Category Archives: Scientific Method

Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Q14 – Age of the Earth – The Bible vs Science – Is the Bible wrong?

Posted on by — Leave a reply
Blue Stars - NASA

Blue Stars – Image – NASA

Q14 – The Bible says the universe is just a few thousand years old, but science says it’s actually billions of years. The Bible is wrong!

Let’s start by understanding the entities we’re discussing. The Bible is the written word of an almighty, omniscient, omnipresent God who brought into existence every created thing—in the heavens and on earth. The Bible is the word of this God who knows everything. This brings us to an interesting question. Do you know everything? If you don’t know everything, how do you know what you think you know is correct? How do you know whether or not that you, in your lack of knowledge, are missing a key piece that could change everything you think you know now? How do you know your knowledge, which is incomplete, is not unlike the picture you get of suspects during a mystery movie? You look at all the evidence you’re given and all of the suspects. For an hour and forty-five minutes of a two-hour movie it’s clear that the butler did it. Then, at an hour and forty-six minutes, a new clue is revealed. All of a sudden it’s clear that the butler didn’t do it. It’s the [insert your new obvious suspect here]. Maybe your new suspect is guilty, maybe not. You’re still not sure until they do all the revelations and resolutions in the last five to ten minutes of the movie. Continue Reading

Q11 – Why are Christians so stuck on believing their Bibles instead of science?

Posted on by

Science Research

We now consider the question, “Why are Christians so stuck on believing their Bibles instead of science.” This is a false dichotomy because Christians do not reject all science. The question either reveals a profound ignorance of the nature of science and the scientific process or implicitly denies that science, by its very nature, is constantly rejecting things as false that were previously thought to be true. Tenets, previously accepted as good science one day, can be rejected as foolish and obsolete the next.

Regarding the nature of God, the question reveals either ignorance concerning God or a denial of the nature of God and the Bible. God is omniscient. He has perfect knowledge (John 21.17, Heb 4.13). He never learns anything because he already knows everything. The Bible is the word of God, breathed out from the omniscient God (2 Tim 3.16) and all it affirms is true (Ps 119.160). Therefore, as expected of knowledge coming from God who is perfect in knowledge, the Bible is wholly true and without error in all it affirms. This is known as the doctrine of inerrancy. Continue Reading

Science Without Observation Is Deception

Posted on by

Deceptive Liar

As I’ve pointed out before atheist high priest Richard Dawkins has famously said,

“The Universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

Given that I’ve often wondered why atheists care what I say or what I write about? If I’m wrong, it’s not evil (there is no evil) and doesn’t matter (there’s no meaning or purpose). (But if I’m right, as Pascal has pointed out in his wager, and they continue in their atheistic ways, when their time comes, there will be literal hell to pay. Isaiah 66.24)

But for some reason, though their worldview should tell them what I say doesn’t matter, they like to comment on what I say. Much of what they say are easily ignored ad hominem attacks that only prove they can’t address what I write about with reason or science. So they resort to attacking me instead of even attempting to address the points I make.  But sometimes they make claims about science and faith that, as I’ve written about throughout this blog, are clearly and obviously wrong. And occasionally they’ll write something that is so obviously wrong it’s laugh-out-loud funny. Continue Reading

The “But You’re Not a Scientist” Fallacy

Posted on by

Skeptic

“But you’re not a scientist…”

The “… but you’re not a scientist” fallacy is an often-used ploy by evolutionists to try to disqualify any critique or observation about evolution (or actually any scientific discipline) that is not presented from what they consider to be a qualified evolutionist. Typically “qualified” means someone with a PhD in some evolutionary field like evolutionary biology. Without it, the objection goes, you’re not qualified to make any critiques or point out any problems with evolutionary theory. Continue Reading

Questions for Question Evolution Day 2020

Posted on by

Well here we are at another February 12th – formerly celebrated as Lincoln’s birthday, now many are trying to get people to think of Darwin’s birthday. While some are celebrating “International Darwin Day”, others are sharing “Question Darwin Day”, an initiative inspired by CMI with ongoing promotions by The Question Evolution Project. Rational Faith is obviously part of the latter group.  So for this year’s Question Evolution Day, our questions will be concerning the frozen frog you see in the picture above. You may think this is just an ordinary frozen frog, but I’m going to warn you up front about this – this is no ordinary frog. As Ray Comfort might say, this is an evolutionist’s nightmare. This is the Alaskan wood frog. And it is able to survive the harsh sometimes 40 degrees below zero winters. How? it digs a burrow and allows itself to freeze. Solid. Like a block of ice – like you see above. Then when spring arrives, and things begin to thaw – it does too. And wakes up. And hops away – like nothing even happened. Continue Reading

More Questions for Question Evolution Day

Posted on by

Question Evolution Day is February 12

Theoretical physicist and science popularizer Michio Kaku said,

“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”[1]

Real operational science is testable, reproducible and falsifiable. Which of course excludes Darwinian evolution, since it is neither testable, reproducible nor falsifiable – at least it can’t be falsified to the satisfaction of Darwinists. Nevertheless in the scientific spirit of inquiry it is good to examine what many believe to be the “science” of evolution.  Creation.com and The Question Evolution Project have established February 12 – Darwin’s birthday – as Question Evolution Day. A day to inquire about and question a theory many erroneously think has been established as a “fact” due to the incessant cheerleading by its advocates.[2]

Creation Ministries International has published an excellent article titled “15 Questions for Evolutionists” that covers well many of the unanswered challenges to evolutionary theory. Also for your consideration: a few years back Buzzfeed did a “listicle” featuring creationists asking questions that are either problematic for evolution or supportive of creation. The questions sought to expose a problem with evolutionary theory, but were asked in a manner that made them easy to refute, so I wrote an article to fine tune the questions called “Refining the Questions for Question Evolution day.” It’s in the spirit of these articles that I offer a few more questions (and challenges to evolutionists) for Question Evolution Day. Continue Reading

Human and Dino tracks and Why Atheists Can’t Find Evidence of God – Part 2

Posted on by

Alvis Delk Human Dinosaur footprints at the Creation Evidence Museum

Before we get to the meat of the matter, I’m sure some are wondering “Where is Part 1?”  Sometimes a better name for an article occurs to you after you’ve already published it. Such is the case with the previous article, which should have been titled something like:

Why Atheists Can’t Find Evidence of God (Part 1)
or
 Why Atheists Can’t Find Evidence of Intelligent Design
or
 Why Evolutionists Can’t Find Evidence of Creation

And while in this digital age of online publishing though it is possible to change the title, it still seems a bit unseemly, so I have left it with the original title. But for those who are wondering where Part 1 is, that’s where it is, titled with a question meant to get you thinking about one of the main reasons why atheists can’t find evidence of God (and why evolutions can’t find evidence of intelligent design.)

Part 1 lays out two reasons why atheists can’t find either evidence of God or Intelligent design; and in similar fashion why evolutionists can’t find evidence of Creation. Those reasons are: Continue Reading

Lies my evolutionist told me

Posted on by

No doubt the first thing someone will ask me is, “what are you talking about ‘my evolutionist’? People don’t have evolutionists!” To which I say sure they do. Everyone does. Perhaps it’s your biology teacher – the one you think is so great, who so diligently teaches the evolutionary line, refusing (perhaps for fear of losing her job) to even mention the problems of evolution, or the alternatives to it. Perhaps he’s that famous author you love to quote because he makes you feel intellectually fulfilled. Or perhaps he’s that smug cosmologist you find so funny because he likes to mock those who don’t toe his materialistic evolutionary line. Well article titles are supposed to be short and attention getting. And “Lies that my favorite evolution promoting – biology teacher, author or science guy – told me” is a bit too long for a title. I trust the title, short as it is, has served its purpose. There’s nothing else to see here so let’s move along to matters of substance.

Continue Reading

Intelligent Design’s Blind Side

Posted on by

Intelligent Design’s Blind Side

William Dembski is a leader in the Intelligent Design (ID) community, so I read with initial interest a recent interview he did with Sean McDowell titled How is the Intelligent Design Movement Doing? Interview with William Dembski.  which is posted on McDowell’s blog. That initial interest turned to dismay as the adversarial attitude Dembski has toward revealed truth in general and Young Earth Creationism (YEC) in particular was made apparent. When asked how he assesses the reception of ID within the church, Dembski states:

“I would say that the church broadly and even the evangelical community has — on balance — been somewhere between useless and downright counterproductive to the success of ID.”

A most unfortunate assessment given the potential ID has to impact a culture that has largely fallen under the sway of the junk science put forth to support the materialist religion known as Darwinian Evolution. Even more unfortunate is Dembski’s  apparent blindness to how he (and other ID advocates with similar positions) has caused such a reaction from the God fearing, Bible believing faithful they’d like to gain support from. To unravel this mystery for them, let’s start with what both ID advocates and YEC advocates are trying to achieve. Continue Reading

Evolution: Not Science, Pseudoscience

Posted on by

A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience.  That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience?  Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference.

As  you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of  proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.”  The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience.  Yet regardless of  how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”

According to the bastion of popular secular knowledge known as Wikipedia, a pseudoscience is:

“…a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research,  but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.”[1]

So one cannot know whether something is a pseudoscience until one first understands the scientific method. Again, according to Wikipedia, the scientific method is:

“a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[2]

Evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience

Evolution fits every criteria necessary to be identified as a pseudoscience: Continue Reading