Observational Science vs. Historical Science?

2016 Note: This post was written addressing the distinction between observational science and historical science as Ken Ham and many young-earth creationists understand it. Their understanding of the concepts and their distinction are INCORRECT, but they are common in Christian circles, so they must be addressed. After reading this critique and seeing the highlighted problems with their distinction, please read my chapter-by-chapter review of the book that originally defined the terms and described the proper distinctions between them (Origin Science by philosopher Norman Geisler). The proper distinction does not fall prey to the critiques in this post, thus I do support the distinction between the terms, but ONLY as the terms are properly understood and properly distinguished.

Introduction
It is quite common to hear in Christian discussions about science that there exists a distinction between observational science and historical science. This distinction took center stage in Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye one year ago (see here). Ken Ham is a young-earth creationist, who often appeals to this distinction to undermine the evidence that supports any age of the universe that is older than what he believes it to be (6000 to 10000 years). Bill Nye, as well as the majority of the scientific community, rejects such a distinction, though, so Ham's critiques based on this distinction are rarely taken seriously. For Christians who wish to demonstrate evidence for the truth that God created the universe, this distinction often stands in the way of their being taken seriously by those who offer scientific evidence against a young universe and earth. If this distinction is one that is not true, then Christians need not defend this stumbling block that stands between their scientifically minded friends and those friends' salvation. I decided to do a search for a piece that might explain the distinction a bit more on Ham's site before I critiqued the distinction. This is what I found: "Deceitful or Distinguishable Terms—Historical and Observational Science." Please read it to ensure that I am accurately representing the claims of the author in this critique.* Ken Ham recently posted a blog post the other day that appeals to this distinction. It may be read here. I also checked to see if those at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) subscribe to this distinction, and they do; their article can be found here.

Book Review: Who's Afraid of the Multiverse?

Introduction

As a Christian who is deeply interested in the sciences and what they bring to the table for defending the existence of God (and the truth of the Christian worldview, specifically), I have often encountered the idea that multiple worlds may exist, which seems to explain away the beginning of the universe and its designed features. When I heard that astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink (Apologetics 315 Interview) wrote an introduction booklet addressing that very challenge, it caught my attention. "Who's Afraid of the Multiverse?" (paperback, Kindle, Video) provides an introduction to the concept of the multiverse and what its implication is for arguments for God's existence. It is a short read at only 53 pages.

The Multiverse Landscape

Zweerink spends the first half of the book setting the stage for why discussions of a "multiverse" are even necessary and explaining what scientists mean by the term. Various observations of the universe have led scientists to believe that the universe experienced a period of expansion speeds exceeding the speed of light. Though the evidence is strong that this took place, exactly how and what caused it to begin and end are currently under investigation. One of the types of multiverse is a necessary implication of the fact of inflation, and one of the other types is a necessary implication of a particular model for the possible mechanism of inflation. Each progressive type becomes more speculative and enjoys less scientific evidence than the previous one.

Lawrence Krauss, Astrobiology, and God

Introduction

The other day Eric Metaxas wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled "Science Increasingly Makes The Case For God." Anti-theist astrophysicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss took notice and wrote a response "No, Astrobiology Has Not Made The Case For God" that attempts to undermine Metaxas' conclusions. Today I will address several of Dr. Krauss' arguments in his piece from scientific, philosophical, and theological perspectives.

Krauss takes issue with the teleological argument- the fine-tuning of environmental conditions and the fundamental constants of the universe for the origin of life. His issue is with the probabilities. He summarizes the argument as multiplying independent probabilities of every necessary event to reach a probability so low that it is indistinguishable from zero, thus chance is eliminated (from the three options of chance, necessity, or design to explain life's existence). Krauss argues that the probabilities of each event that leads to life's origin that are calculated are not independent of one another. His concern is that each event is calculated independent of all necessarily preceding events. Meaning that any event in the chain leading to the origin of life will increase the probability that the next necessary event will take place. Thus the probability is not as small as one may think.

Book Review: Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off

Introduction

How did life begin? This question has perplexed humanity for centuries. Some people believe that it came along by natural processes. Others believe that a divine Designer is behind it all. These two options go head-to-head, tested against the latest scientific research in the book "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" (hardcover, Kindle, Supplemental Site) by astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross and biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana. The book is divided into three sections, seventeen chapters, and 298 pages (including notes and appendices). This review provides a chapter-by-chapter summary of the contents of the book, but it must not be accepted as a replacement for reading the book, itself. The review will conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.

Drs. Ross and Rana take the position that the origin of life is by divine design. To scientifically test their hypothesis, they present their model, competing models, and the latest research; they then compare the predictions of the models to the research to build their case. Before examining the current state of origins research, it is a good idea to take a quick look at the events that led to the current state.

Not Knowing God's Purposes and Wondering If He Exists

In The Business World...
In my professional career, I have been in the position of management a few times. One of the responsibilities of such a position is to communicate decisions of upper management to my employees. Often when my directors communicate the decision to me, they also communicate some of the reasons for the decisions, some of which I am not to communicate any further down the chain. When I communicate the decisions, some are received with a positive attitude, and others are received with a negative one.

I have interacted with many different types of personalities in these situations. Primarily with the negative ones, people begin asking questions about the purposes for the decision in order to evaluate for themselves if the decision was the best possible to make given the circumstances. In many cases, the employee is satisfied with the purposes that I provide; however, there are times that is not the case. The employee believes that based on the purposes communicated to them, a better decision could have and should have been made. They often leave the meeting dissatisfied and with less trust in the members upper management.

Unless we are those who make all the final decisions, we all can identify with the employees provided with a decision and the chosen purposes. I feel comfortable with saying that no person has been fully in agreement with every decision made by every management team in their career. To fully make sense, we need the whole story, and that level of transparency is a rare, if not, non-existent luxury.

This scenario is not limited to the business world, though. Any hierarchical relationship where absolute transparency among the parties does not or cannot exist exhibits this issue. Every relationship from familial to clubs is affected. Today, I want to draw two analogs of this familiar scenario to address two challenges to the existence of God.

Must Groups Require Leaders That Stand Against Their Beliefs?

It was brought to my attention today that a Christian student group has been "de-recognized" from San Jose University because they require that its leaders adhere to the groups beliefs and practices. Here is the report directly from the Christian group: Ratio Christi Club Kicked Off of San Jose State University Campus

This is an action that has dire consequences for all groups, not just religious. All other groups (regardless of affiliation, liberal or not) should be concerned about logical implications of this decision. Logically it opens the door to any group being required to allow leaders that not only do not represent the beliefs and convictions of the group, but that stand in direct opposition to them. For example: an atheist group could be led by a Christian; a pro-choice group could be led by a pro-life proponent; a Democrat group could be led by a Republican; a LGBT group could be led by a supporter of the Westboro Baptists.

The whole purpose of groups is to have a collection of people to support each other. These people must hold common convictions to do so. The leaders especially must hold the common convictions if they are to lead the support of the group. Without the common convictions among members and leadership the group will lose its purpose and reason for existence from within. The group will eventually disintegrate because there is nothing holding them together.

This could be a veiled attack against the right of assembly by attacking the very foundations of what a "group" is. A subtle way to squash opposition (academic or otherwise) seems to be in play here. Every group that assembles is in danger by this decision. This action is not something that ANY group should be excited to see happen...except those who are irrational, illogical and driven by their emotions. (Un)fortunately, one misstep by those groups will compromise their own group and convictions by the "reasoning" they are now championing.

📚Book Review: Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible's Authority🤯

Introduction

The Bible's authority is constantly under attack in today's culture. It is important that Christians prepare themselves to address the challenges for their own faith and for overcoming intellectual challenges in their evangelistic efforts. Jonathan Morrow's new book "Question the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible's Authority" (Kindle, Paperback, Video) aims to be an introductory resource for the Christian to rise to these challenges at an intellectual level.

The book's 234 pages are divided by the eleven challenges and appendices. Morrow also includes, at the end of each chapter, a three-point summary, questions to spur discussion, and a short list of resources for more in-depth research into the challenges and their resolutions. This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary and conclude with the reviewer's overall impression and recommendation.