Once again, I am at a quandary over the title of the post.
It is very interesting when a variety of information from a variety of sources all come together into one very interesting post. Let’s start with the source material.
John Loftus: “Science-based Explanations vs. Faith-based Explanations” This is something I’ve been trying to say for a while, but John (with much more experience than myself) has said it very well here.
limey’s repost of my post and subsequent discussion. This really is a self serving post. But limey got a very useful discussion going. Which, of course, got me to thinking, which got me to researching, which leads to this.
The thread that started a lot of this. forastero is something of a strange fellow. His ‘interpretations’ of the Bible are pretty impressive. I mean, his interpretation of ‘everything on Earth died’ is ‘everything except fish and marine and freshwater life and birds and diseases… but everything else’. In other words, just what those cute little pictures of the Ark show.
Let me just copy my comment from limey’s thread.
All this explains why we need to apply scientific reasoning to ‘miraculous’ events. It’s a filter. Scientific evidence has always been correct (the conclusions drawn from the evidence, well not always, but that’s is part of the self correcting nature of science).
Any kid who has been to a zoo, instinctively realizes that there is no way to even fit those animals on the ark, much less all of them. I have seen (recently at AtBC) fascinating reinterpretations of the Bible… in order to support the Bible, but the one thing that the apologist never does is think about what they are saying (a common issue with creationists and IDists).
They will say something, then have to justify it with a statement. But they never carry that to the next step and realize that they have dug a much larger hole for themselves. Then, to get out of that, they have to modify the Bible to get out of that hole. Then they are in real trouble, because they have denied science and the Bible. Which is bad considering their religion.
For example, we can science to estimate the date of the genetic bottleneck that appears in Acinonyx jubatus. Through various methods, the estimate is about 10,000 years ago. That’s pretty unfortunate because it’s before the world was created based on YEC claims (and they are the only ones that really matter here).
But, the apologist says, if we go with something closer to ‘day-age’ YEC, then the flood could have been 10,000 years ago (more or less) and therefore the cheetah is evidence of the flood. [Yes, I’ve seen this argument used… sigh.]
To which, the thinking person then replies, “Why haven’t we found a similar bottleneck in ANY OTHER SPECIES?”
The creationist changes the subject, leaves, or says something about miracles or ‘you don’t even know what ID says’.
I’m going to do a summary post of the cheetah paper at some point in the near future. Probably after I get the philosophy paper posted. That may be Wednesday (I hope).