Response to The shot heard around the world

So I was bored and decided I would try and find somebody other than conservapedia to criticise especially since they really haven't posted too much in the way of science recently. Well while doing it I came across this: http://conservativeprincipals.blogspot.com/2009/07/shot-heard-around-world.html. It is a really good read actually and I can tell that the person who wrote it clearly put quite a bit of thought into it. I do have a few problems with it that I want to point out quickly though.

The issue in global warming is that science has been perverted to serve a
political agenda. There's plenty of scientific evidence to disprove most of what
global warming enthusiasts assert. That is to say, the science against global
warming is as potent as, or more potent than the science favoring global
warming. All we need is time for the truth to win out - which is what algore and
friends don't want, and why they are pushing so hard for quick action.

Ok I am not going to dive too deeply into this but the science is pretty obvious that global climate change is happening, there are very few scientists who deny this and there will always be people who object to everything (aka the flat earthers), but the major question and the one that has been played to the greatest political agenda is how much of it is human caused. This is something maybe to address at a later time.

And (2) modern scientific inquiry is not at odds with that very Jewish purpose
of history. The earth does not have to be young to make that history true;
therefore to make the Bible true. The age of the earth is irrelevant to the
relevant issue: that it is God who created it, and created it as a Garden for
humankind; and has been at work to restore us to the edenic state since the
beginnings of human recollection. As for evolutionary theory: I think it's fair
to say, on the basis of competing science, competing interpretations of the
gathered data, and gaps in scientific evidence, that it is only a theory. It has
gaps that some say suggest evolutionary theory better shows how creatures adapt
within their niches than how creatures jump from one niche to another. We're
still looking for the evidence, without ruling out the possiblity of some kind
of periodic "quantum leaps" from one state of createdness to another more
complex state of createdness. If we ever demonstrate that those leaps have taken
place, I'd likely argue that those leaps are further evidence of God acting
miraculously and outside the ordinary rules of nature. I won't rule out God
turning water to wine; I won't rule out God turning an ape into a human. We have
yet to produce evidence that makes the case airtight, though. And it seems to me
that any evidence of "quantum leaps" would be food for the Intelligent Design
type of argument.

This is something I think we need to talk about. You start by saying it is only a theory but all of the other things that you are so willing to accept are also only theories in fact the age of the earth has less evidence to support it than does evolution. I do understand that you are talking about a slow stepwise progression but look at the evidence that genetics has shown us. Your problem might be your view of animals jumping niches. This does not happen it is a slow progression from one niche to another I recommend the McFadden horse evolution paper if you want to see what we have supporting evolution from the fossil record. My guess, however, is that you are trying to make a statement regarding punctuated equilibrium and this is also a misunderstanding of this idea. Finally you mention we have yet to make the case airtight. This is true but I think you will be hard pressed to find a scientific theory with more evidence supporting it than evolution.

But the scientific method has advanced to the point that we now discover the
relativity of the scientific method. In other words, in a a way Mike is right to
say that knowledge is faith. We find over and over again that our
presuppositions influence the "objective" results of scientific inquiry. It
begins to look as though the scientific method is also subjective, though in a
different way than is faith.

It strikes me, then, that the scientific method can
lead us down any road we are predisposed to travel. In other words, our
worldview will determine what we discover is "objectively" true. If that's the
case, then at some point we have to reunite scientific method and Christian
worldview. More properly, Judeo-Christian worldview, since Christians are (Paul
assures us) but an engrafted branch on the stump of Jesse. I have been wondering
if the discovery of relativity theory and the quantum world wasn't the real
purpose of, the highest peak available to, decoupled science; and the next set
of mountain ranges will not really be seen, let alone climbed, until science and
the worldview of God revealed in the Bible (both testaments) and in the life of
Jesus are joined.

I wonder what we will discover when we engage scientific
inquiry with a Christian worldview? I don't mean in the pre-modern sense of
requiring that science conclude what faith wants it to, but in the post-modern
sense of a recognition that the assumptions one brings to the scientific enquiry
help determine the discoveries one makes. Literally, that how we think
determines what we can see. So if we are fully and completely the People of the
Book, not anticipating a struggle between science and faith, but anticipating
and looking for the ways that seeing as Christ sees, valuing the way God has
disclosed He values, reveals new scientific truths that bring the world more
into harmony with God's intention for creation, and enables us to do more with
less negative impact on creation; in fact, enables us to do more while also
ennobling God's earth. What will society, technology, human life look like when
we are fully engaged in that exploration? I think, pretty good.

Ok there is a lot to digest here and I just want to make a really quick comment. Science, as this writer states earlier in their work, did originally set out to prove the bible as literally correct. However, using observation and the scientific inquiry we have come to the conclusion that the bible is not literally correct. The general idea behind the scientific method is that you check your political and religious beliefs at the door. He mentions in this section I quoted not being able to see the next mountain range after relativity. We already have it is called quantum physics. I think that a majority of his essay is very correct in that there is no reason to quit believing in God just because science proves the bible is not literally correct. But it is this last section that I do have a problem with. He had already mentioned that science is not 100% objective, and while that is true with initial studies etc the process of scientific cross checks etc slowly irons out these not objective sections until they are no more. It make take time but what doesn't.

That may have been a slightly rushed and poorly worded argument against this piece but I felt it was well written and something for everyone to consider. It is something that really needs to be forwarded to those of you who know people who read the bible very literally. After all we are never all going to agree on everything but we need to at least start somewhere.