This is in the “I’ve suddenly come to this conclusion that everyone else reached decades ago” category. But all the creationists and religion supporters who are trying to find justification in science for their beliefs have basically admitted that they know science is right and they are wrong. They are trying to figure out how to get the legitimacy of science for their own pet beliefs.
Look at something like Noah’s Ark. Any person who can think partially reasonably can see that Noah’s Ark can’t have happened. But the Christian apologists have been trying to make the science match the Bible for half a century or more. They have come up with hydroplate theory and how Noah was able to build an automated shit shoveler for the ark.
The problem is that by doing this they are playing in science’s court. They brought their geriatric shuffleboard team to the Olympic football championship. It’s not going to work.
The apologists would be much better off trying not to convince people that science supports religious notions and just say “It was a miracle”. Take a page from science, “We don’t know how God did it, but we believe that he did.”
The apologists have two major problems. The first is that they are developing a highly contrived argument that (generally) rests on a single major point. When that point is shown to be false, the entire edifice falls. They have to justify God’s actions and explain them as being consistent with reality. The problem is that as soon as someone points out that someone who has been dead for three days can’t be revived, the apologist loses. The stories in the Bible are fantasy. It’s like someone trying to explain The Lord of the Rings using modern science.
Really, the One Ring was a nanotech computer that was linked to the other rings via quantum entanglement. The rings injected a nanotech virus into the wearer that eventually worked its way into the bearers brain and took over the higher functions. Basically allowing the bearer of the One Ring to control the bearers of the lesser rings.
Of course, the elfs and dwarfs were sufficiently technologically advanced such that their nanotech enhanced immune systems were sufficient to defeat the viruses of the lesser rings. Only the humans’ immune systems weren’t strong enough.
I could go on. In both cases, the belief suffers for comparison to reality.
The second is that they don’t appear to have faith in their god. Again, why not just say, “Goddidit, we don’t know how and that it’s a miracle.” But there’s a problem. The apologist knows that science works and that prayer (for example) doesn’t. The apologist really doesn’t believe, deep down, that their god is real.
I’m willing to bet that William Craig goes to the doctor when he’s sick. I’m willing to bet that he cooks his food and drives a car. I’m willing to bet that he doesn’t ONLY pray for healing and he doesn’t pray that the gas in his tank ignites when he gets in the car.
Even he knows that science works… and even he isn’t so sure about god. Certainly not enough to depend solely on god’s providence for everything in his entire life.
I said something to that effect to another person and they replied that it couldn’t be done in the US. You had to have money to live and giving all your money to god would be tantamount to suicide.
I replied that god never said it would easy or pleasant, he said to give up all your belongings and follow him. But the apologists won’t do it. They know, deep down, that if they let go, there won’t be anything to catch them.
Whenever a Christian tries to justify their belief or the actions of god with science, they are admitting that science works and god doesn’t.
