Let's Squash Some Bugs, The Butt, Scott Debate

     Some of us may have heard the term "Let's squash some Bugs".  It is a saying the has the meaning of putting to death something that someone has said or has asserted to be true.  An example may be helpful.  Someone makes the assertion that the room is black when it is actually white.  You would "squash that bug" by making the logical argument that the room is white.  The important thing to remember is that you do it in a logical and reasoned way so that "the bug is squashed" or the argument is put to death.  In fact, this is exactly what we see out Lord doing in Matt. 22:23-34.

²³The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
 ²⁴Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
 ²⁵Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
 ²⁶Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
 ²⁷And last of all the woman died also.
 ²⁸Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
 ²⁹Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
 ³⁰For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
 ³¹But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
 ³²I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
 ³³And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
 ³⁴But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

This is a clear example of our Lord "Squashing a Bug" in the fact that he put the Sadducees to silence.  They could not come back with any argument to refute what he had said.  He had killed their argument.

      This is really what defending the faith is all about.  When people come to us who are against the faith, we need to be able to "squash the bug".  We need to put their arguments to silence.  A friend of mine once said that the arguments that were put forth by Mr. Scott were just smoking mirrors, which I would agree with.  But the problem that my friend has is that it seems that he is unable to "squash the bug" and put those arguments to silence.  Without doing this, we leave those who are against the faith is the position of equality.  It is the old "He said, She said" dilemma and we get nowhere with the discourse.  In fact I would say we have failed to fulfill our command to "earnestly contend for the faith" as commanded in Jude 3.  With this introduction, let us "Squash Some Bugs" that Mr. Scott has presented to us in the debate.

     The first item that we wish to squash is the comment that Mr. Scott made in his opening statement in which he labeled Mr. Butt as a science denier.  This is a classic statement made to those who know and understand that Genesis 1-11 are factual accounts of the history of the earth.  The basic argument is that those who believe is a young earth deny the science of radiometric dating.  As Mr. Scott had presented that Mr. Butt accepts the science of the microwave yet he denies the science of dating systems.  Here we see our first "bug to squash".  Mr. Scott, in making this argument, has committed the logical fallacy of Equivocation.  This is one of the most common fallacies that the atheist makes.  So what is this fallacy, I am glad you asked;

      The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
     For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.


     We see this fallacy by Mr. Scott when he changes the definition of the word science in his argument.  When Mr. Scott says that Mr. Butt accepts the science of the microwave, science is being defined as OBSERVATIONAL science. 
Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
Operational science is the type of science that allows us to understand how DNA codes for proteins in cells. It is the type of science that has allowed us to cure and treat diseases, put a man on the moon, build satellites and telescopes, and make products that are useful to humans. Biblical creationists believe that God has created a universe that uses a set of natural laws that operate consistently in the universe. Understanding how those laws operate is the basis for scientific thinking.  This is the type of science that we actually know to be true without any assumptions to make on our part.

     Yet when Mr. Scott says that Mr. Butt denies the science of dating systems, he has changed the definition of science from observational to HISTORICAL science.
Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.
The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe. Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different. The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.

We can see the difference in the two definitions of science.  The science of the microwave oven requires no interpretation of the evidence, we can observe if it works or if it does not.  The science of dating systems requires an interpretation of the evidence based upon the observers presuppositions.  They are not the same. We can never be sure that the dating system is not flawed in some way, that our initial assumptions are correct.  Listed here are the posts about the age of the earth and the problems that it has;

1)http://daviddale3.blogspot.com/2011/05/age-of-earth-part-1.html
2)http://daviddale3.blogspot.com/2011/05/age-of-earth-part-2.html
3)http://daviddale3.blogspot.com/2011/05/age-of-earth-part-3.html

     You may want to pay particular attention to #2 in which I show the items needed in order to have an accurate clock.  The modern dating systems do not have any of those items. 

     So, the comment made by Mr. Scott about being a science denier is a logical fallacy.  One bug squashed.