And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire—and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands.(Revelation 15:2) ESV
One of the most well known events in the science vs. faith fiasco was a match up between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. The debate was on the question “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?”
Anyone who loves popular science (SciPop) believes that Bill Nye won hands down. Anyone who loves the Bible believes that Ken Ham won, sort of. The truth is, neither of them understood the issue. The Biblical account of creation is in harmony with the evidence, it’s simply one of two competing paradigms which account for the same evidence. The debate ended with the moderator asking the participants “what would change your mind?”
Ken Ham said “Nothing,” which proved what SciPop devotees say about people of faith: they’re dogmatic, inconsiderate and unreasonable. It simply and effectively undermined all of Ham’s effort, even though it was the right thing to say. He was being honest. We’re supposed to be honest.
Bill Nye said “Evidence,” and masterfully demonstrated that he was an enlightened, considerate, reasonable type who would objectively evaluate all sources of information. It was sleight-of-hand.
The thing is, and the reason why Ken Ham was so badly prepared for the debate, there’s a misconception that SciPop devotees have evidence but people of faith have the Bible. Here’s the thing: the Bible isn’t evidence, it’s how we interpret evidence. We’re going explain this with an example: observation of detectable luminosity in the remote regions of the cosmos.
Here’s three examples of breathless, giddy reporting on SciPop’s failure to understand the significance of cosmic discoveries.
Firstly, we all have the same evidence. One side can’t claim to have evidence that the other doesn’t, because we’re all attempting to account for the same evidence. This is a philosophical tenet known as Matty’s razor.
We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.– Matty’s Razor
Secondly, the evidence is luminosity in the remote regions of the cosmos which was detected by the Voyagers and New Horizons space missions. That’s it, nothing else. Just to be clear: the evidence isn’t that there’s a heliopause or a wall of glowing Hydrogen. The evidence is a measurable about of luminosity in the remote regions of the cosmos.
Now, the issue is, how do we account for the evidence? What causes this phenomenon? Presently there are two choices:
- in SciPop (the Star Trek universe) rationale has to be induced which makes the findings compatible with the notion of a heliopause, a theoretical (imaginary) cosmic beach where the outgoing solar wind piles up against incoming interstellar radiation (the existence of which isn’t a testable hypothesis so it’s not scientific). The only way to account for the luminosity is to induce rationale that the collision between outgoing and incoming radiation causes uncharged Hydrogen to glow brightly. This is a classic example of induction: the premise (a heliopause) has been used to provide evidence for the conclusion (a heliopause). Technically it’s inductive reductive circular reasoning, a.k.a. pulling out of thin air.
- in Matty’s Paradigm the cause is stated in Daniel 12:3 it’s the firmament, which is also referred to as a sea of glass (Revelation 4:6, 15:2).
Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever.(Daniel 12:3) NKJV