtaining verifiable results all in the present. We could also call this empirical science. Again it is defined by the fact that findings are obtained by tests and experiments done in the present and verified or falsified by obtaining repeatable results and observations. This kind of science is very helpful and leads to the development and production of things such as computers, aircraft, safer cars, advances in medical care and many more things that improve our quality of life everyday. It helps us discover and comprehend natural laws such as gravity and other natural phenomena that we would otherwise be unable to understand.
Historical or origins science, on the other hand is fundamentally different in that it takes present day evidence and processes and projects an interpretation of those onto the past in an attempt to obtain an understanding of events and processes that occurred in the past that are not observable in the present. When dealing with historical events in which there are no eye-witness accounts available to verify all the necessary factors such as conditions and rates of natural processes then we must begin by assuming some of those required factors. A prime example of this can be seen in attempting to measure the age of a rock. If I don’t know anything of the rock’s history and formation then I must make a number of assumptions before I can even begin to measure it’s “age” regardless of the dating method used. I must assume the rock’s conditions at formation; that the rate of decay of the radioactive material being measured has been constant, and that it has always had a closed environment in which no daughter (decayed) content has escaped or been added by external processes. All of these are assumptions that must be made and how they are made is determined by the worldview of the scientist(s). Any historical science, regardless if it’s creationism, evolution, ID, or any other position, includes beginning assumptions whose reliability are unknown unless there is a clear record of an eye-witness account. We cannot prove or re-create things of the past, we can only interpret them in our respective worldview. It is not that one or the other is science and another is religion. Each one starts from a belief system or in other words by faith. That is why it is crucial that we recognize our bias/worldview and make sure it is the right one by measuring it against the one unchanging standard of truth God gave us in His Word. If there is no unchanging standard (truth) by which to measure ourselves then we are in trouble – big time trouble!
Category: Creationism, Evolution |
4 Comments »
Tags: age, assumptions, axioms, Bias, decay, natural laws, present, religion, science
Posted By John on March 17, 2009
Just a short post to alert my subscribers to the possibility of missing my updates depending on when you subscribed. If you are reading this in your inbox or RSS feed then your subscription is fine. If you didn’t see this until you stopped by my blog and you know you’ve already subscribed you will want to resubscribe. I apologize for any inconvenience this causes anyone. I believe this only affected a few people who subscribed over a short time so most of you should be fine. Also I will be posting another regular update soon.
Category: General |
No Comments »
Tags:
Posted By John on March 5, 2009
Montana River Scenery Clark Fork River
Category: Creationism |
3 Comments »
Tags: beauty, creation, Montana, river, scenery
Posted By John on March 5, 2009
I want to address a foundational truth that is vital to understanding our world at any level and it is key to interpreting the evidence (any evidence).
It is important for us to understand we do not live life based on facts directly. Rather we live life based on our interpretation of the facts. Each one of us begins with a set of axioms or beginning beliefs around which our world-view (you have one whether or not you planned to have one) is built. It’s not really a question of are you biased, but rather are you biased with the right bias? Nobody is unbiased; not one person, scientist or otherwise. Every choice, decision, or interpretation we make is made through this grid of thought. It is not the evidence that is different (we live in the same world and have the same fossils, rocks, etc…), but rather our axioms (presuppositions) are different and therefore we have different interpretations while looking at the same evidence. It’s what we believe before we look at the evidence that determines what our interpretation will be. Hopefully as we move along in this blog I will be able to illustrate this clearly enough so everyone can understand.
Category: Creationism |
8 Comments »
Tags: axioms, Bias, evidence, fossils, interpretation, rocks, scientist, truth, Unbiased
Posted By John on March 5, 2009
In taking the creationist position in which I believe the earth to be about 6000 years old just as the Bible says, I know I am taking a minority position that is scoffed at by mainstream science and society in general. I do so not because I like the underdog position, but because I believe the evidence compels me to. You may wonder how I can say that when many claim the evidence points overwhelmingly to a planet that must be several billion years old. One reason I started this blog is to give honest seekers a chance for a fresh look at the evidence from a different perspective. All opinions are welcome, however bad language and hostile posts are not. Everyone will be treated with respect on this blog. The rest of this post is to set the foundation necessary to really take an honest look at the world and the evidence around us.
Category: Creationism |
No Comments »
Tags: Bible, creationist, evidence, foundation, seekers, truth
