The Case For A Creator Part IV: Cosmology
Today most cosmologists believe the universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. However, a beginning for the universe strongly suggests an intelligent causal agent to wind things up, as it were. Since the majority of cosmologists are committed to naturalism, they have been forced to search for a cosmological silver bullet: an explanation for how the universe could spring into existence uncaused.
The oscillating universe theory is one such silver bullet. It tries to get around the question of how the universe began by suggesting the universe oscillates. But if this is true, what caused the oscillations to begin? Another theory, recently put forward, was of multiple overlapping universes existing simultaneously. For this to be true there would have to be some sort of “universe factory” to crank out universes. Ignoring the obvious requirement for a higher intelligence to design such an unlikely universe factory, these same scientists keep grasping for some sort of naturalistic explanation where there is none.
Deist or Theist?
Suppose you were a devoted atheist until you sat down and pondered all this. Then, after researching the particulars on your own, with an open mind, you came to the same conclusion I’ve presented here: There must be a God. The next logical query would be whether this God is personal or impersonal. A deist is a person who believes God is an impersonal distant intelligence who does not interact with His creation. A theist is a person who believes God is personally involved with and cares deeply about His creation, even having personal relationships with individuals. If you are wondering which kind of God to believe in, perhaps you should continue to examine the evidence to determine which is more likely, and therefore more believable.
The Kalam principle suggests a personal Creator. If a man were to walk into a kitchen and find a pot of water boiling, he might ask his wife why the water is boiling. His wife could explain it in terms of kinetic energy or she could say she was making him tea. The former explanation is impersonal (scientific only) while the latter is personal. Since there is no scientific (impersonal) explanation for creation, the reason must be personal. Moreover, if God is indeed personally involved with His creation, it seems logical to seek Him if we are to seek our origin and thus our destiny.
What are the odds of a livable planet?
The odds of life being possible anywhere in the universe is astronomically low. To have the correct combination of gravity, atmosphere, temperature, water, minerals, radiation and radiation shielding, solar characteristics, lunar characteristics, and so forth requires a lengthy list of measured constants to be in perfect alignment. Suppose there were only ten such diverse variables. Suppose each variable had only ten possible values. Life requires each of the ten dials to be set correctly. If any one dial is off, even by a value of 1, life cannot exist. That means the odds of a particular solar system having a habitable planet is one in 10 billion. Most stars do not have the energy range, light range, size, or stability of our sun. Most planets we’ve been able to observe orbiting distant stars are not the perfect distance from their star and not of appropriate mass or composition. Most stars are not of the right composition. Near the center of the Milky Way there is tremendous violent radiation making life anywhere near the nucleus highly unlikely. Of the few planets discovered around other stars, they have been found to have radically oblong orbits compared with the orbits of most of our planets. Earth is in the right part of the galaxy. It is orbiting a star of the correct size and composition, at the right distance and speed, with the right solar and lunar gravitational forces, the right magnetic force, the right ozone, the right outer radiation belt, the right amount of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere, the right amount of oxygen, the right amount of water, the right temperature range, and in general, all the right chemistry to support life. Given these factors, the odds of getting a habitable planet elsewhere in the universe are considerably lower than one in ten billion, yet here we are.
Nuclear chemistry, the Big Bang and Creation cosmology
Nuclear chemistry doesn’t support Big Bang cosmology. Rather it points to a created cosmology. Here’s why.
First, according to the Big Bang theory, large clouds of swirling dust in space spun out into solar systems. Initially all the dust which a solar system is made from is essentially uniformly randomly scattered bits of the same stuff. But if this theory is correct, why is the sun almost entirely hydrogen while the planets are all made of almost entirely heavier elements? Centrifugal force throwing heavy elements out does not account for the observed phenomena.
Second, fusion of light elements gives off energy. This is why the fusion reactions in our sun emit so much energy. Fusion of any elements even slightly heavier, of helium or lithium for example, produces a small fraction of the energy compared to hydrogen fusion. It takes more energy to fuse two elements into a new element (as heavy or heavier than iron) than the fusion reaction gives off. Elements significantly heavier than iron give off more energy than they absorb when they undergo a fission reaction, the nuclear process of breaking a heavy element down into two or more smaller elements with a net release of energy.
Third, all matter is made up of atoms (or parts of atoms). If the sun is made of light elements and the planets are made of heavy elements, there must have been some sort of sorting process. Centrifugal force can’t account for it for at least two reasons: First, the lighter elements should have been thrown to the outside with gravitational forces drawing the heaviest elements to the center. However, in the case of the sun and planets, the opposite is observed, and second, when a spinning mass ejects parts, those parts spin out in the same direction. Two planets spin backward, several moons spin backward, and one planet spins almost completely sideways. The planets all spin at different rates and different angles, in both directions, yet all orbit the sun at the perfect speed given their mass and distance.
Finally, consider the quantum process of fusion itself occurring continuously in our sun. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, mass and energy can be equated using a constant value. In the fusion process, energy is given off because the net mass is reduced by the fusion reaction. In other words, a helium atom with two protons is lighter than the sum of two hydrogen atoms. It is logical that in a given sample, the new mass would be less than the original mass, and the density would be higher. The combined effect would be to reduce the total volume required to hold the sample. In a sample the size of the sun, the same logic implies the sun should be shrinking. Of course the laws of physics are a little more complicated, but the basic logic does apply to hydrogen and helium.
Although there’s been a great amount of debate in the astrophysics community, numerous studies since the 1960s, including a recent study measuring gravity waves in the sun, indicates the sun is shrinking at a rate of up to 4.5 km per year. The average data suggests a likely real shrink rate closer to about 2 km per year. If we trace these laws backward in time 1 million years, adding the “shrink rate” back to the sun’s mass for each year of regress, the sun’s surface should be 1 million km closer to earth, which, of course would make life impossible given the time frame assumed by cosmologists for that period in earth’s history. This is significant, because even if the burn rate of the sun isn’t constant, (or if you assume the size reduction is related to the helium/hydrogen ratio, further assuming the sun began as 100% hydrogen), at a billion years old, the earth would have either started out inside the sun or would have continually drawn closer to the sun with time. All this assumes a purely naturalistic cosmology, which doesn’t account for the observed data.
The Case for a Creator: Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution
The Case for a Creator: Part II Homologous Embryos
The Case for a Creator: Part III Causality and Cosmology
Editor’s Note: Lance Ponder A.K.A. FKI Professor is the author of Ask James One, and a frequent MTW contributor.
The usual objection to the cosmological argument is if something can’t exist without a cause, then what caused this creator? If your reply is that the creator has no cause, then why does the universe need one?
How can you be so sure there is no naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe?
Hi Robert,
I can’t speak for Lance, but I’m sure he will weigh in on your question. In the meantime, I can’t resist putting forth my two cents.
First, to say that the cosmological argument posits nothing can exist without a cause is to do violence to the argument itself. In short your framing of the argument is incorrect. The cosmological argument’s initial premise is that everything which BEGINS to exist has a cause. God never began to exist, therefore God requires no cause. The argument helps philosophical theists sleep at night because it is consistent with both the laws of contingency and causality. Also, it doesn’t get caught up in infinite regress.
However, the idea of an uncaused universe leads to another problem, that of something coming from nothing, uncaused…or if you will, self created, which is, of course, itself a logically inconsistent concept. In order for something to create itself it would have to first exist, but if it already exists…well, you get the point. Beyond that, we end up denying causality ad infinitum once again. You probably didn’t know that “ad infinitum” could be repeated did you? I didn’t either…until I read that last sentence:)
Finally, you asked a rhetorical question concerning certitude that a naturalistic explanation can’t account for the universe. I’ll give you a couple of short answers here, which we can discuss more later if you like. The first one is that I readily admit I have a theistic bias. I believe in a supreme being a priori. The second is that everywhere I look in the universe I see order. Also, with “things” winding down thermodynamically, I have to ask myself (in a universe which sprang into existence with allegedly nothing more going for it than entropic factors) why there should be any order to it at all? Such an idea, that the universe could have ordered itself with nothing more going for it than chance and randomness, is an irrational proposition. I know this because the rational man always goes with the probable. That we could get a beautiful disaster on the cosmic level defies what is probable and therefore rational. Anyway, that’s my take. Naturalists will ask me how I can have certitude about a creator. I can play that game as well and ask them a similar kind of question, like “How can they be so sure that there isn’t one?” But to what end? You take your leap of faith either way. Anyway, it doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out who has the most faith between naturalists and philosophical theists. The man who believes in the improbable clearly has the most faith. And in my never to be humble opinion, that man is the one who has sold out to naturalism.
I don’t know if this subject has been discussed previously since this is my first visit but a common argument used by modern athiests (materialists?) is one propounded by David Hume as a weapon to be used to destroy religion. He stated that God in order to be God must be both good and omnipotent, but the existence of suffering proves that God either does not want to prevent it or is unable to, that is to say is either not good or not omnipotent, and in either case is not God. Therefore, there is no God.
We can agree there is no anthropomorphic God as envisaged by Hume, no kind old man sitting in a back room working out individual rewards and punishments. There is no God with a human scale of values, no God made in the likeness of man. To postulate such a God would mean that the object of human life is mundane happiness and that God’s duty is to ensure it. The question of suffering is bound up with the question of values, and this is dependant on the meaning or purpose of life. Are there things in life worth suffering for? This is ultimately where man’s free will comes into the equation.
Welcome susan.
I also agree; God is not ontologically anthropomorphic. However,I do believe He is parabolically anthropomorphic.
If we can agree there is only one Reality supporting all then I concur. In the vast tapestry of manifestation, the entire universe issues forth into form. Each of us is a thread but precious few of us get to see the entirety of the work in progress. The business of our lives must be to try for deeper understanding.
Robert: God is eternal. He exists without regard to time. In fact, He created time (Gen 1:1). The universe does require a creator because it had a beginning. God is without beginning because God is eternal.
Susan - Suffering does not disprove God. I believe it validates Scripture (Gen 3). The sun and rain both affect the just and unjust alike. There is sin in this world. Suffering is the result of sin. To believe in God is to receive protection from ultimate wrath, but we are promised even by Jesus that there will be suffering in this life. Without suffering we would, at least in our current state, believe we do not need God. It is difficult to comprehend and indeed perhaps counter-intuitive, but suffering is necessary.
Hi Chad Phillips,
Thank you for your clarification. Philosophers and theologians have debated the cosmological argument for ages, with scientists more recently joining in. Some of the latter, like Stephen Hawkings, have suggested that the universe doesn’t have a cause, which defeats the second premise of the cosmological argument, namely, that things which begin to exist have a cause.
It seems you’ve anticipated this objection in your discussion of the problem of an uncaused universe. I fail to see (along with critics of the argument), how your objection cannot be applied to God himself.
Lance stated unequivocally that there were no naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe. Along with me, you seem to disagree with this claim, by speaking in terms of probability. You believe that it’s more probable the universe has come theistic cause, which suggests that you find naturalistic explanations not impossible, but less probable. I understand your reasoning, but I note that all previous attempts to invoke a deity in previously unknown phenomenon have been defeated by scientific explanations. Essentially, I think your position is simply a variant of the “god of the gaps” argument–an argument which has not held up very well.
Robert: Stephen Hawking has attempted to prove mathematically that the universe does not originate with a singularity. What he eventually created was a math model that is shaped like a cone with a rounded tip, like a badminton birdy. It didn’t eliminate the need for a beginning, it merely obscured it. He even admitted to “fudging” to achieve this by adding unknowable variables.
With regard to applying the argument of beginning to God, God is eternal. The universe is not. The universe is not infinite. I will address the mathematic problem of an infinite universe in another post. God is not material so He does is not restricted by our mathematic constructs.
You then said: “Lance stated unequivocally that there were no naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe.” At some mathematical point improbability become an unequivocal no. Although I don’t think I said what you said I said, if I did that’s okay because I simply am past the point of being able to accept 1 chance in 10E157 as a real possibility. The only sensible possibility is God. God is certainly more likely than chance. You also said “all previous attempts to invoke a deity in previously unknown phenomenon have been defeated by scientific explanations.” No, I don’t think so. Perhaps all that you’re aware of, but certainly not all. I can’t speak to whether Chad personally believes in God in the gaps. I personally do not see any gaps in the first 6 days of creation - before, during, or after.
Ultimately the theological arguments are most compelling for me, which I will get to in a later post as well. The clincher, however, which I don’t have a specific post for, is the relationship I have with my resurrected Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. Because I know I can put my entire faith in him through personal experience, I am assured the Word of God is trustworthy.
Lance,
I’m not sure you’ve captured Hawking’s understanding correctly. From what I’ve read, Hawking’s model appears more like a sphere.
I’m not sure how you’re able to make conclusive judgments about the universe, when scientists who’ve spent their lives studying the subject are unable to do so. The universe needs a beginning as much as there is something further south than the south poll, Hawkings might say.
I don’t wish to minimize your personal experience, because it’s obviously quite dear to you. I’ll simply note that similar experiences are put forward as evidence in favor of other religions besides Christianity. This is something for which Christians don’t have a very good explanation.
Robert, we must be looking at different models put forward by Mr. Hawking. Indeed, your information is likely to be newer. A sphere is still finite, though. I have several more posts that will appear here and I would encourage you to continue to raise issues with each one. For one thing, it is how we learn. My confidence in Creation (as opposed to evolution/uniformitarianism) is based on far more than what is presented here. As to personal experience, I will say it is both the start and end point (my own sphere), though I do engage the subject on many levels (many realms of science). Cosmology is for me perhaps the most difficult. As you so aptly pointed out, people with far higher IQ’s have spent a great deal more time pondering this subject. Also, regarding personal experience, I am well aware of the subjective nature of personal experience. I do not disregard personal experience anyone of any religion has out of hand, but I also don’t take “feeling” strictly by itself either.
You’re welcome, Robert. While we’re at it I want to tell you just how much I appreciate your cordial demeanor in discussing this topic.
Anyway, no. My reference to probability isn’t some form of God of the Gaps fallacy. God of the Gaps refers to explanations which are beyond the realm of human explanatory power and therefore belong in God’s domain. The current thinking among those who use this rhetorical weapon is that as human understanding increases, God is relegated to the gaps in our knowledge. In effect, God’s domain shrinks as mans knowledge increases. God becomes nothing more than an interpretive construct in which to explain those things we haven’t an answer for…yet. That certainly isn’t my position and that isn’t the position I took in my earlier comments.
The position I did take was really supplemental in nature. It wasn’t something that explains my entire epistemology. It merely buttresses my view that the universe is more likely the result of a mind as opposed to nothing. That’s what makes sense to me. And if I may be so bold, I believe my view is the objective reality of the cosmos. Entropy, randomness, chance, natural laws, simple repetitive order, the Law of Directed Processes, whatever can’t build a house and they can’t build an ordered universe either. It takes a mind to do that, which is why the order we see all around us wreaks of intelligence.
As for Hawking, his views are primarily metaphysical (as are mine). I’m not saying he isn’t brilliant. I’m just saying that his views are, as you said, suggestions.
Finally, scientific explanations (or suggestions) aren’t evidence any more than say, theological ones are. They are merely what they say they are: explanations. But where the rubber meets the road is the evidence. And each person must decide for themselves what the evidence says in making the determination as to which metaphysical construct is true. Both cases are metaphysics pure and simple. As such, they garner nothing more than inferential evidence. Inference is linked to probability distributions, which to repeat, are heavily in favor of design. But I fully realize that I’ll never be able to prove to you that God exists, nor will you prove to me that He doesn’t. That’s pretty much why all discussions which endeavor to prove/disprove God’s existence are fruitless from an EMPIRICAL standpoint. Perhaps it’s even vain for me to try to speak to this issue. But vain or not, I do believe it is good to strive for mutual understanding, and I appreciate your being willing.
Chad Phillips,
I too appreciate your gracious replies and willingness to express your views and disagreements absent the usual background rancor.
We’ll have to agree to disagree over what seems to be an essential point of divergence: whether order can arise from disorder. If I understand you correctly, you believe such a process cannot occur without some divine intelligence to drive it.
I agree that scientific explanations don’t constitute evidence, but I believe they’re often superior to theological explanations in their ability to coherently account for the sum of evidence we have. It was not too long ago when it seemed that the best explanations for the diversity of life and the existence of humanity came from theology. This is no longer the case with evolution theory.
That said, I agree that the existence of some “unmoved mover” will never be disproved, though I think the Problem of Evil makes the probability of the existence of the Christian god very remote.
Robert,
I realize your most recent comment was directed toward Chad rather than myself. I hope this is not inappropriate for me to respond, but some of the things you said in your last comment beg for clarification.
1. “…whether order can arise from disorder. If I understand you correctly, you believe such a process cannot occur without some divine intelligence to drive it.” — Along with Chad, I would agree to disagree with you about this. To suggest order increases naturally, particularly the degree of order required to create life (or even to add a pair of meaningful chromosomes to existing life), is of such low probability as to be impossible in all practical respects. You have every right to believe it can - that’s a philosophical choice.
2. “I agree that scientific explanations don’t constitute evidence, but I believe they’re often superior to theological explanations in their ability to coherently account for the sum of evidence we have.” — First, you’re expressing a belief, just as we are. I appreciate your acknowledgment of that. Thank you. Secondly, ’scientific explanations’ are actually philosophical musings, not actual science. Many people don’t realize this, thinking a measurement constitutes a conclusion. You and I could both take the same measurement of a box and come up to radically different conclusions about what the box must contain. Obviously we disagree about which is superior - ’scientific explanations’ (philosophy developed by man) or ‘theological explanations’ (revelations from God expressed through man).
3. “It was not too long ago when it seemed that the best explanations for the diversity of life and the existence of humanity came from theology. This is no longer the case with evolution theory.” — Your assumption that the ‘best explanations’ have changed is based on your perspective. It is certainly very popular and clearly in from your perspective most popular. Popular notion is not the same as objective fact. Please don’t think I’m stating my beliefs to be objective fact. My beliefs are called ‘beliefs’ because they include an element of faith. My perspective, just like your perspective, is founded on belief in something which cannot be measured or repeated by quantitative scientific means. Your humility in this discourse it to be greatly commended, but to state so bluntly that evolutionary theory is a better explanation is subjective at best and certainly not accepted at face value. There are countless flaws with evolutionary theory as this series of posts will continue to explore. I can only guess that you have more problems with the idea of the Christian God than your stated “problem of evil.”
4. “…I think the Problem of Evil makes the probability of the existence of the Christian god very remote.” — Taking this particular objection at face value, I realize I will likely not convince you of anything in a mere post comment. That said, I will take a stab at it. Your statement implies evil is God’s fault. The implication is that if in fact God created everything, then God created evil as well. I loathe to get into a debate about free will vs. predestination, but I do believe (personal philosophy) God created humans with free will. Evil exists not because of the free will of humans, but because of the choices made by humans using that free will. Am I splitting hairs? Perhaps. It goes a lot deeper and there’s not room in the comments to go there fully and I fear I would bore you if I tried. Suffice it to say I don’t blame God for the problem of evil, rather I look to Him as the solution for evil.
Again, I want to express my appreciation for your civil debate. Thanks.
Hi Lance,
I have no problem with you or anyone jumping in. Conversation wants to be free!
1. The belief that order can arise from disorder is far from a “philosophical choice.” It is in fact a scientifically well-documented phenomenon.
2. I think our views are simply too far apart on what scientific explanations are to have a meaningful discussion. I would note, however, that “theological explanations” have traditionally had a poor record.
3. It will be interesting to read what you consider the countless flaws of evolutionary theory are. There are some disagreements over specific evolutionary mechanisms, but the theory as a whole is doubted only by a tiny few (who, curiously, all seem to have a religious background.) Those who accept the theory are not simply comprised of secularists, but theists as well.
4. The problem of evil has bedeviled theologians for centuries. I think as part of your Case for a Creator series, it’s a subject you should address in the interest of balance. A one-sided case is not much of a case, is it?
Hey Gentlemen, Good to hear from you, Robert.
I was so impressed with the civility in your exchange, that I just couldn’t help but throw in my two cents. I am a Christian, “in love” with logical reasoning and strong, well thought out discussion. Let me preface this commentary with this, I may be wrong.
The greatest flaw of Darwinian evolution is that it “cannot” address the origin of the first organism. Evolution itself requires something to first “exist” in order for it to “evolve.” Evolution is just an observation that things “change over time.” Richard Dawkins, himself, publicly admitted that no one knows for certain how the first organism was formed. Darwin stumbled onto something when he discovered “adaption,” but Evolution as an explanation of “the beginning” has no substance.
“The problem of evil” is really in the eyes of the beholder. Basically, humans equate evil to things they don’t like, such as “being killed.” Humans die, it is a part of life, whether we like it or not. So what about rape, theft, child abuse, etc. Those are deplorable things, but if God took ALL of those away, we would complain about getting beat up, or being called bad names. So if God took those away, we would complain about traffic or our favorite shows being preempted, etc. Can you see that unless everyone and everything is the exactly the same and completely unchanging, humans will find “evil” in them. Imagine a world where a paper-cut was the worst thing in your day. It would probably devastate you. “Did you hear? Chad got a paper-cut yesterday…that poor man has been through so much. Why would God let that happen?” Humans are so narcissistic, we will always feel sorry for ourselves. Also, without “suffering” there could be no joy. People would be spoiled and could not appreciate the good things, for there would be nothing to compare them to. They would just be things.
Do I have the answers? Well, as a matter of fact, I do. The subjects at hand are beyond the realm of human understanding. The “closest” we will ever get to tangibly finding these answers is through rational discourse such as this. Put a pair of pants on it. Put a skirt on it. Your only choice is faith. I choose Christianity, because I, like Lance, have to go on personal experience, and everything in my heart tells me I’m “close.” I will never know it all, but in a world “filled with evil” God is the only thing that gives me hope.
Wow, I sure missed this debate… I’d like to point out the obvious fallacy with the examples for order from disorder.
It’s scale.
To our eyes, the wind blown sand might appear orderly, but has it been measured? and, since all the sand grains are basically the same size, then it would follow they would react the same to the wind. This is hardly order from disorder.
Order from disorder is an illusion, that I propose was put forward by folks trying to rationalize away God. In point of fact, the universe itself if very ordered, when one looks deep enough. Until you can show me that electrons vary in size, or that their subatomic particles vary in size, I will respond that we live in a universe whose very building blocks crush the ridiculous idea of random creation.
Hi Robert,
Trog is right. The assertion of order from disorder is well…a complicated one. In this case, we’re talking about non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
Along with the benign examples from the url you referenced is another fairly innocuous one, involving water draining from a bathtub.
Initially, you have randomness in play as the water molecules drop down the drain. However, toward the end of the cycle, the molecules spontaneously form a vortex. Some scientists have suggested (as you did) that under certain circumstances nature could do the same thing concerning biology. Never mind that the case studies show no such examples in living things; the real point is that the examples cited as evidence are utterly NOT analogous to what is observed in living systems.
And the main reason why is the level of organization in the examples, both from the site and my bathtub analogy, is extremely low level. There’s a huge difference between the amount of information required to produce the examples cited and the amount of information required to produce the specified complexity we see in biology. That explains the desperation of brilliant scientists like Francis Crick and now even skeptics like Richard Dawkins looking for intelligent causes for our existence.
Granted, they’re not willing to credit a non-empirical supreme being as the intelligence behind specified complexity, but they are willing to entertain the possibility of non-empirical E.T.’s as the reason for biological complexity. BTW, I think this is a step in the right direction (this puts them grudgingly in the Intelligent Design camp). At least now they’re beginning to accept that specified complexity is ordered at such a high level that evolution friendly mechanisms like chance, natural laws, and mutation can’t account for it.
But their admission reveals their real objection. It’s not intelligence as a causative factor for life on the planet they have a problem with; it’s the possessor of that intelligence. After all, what is the real difference between undetectable spacemen and an undetectable supreme being? In a word, it’s accountability. Therein lies the philosophical bias undergirding what has become synonymous with enlightened thinking—not that their bias makes them necessarily wrong. But you can see how their bias has skewed their thinking and thus their “science” when they are ready and willing to invoke aliens but they won’t invoke God.
I also note that concerning your comment about secularists and theists believing in naturalistic evolution that the inverse is true concerning I.D. theorists. This shows as a point of fact that a person doesn’t have to believe in God in order to believe that biological systems are the result of intelligence. Just ask Dawkins and Crick.
Robert:
Sorry this is getting so long winded. I forgot to add something per your comment about “theological explanations” having a “poor” record. I presume you’re making a distinction between the theological and the scientific here. I have no problem with that, by the way. However, if that is your implicit reference, it is a straw man, and therefore unfair to frame the two in this way.
It comes across as though you’re saying since the theological has a “traditionally poor record,” (and science’s record goes without saying) it is the theological which has often been wrong and that the scientific has always been right (or nearly always been right).
But there’s another, more fundamental, flaw in this reasoning. It assumes that since errors have been made by the respective discipline, it is doubtful (if not absolute) that the same discipline’s conclusions couldn’t possibly be correct about anything, EVER. Is that your meaning? Just because a discipline has made errors, it DOESN’T follow that all their subsequent conclusions are wrong. If that were the case, then I could easily make the same argument about science. But I won’t because I believe it would be disingenuous for me to do so.
In closing, let me add that I’m not implying you’re being disingenuous with that barb. I believe you’re being honest, sincere, and respectful in your comments. But I do believe that folks on both sides make these kinds of statements without really thinking about it, mostly because we’ve been so inundated by these messages, the meme becomes an unquestioned truth in the culture.
Thanks:)