Errors in Science!

You are very correct, but I don't think in the sense that you thought.

If science assumes naturalism, it enters the realm of philosophy. Since all science assumes naturalism, all science is philosophical to a certain extent.

The extent being we assume that scientific principles based on what we can observe via our senses can adequately explain the world around us. And we assume that those principles will hold for other places and times under the same conditions.

God could decide tomorrow that non-relativistic gravity is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance between the objects. That would throw all our science on gravity out the door. But for science to be useful to us, we need to assume that God will not do this and act supernaturally in this way.

That doesn't mean that supernatural forces do not exist or cannot exist. It also doesn't mean that there is no intelligence behind natural.

 

I don't see how this relates to the points I'm trying to make. But just an fyi that most drugs that we have been using throughout history are natural. Synthetic drugs are a recent development due to advances in biochemistry.

Just an fyi that I am not arguing against intelliegence behind creation, since I believe that God is the creator of all things and that God is intelligent.

 

I forgot to add that "science" that does not make naturalistic assumptions is no longer science that is also philosophical to the extent above. It then becomes philosophy that is not science at all.

Once again I reiterate that just because science must make naturalistic assumptions, doesn't mean that scientists must hold to a naturalistic cosmology or worldview.

 

THANK YOU!!!! This is the first time I've seen an admission that this topic is unprovable; as to either belief system I might add! So it boils down to which version of creation you believe, man's or God's.

Can you honestly say that these conclusions have NO, NADA, ZILCH prior assumptions factored in? If your answer is "yes", then please give the basis or foundation, that undeniable rock-solid cornerstone, from which these data are derived.

Sorry you have not convinced me.

No pretending here, just a difference of interpretation. My take is that God created "verbatim" as He states, and all this "age" is just a natural part of his creation, not evidence of a long duration. If you could have examined Adam 5 minutes after his creation, do you honestly believe any modern scientist would have deduced he was only 5 minutes old? I believe that should such be possible, a modern scientist would have estimated him to be 20, 30, 45 or so years old.
How old do you think he looked physically, being in truth only 5 minutes old?

So, rather than being a detriment to non or young believers, I believe just letting the Scripture speak for itself rather than trying to fit it to modern science, speaks volumns for the greatness and majesty of our God.

The only option is to say that God did not mean what He said , and it's downhill from there.

Since it's obvious that neither of us is going to alter the opinion of the other, I'm bowing out for now.

Edited to add:
Let me thank you though, CM, for the low key and gracious manner you have "argued" with me. I have enjoyed it!

 

God definitely meant what he said. Humans often misunderstand it, especially when they ignore the literary, historical and cultural context of the original authors and read the bible as if it was written by someone in today's culture in a scientific literary style.

 

I realized I left a few unresolved issues.

Regarding the "randomness" of evolution, here are some views.

 

This was posted: "You speak of science as if it is an entity unto itself - something that SHOULD BE VIEWED AS OPPOSED TO RELIGION. "[/b}

Well, actually, Science has presented itself as opposed to faith, so it is really no wonder that Christians, and for that matter, members of non-Christian faiths, are feeling more and more "anti-Science."

More and more you hear that Science is "based on facts," and "faith is based on myth." Well, no, actually Christianity has a much great accuracy record than science does.

You hear Christians referred to as "ignorant" and already someone representing science has "apologized for being educated," as if those of us who question science are not educated.

Science is the making of observations based on things we see.

This accounts to why Science is so often wrong, and yet, it is used to challenge Christians time and time again. We're told if we can't see God, He doesn't exist.

They couldn't see germs and told Pasteur he was nuts, but he wasn't.
They couldn't see the atom, but it was there.
They couldn't see the neturons and protons, but THEY were there.
They couldn't see gravity, but it is there.

They'll come back and say, "Well, sure, but you know, with gravity you can see the affect it has on things! So you can prove it exists!" A Christian says, "With God, we can see the affect it has on things, He has proven He exists." We're laughed at, mocked, ridiculed, and labeled "uneducated," and "unintelligent."

Science has BECOME the religion of many.
It has become the GOD, the IDOL of many.

Science is based on what man sees, but claims to hold the truth.
Faith is based on what man cannot see, and IS the truth.

Yet, the way science presents itself, it is "cold, hard, accurate, fact."

People point to God's word and say, "That's full of flaws. Look! Here in this chapter it says things happened in THIS order, and over here it doesn't even MENTION this thing!" But they never point to Science and go, "Hey, remember when they told us that the earth was flat? Or - how about how they swore that you couldn't fly out of the atomosphere? Or what about when they thought it was a great idea to wear a dirty lab coat so you could show how experienced you were? What about when they gave estrogen to cancer patients thinking it was a cure, and then found out it was a killer?"

Science went from a theory - to a faith.
Science asks Christians to set aside our blind faith, and accept their theories.

And when science did that, they DID make science an enemy.

 

Why can't true science address beginnings? If that were true, what is "Creation Science"?

I guess I am no longer a scientist since I work in computers now, but I definitely believe in Creation, a Creation that includes evolution.

ICR and AIG while they are some of the more academic attempts at presenting "Creation Science", they are still far from the quality of science expected from respected journals who are looking for papers that analyze the evidence, regardless of what view of origins it supports.

 

You have incorrectly stated on a number of occasions that "all science assumes naturalism". See my previous post regarding the contributions of Scientists who believe in Creation. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

I don't see how this relates to the points I'm trying to make. But just an fyi that most drugs that we have been using throughout history are natural. Synthetic drugs are a recent development due to advances in biochemistry.</font>[/QUOTE] The specific example you cited inferred the latter.

The way it relates to your example is that you tried to make a point about acceptanace of naturalism... by pointing to an example that refutes the naturalism employed to limit explanations of creation. Evolution assumes that no intelligent causes were involved in creation.

Just an fyi that I am not arguing against intelliegence behind creation, since I believe that God is the creator of all things and that God is intelligent. </font>[/QUOTE]Another thing worth mentioning about God is that our creative abilities are limited by laws of the physical world we live in.

We cannot fully comprehend a person who can create by nothing more than willing it to be so. But that is exactly the kind of God the Bible describes. God may have used some mechanics that we could measure/describe naturally. On the other hand, He may have simply willed it to be without any "process" at all.

The Genesis account is dependent on either the latter proposition or else that God superceded the natural laws that He created and made things very quickly.

 

Everything in science is an error or will be eventually. The scientific method presents a way for science to continually correct itself.

The scientific views of gravity over time is an interesting study. Now that we know that Newton's laws of gravity don't hold in relativistic circumstances like the very big (astonomical) and the very small (subatomic). Eventually we will probably find an exception to Einstein's general relativity.

 

I love it.

The Bible is accused of having errors, but then later, oops, the Bible was right.

Science, especially scientific naturalism, can't help but be wrong, because its philosophical assumptions are wrong. There is more to life than nature! It's called "the supernatural."

It was science, not the Bible that taught that the earth was at the center of the universe!

It is misinterpretation of Scripture that teaches that the "universe" was created in six days.

Both science and the Bible need to be interpreted correctly! God's two books, nature and revelation, must be compatible.

 

The "earth is flat" myth was propagated by Haeckel and others in the 1800s to show that the church was wrong and Darwinism was right.

A professor from UC - Santa Barbara has debunked this myth! Neither Columbus or others believed that the earth was flat.

 

Maybe... but I don't think so.

The Bible says that God spoke the world into existence. That very well could mean that He imagined it as he wanted it and willed it to be without anything we would recognize as "process".

When we imagine something, we still must "do" something within the confines of the natural laws that bind us to make it a reality. God is not bound by natural laws. His saying something makes it reality.

 

Hi Scott,

I'm simply suggesting that young earth creationists may be misinterpreting Scripture.

Genesis 1:2 says that the Holy Spirit hovered over the face of the waters, but it doesn't say for how long!

They also misinterpret the passages in Exodus that speak of "in six days." The text of Genesis identifies "shamayim, eres, and yam" as "sky, land, and sea." Therefore the Exodus passage only teaches that in six days God "made" the earth's biosphere habitable for life. It does not teach that God created the universe in six days (IMO).