History & Comment for April 1, 2025

A look at historical and current events on this day, comment and humor so dry it would make a camel thirsty. 

Transcript

This is History and Comment for Tuesday the 1st of April 2025.   

I have often stated the two subjects that should not be discussed in polite society are religion and politics, and I wade right in on both.    I have had a few ideas on religion that have been running around in my head and I will take today’s episode to discuss them. 

We hear lots of comments that folks should trust science.   Anyone who claims to be a scientist is automatically an expert in all subjects.    That is not so.    Application of the scientific method is what defines a scientist.   Most of the time a professional scientist is a person who’s work is primarily in research.    Most of the time,  that is going to require a Ph.D.   That does not mean a person of lesser training cannot apply the scientific method.     

The circular concept of observation, proposing an idea, testing it and returning to observation seems to have originated with Sir Francis Bacon who lived in England in the late 16th Century.    The hard date is very late in Bacon’s life and place at 1620.   

There are a couple of misconceptions  today.   No theory is above question.  Now there are some laws of nature that appear to be universal.   The sky is blue,  grass is green and a list of laws of physics, like gravity,  the speed of light and so on.    These things have been observed and tested to the point the outcome is predicable in every known situation.  

Every scientific statement assumes a set of conditions.   Saying the sky is blue assumes we are talking about as viewed from earth.     Or at least an atmosphere that contains a high percentage of nitrogen and a lesser percentage of oxygen.   

Scientific theories must be observable and repeatable.  This point is absolutely critical.    If we cannot observe an entire process and can only look at some end or current state, then we have to insert some assumptions about the parts of the process we cannot repeat and observe.    How we come to those assumptions is largely controlled by what we already believe.    Believe since we cannot know as knowledge requires observation.   I have never been to Paris.  I cannot say with absolute authority that the Eiffel Tower exist. I believe it does as a number of sources say it does and I assume they are credible.   Notice how the words assumptions and belief are used.  

That was all foundation material.   There are two schools of thought when we discuss the universe and its origins.     One there is no overarching intelligence the other the counter point.  The universe is the product of intelligent design.   It is either planned or random.   That is the assumption that drives all of the discussions and theories.   It is not a scientific fact as neither position can be observed and tested.   Any theory has to assume one position as its beginning point.  

As a reasonable thinking adult, who has studied a bit of science. I fail to understand how folks can observe the vastness and complexity of the universe and not come to the conclusion that it had to have a planner and designer.   At the same time we can take a very deep dive into micro world.    Looking at the cellular level and even beyond to the atomic.  Again we see complexity in the minute.   

Nowhere in the observable universe does the random move towards order.  In fact the opposite is true.   So why do we want to believe that at the uppermost level the opposite is true?   Because it begs the question of what is the nature of the designer?  

We can call that God.   I have a very ancient text that claims to hold knowledge of the origins and nature of that designer.    It further begs submission to that God.   If he transcends the universe and has the ability to create and design our observable. His power is beyond anything we can know, understand and should I say conqueror.      The best choice is to submit.  It really is no choice as best we can observe he is sovereign.  

Yes I have crossed into the relam of religion or at least the set of assumptions we hold about the origins of the observable.   You can assume atheism or any number of belief systems on which to base your world view.   But do they fit the observable?   To my thinking what I can observe is best explained by the judea-Christian worldview.   That is a scientific conclusion.   

Let’s turn a corner.    I came across a video discussing a geological / archelogical anomaly discovered in 1959 by Turkish Army Captain Illan Durupinar.    There is some debate as to what the site is.    Even among those who hold the Judea-Cristian worldview.   What we can say from scientific observation and testing.   It is not a natural site and shows indications of being man-made.   This is from a battery of non-destructive test.    Ground penetrating radar and other such techniques suggest there is a distinct pattern in the site that has not been excavated. Including void spaces, large enough to be passage ways.    The site is considered significant by the Turkish Government and as such protected.  

Now some conclude it is the remenants of Noah’s Ark and others are highly skeptical, but that is based on assumptions not science.   From a historical perspective, there are a number of accounts dating back roughly 2000 years that attest that the location of Noah’s Ark was known.   Could this in fact be what some claim? That will never be a certainty as science does not deal with absolutes.   But it is highly suggestive or at the very least curious.    I will post a link to a video discussing the site on the Facebook page.    Watch and come to a conclusion based on what is observable and the evidence suggest.  

Looking at the clock, time is getting away quickly.  

I’m going another level deeper into religion.     If we in fact believe what we say,  about God, why do we reject or minimize any power in a relationship with him?    We claim a personal God, who in fact is the embodiment of Love and compassion. Yet we act like we only want a light sprinkling of devotion.   And even less in return?     The scripture, “ will I find faith when I come?”  is haunting.    Do we really believe what we say we do.   This goes from the back pew to the highest levels of preachers.   Our belief and faith is tissue thin.   

There was a cartoon that came across my feed a few days ago that might seem funny on some levels but it really displays how little reguard we hold for a future life.   Most folks see this life as the main event and heaven or the future something pleasant but less.    The cartoon showed a guy at the Pearly Gates and was dejected that he had left a winning lottery ticket behind.     The message was that, what money could buy on earth was of value when standing  at the gates of heaven.      That folks is hardly logical, within the framework of the assumptions we generally hold as Christians.  

Do we really believe that this life is only a prelude to an endless existence in close proximity to a God who is more powerful that we can imagine and values us more than we can know and wants a relationship with us.   

Most churches want little more than a cleaver presentation and a slightly warm feeling.   Rejecting that there could and should be so much more.       Would it make a serious difference if in a few years researchers find a wooden structure buried in Turkey that fits the Flood narrative?   We have volumes of historical observations that suggest the narrative is accurate and still we cannot generate enough faith to act on it.   

The New Testament promises that signs will follow faith and most preachers discount that fact and settle for far less.    I’m not sure if that is faith or out right disbelief.  

                                                                             1