Can It Be Tested?

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
While it’s easy to understand that made-up stuff isn’t proof, an ungodly thinker can cloud the issue efficiently by trying to change the subject, argue over definitions, or use other fallacies. Consider the following example of this form of thinking from social media:
 
“You say you can’t do an experiment on yesterday, so you’re saying astronomy, geology, forensics, and archaeology are not science. For that matter, anything where you cannot directly observe the system you are working on is not science. This means all of modern astrophysics, molecular and cellular biology, quantum mechanics, genetics, etc. are not “science.” Indeed, why believe F=ma instead of F=2ma or F=ma^2? I hear some people are so crazy, they think we can actually measure things like the gravitational force or the distance from the earth to the sun.”
 
This persuader uses a special definition for the term “science.” He uses sarcasm and innuendo as a smokescreen to hide what’s happening. The disbeliever is trying to prove that the stories of evolutionism are true by defining “science.” He uses a package deal fallacy to forbid any discernment between made-up stuff and observation. In the process, he uses ridicule to argue against knowing the difference between reality and made-up stuff. That’s the difference between observation and hypothesis. And one of the ways he blurs this distinction is by committing a faulty comparison fallacy. He claims that it’s possible to “experiment on yesterday.” Then, to prove that we can “experiment on yesterday,” he mentions examples of observations and testable applications in the present. Observations of the present aren’t the same as stories about the past. For each of the examples this persuader gave, there’s a useful part, and, since it’s useful, it’s testable. In most of the examples he brought up, there’s also a deceptive part that isn’t testable.
 
The formula, F=ma is testable and useful in the present. But how would anyone test a story about the distant past (evolutionism) to prove that it happened, and why shouldn’t we consider the competing story (Creation-Flood) that fits the observations better? Regardless of which of these two stories scientists are considering, they test and observe physical reality in the present using the same proven formulas to create the different models of the past.
 
One model uses these formulas plus a presupposition of no God, made-up stuff, and the supposed power of the human mind to make up accurate information that would be required to extrapolate backward in time. The other model uses these same formulas plus divine revelation and made-up stuff to extrapolate backward in time based on God’s ability to reveal. We can see that both models use made-up stuff. No one can go beyond observation and divine revelation without using made-up stuff.
 
Scientists propose a hypothesis of a 4.7 billion-year-old earth. They also propose a hypothesis that a certain chemical will destroy a certain bacteria. Using the scientific method, we can’t test the age-of-the-earth claim since we can’t go back in time to make the needed observations repeatedly. However, we can put the chemical on the bacteria and watch, and we can have many observers perform this test repeatedly. The package deal fallacy tries to put these two hypotheses into the same package, claiming that rejecting the untestable hypothesis means that we reject all testable hypotheses that are confirmed by repeated testing and observation. It seems as if some scientists have lost the ability to tell the difference between observations and making up stories about observations.
 
Unfortunately, scientists have wasted an enormous amount of money trying to change science into a discipline that has the purpose of blurring the distinction between reality and make-believe. They blur the distinction because, when persuaders tell lies, they need a way to avoid separating the made-up stuff from the observations. Disbelievers need made-up stuff to give the illusion of support for their godless stories. Therefore, we can see why they won’t acknowledge the difference between made-up stuff and observation. God reveals reality through observations, but He doesn’t reveal reality through made-up stuff.
<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.
 
Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Posted in Uncategorized.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *