The Limitations of Science to study the past

By Rhiannonw

Fri, 08 Jul 2011
  • 3103 reads
7 comments
 

Science is investigation
of recorded information,
experimenting, testing theories,
giving thought to awkward queries,
and alternative suggestions,
never jumping to conclusions.

When considering the past,
science has got limitations,
looks for traces that remain,
tries to think what they may mean. –

Many fossils show death-agony,
speaking of a great catastrophe,
which makes calculations harder
for we must admit, with wonder,
age-assessment needs more knowledge,
since the modes of rock formation,
and the rates of degradation
of the chemicals we measure,
may have varied in such epochs;
also content of the rocks
when first formed, cannot be known;

– tree-trunk-fossils crossing strata
show how quickly rocky matter
was laid down around to bury them;

in some ‘fossils’ they are finding
protein, tissue still surviving,
bone unfossilised – impossible
if they’d lain there for a multiple
of millions and millions of years.

What framework for interpretation
fits this new accumulation
of unearthed facts, – Darwin’s suggestion,
or the Creator’s revelation? –
the former brings no obligation,
the latter duty and salvation.

Certificate U
Poem
Nature
Miscellaneous

Comments

Submitted by valiswaverider on
Is there a third option may be just to marvel at nature? Both dogma and analysis seem to limit true comprehesion.Maybe finding your own meaning may be equally valid

 

Submitted by Rhiannonw on
Hullo, valiswaverider, thank you for reading! Wonder and marvel are certainly the beginning. And the shouting that's around can be very confusing, but I think the beauty and intricacy speaks of its skilful Designer, and he should be praised, especially as he's told us about it in the Bible, and wants to know us and help us. I hope you find him!

 

Submitted by valiswaverider on
You are right the science vs religion debates seems to be dominated by a lot of mud slinging. However I did find a very fair and considered book which I would highly recommend. Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer is a very interesting book on the subject and not at all one sided but a well researched book on theology and science,I would highly recommend it. I ,d be interested to know what you think of some of my work which deals with the same subject. In my new poem "sum" I address questions of belief and proof directly cheers Rob

 

Submitted by Rhiannonw on
I'm sorry that I have been slow responding, — been away for a few days. Einstein saw the limitations, and usefulness of scientific study done carefully, didn't he? I have read 'Sum' a few times, and still do find difficulty in understanding the philosophical ideas regarding ignoring what we can't see. It seems to lead back though to the impossibility of our knowing all about our universe and its history and origin, and the origin and content of right morality, without revelation from one who knows. Our imaginings can never be satisfying. So, the advisability of reading the words of Jesus Christ, with the consideration of 'was he mad, bad, or good' – if the latter then his/God's claims are stupendous, but fit. It seems to be the only way for there to be foundations, and if they are true, then what delight! Of course, I would assure you that they are true and worth finding! The historical support for Christ is very strong, and the lasting effects of his true following, and again, the study of science backs up well the evidence for a Designer in observing nature http://creation.com/ does deal with a lot of questions there. Rhiannon

 

Submitted by Rhiannonw on
how I echo that, but it is sad that most seem to assume that scientists have proved evolution, and they can rest in that without any investigation. I don't think most scientists themselves would dare say that, but many hope that it is true. Others of course, are very happy to endorse that creation fits the facts better, and that the Creator can be known! Thanks for your comment. God bless.

 

Submitted by jeand on

Hi Rhiannon

I almost decided to skip commenting on this one - because I both believe in the theory of evolution and God, and don't see the problem. You seem to think you have to make a choice. Why can't God's great plan have been to instigate the big bang and no doubt millions of other big bangs in other parts of the universe, and then let nature take its course. I know the Bible is rather specific about the order of creation and the time frame - but why couldn't God's one day be as long as a millennium or so?

Jean

Jean Day

Submitted by Rhiannonw on

Hi Jean, Thanks for not skipping commenting and asking your question!

As you say, God could have done such a thing, but what would 'letting nature take its course' result in? As one who has studied biochemistry and biology, I cannot see how such intricacy and extremely complex molecular reactions and compartmentalizaion could come into being by chance, as chance normally destroys even slightly complicated arrangements before they can become even more complicated. I think Darwin always hoped that some means of new characteristics forming  would be found (when it was realised that skills aquired or desired could not be inherited), and when hereditary was more understood, it was assumed that mutations in genetic chemicals might do that. But now it is generally realised I think that such are nearly always deleterious, and for new characteristics to be formed, so many 'good' mutations would have to happen simultaneously, as a new characteristic that is partially formed would be a handicap to survival, not an asset!

I'm not talking about slight variation as between different kinds of cats, and tweaking of breed characters, and separation of slightly different groups that are not very different (eg finches).

Because of all this, great ages for the earth are assumed as it is felt that given great time, the impossible might happen … again, and again, and again.

If you say, well God's power directed it, then the question is, why would he need to take long ages to do that, why not six days. And would he use death and survival of the fittest to get to our beautiful creation? (The Bible indicates that the problems weren't there when he first made creation)

The reason I focussed on the fossil evidence and the rocks, in this poem, is that the giving of long ages to the rocks seems to have been largely influenced by the felt 'need' for long ages for evolution to occur, and much work has been done showing that long ages aren't needed for rock hardening, that some fossils cross strata, some have soft tissue and protein remains still in them, and also that any fossils must have been buried quickly or they would have been scavenged, and there are fossil 'graveyards' showing quick engulfing of very many animals at once. This, together with real problems with methods attempted at dating such long ages (how much of the chemicals being measured was there to begin with, how constant has been the rate of loss etc) mean the evidence fits very well with a global flood ie at the time of Noah. Though people are used to that being portayed  with tiny arks (giraffe's head poking out!) and sunshine. The fossil record doesn't really show a gradual change - different creatures were drowned before others - nor intermediate forms.

Didn't think this would take such a long piece, sorry, but I wanted to cover the main points why I consider biblically and scientifically that evolution is a hypothesis that is wrong, and unproved, unlikely and, sadly, has in recent years led many to feel their is no need to believe in God, that we live in a chance universe and they can live as they like.

If you want to take up anything, you are welcome to send me an email through ABC.

regards, Rhiannon