RSSThe Truth Project, Science, Critique
Apr 11
focus on the family, science, The Truth Project 3 Comments
This is a review and a look at the fifth part of The Truth Project. This section is on science.
I have delayed writing this for several reasons. The first and foremost is that the truth project is frustrating me.
Del Tackett thesis is G-d made the universe and bad people try to say that it is not true. Do not listen to the bad people.
Once again Tackett moves into the us verses them arguments. What is true? Well a person who is philosophically minded will have one answer whereas the (evil music here) atheistic god hating scientist has a differing view.
This is where Tackett really runs into problems. He brings up philosophical naturalism. We use philosophy to understand reality. When we use philosophy we have to come the realization that something bigger then myself exists out there in the world. This thing made everything we see. Why do we say this? Because it would be silly say that I found this item and I came to the conclusion that given billions of years and rain and weather gave me this rock.
Of course it would be silly assume that this item, an arrowhead, just sprung into existence. Of course it was man made.
Therefore . . . how silly is it to assume that the next item is just sprung through a pattern of random factories.
After all a giraffe has a complex set vessels that go with the long neck so the head does not pop when it bends down for the drink. Here are some problems with the giraffe.
Which came first?
The long neck or the long legs? Both are needed for balance
The long neck or the long tongue?
The long tongue or the dark tongue?
The complex circulatory system or the long neck?
To give the thousands of generations that would be required to have the long neck to get to the high trees it would have starved. The first long neck giraffe would have popped its head at the first drink.
Philosophical naturalism can answer these question easily. However, Scientific naturalism cannot answer these questions.
Scientific naturalism is that we can only comment on what we can see and observe. This is most of science. Hence, science only concerns itself with what is, not what maybe.
Tackett’s other big idea is that Darwin has influenced everything. To this I agree. Darwin has influenced just about every field of study. Is this bad? Maybe, maybe not. However, there are questions by some about ditching Darwin because of the problems with Darwin.
The largest hole in Tackett’s approach is that all he says is evolution is wrong. Not so much why creation is right. Not to mention, Tackett never give scientific proof for his reasons, on a section of science.
In conclusion: Tackett again messes up with philosophical and scientific naturalism by overlapping the two. Second, the us against them is everywhere. Lastly, he does nothing to prove from a scientific basis that evolution is wrong.
Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Science, Church, Philosophy
May 03, 2009 @ 18:31:39
If you’re interested, there’s a new web site called “The Truth Problem” which addresses, in specific, many of the factual problems in the series, as well as presenting some alternate (but genuinely Christian) viewpoints.
http://www.TheTruthProblem.info
May 29, 2009 @ 00:52:23
I think you have distorted the meaning of his message somewhat to fit your own opinion, probably just as you say this fellow has done in the truth project. He does in fact discuss the complexity of the cell and speaks as though the design is in fact ‘a design.’ Which in my opinion, would be a step in suggesting why creation might be true.
I havne’t seen it in a while though, so maybe i’m wrong. But I am interested in hearing more about the argument.
Also, your beginning statements (with the musical inserts) are exactly the comical relief that ‘atheist’ (should I insert holy music?) to as rhetoric to further their arguments. Actually I find that sort of banter to be rather pointless. Since you have watched the truth project I’m sure you know that the evil atheists is not the tone which the dude takes.
Jun 02, 2009 @ 22:16:12
I'm interested in sharing your review of The Truth Project with several people at my church. Our church is planning to use it in the fall and I am concerned. I want to be able tell them what perspective you write from — why your comments should be considered. I'm a confessional Lutheran, not an evangelical