Science versus Religion

In my experience, the Calvinist-Arminian debate is a walk in the park compared to the war that atheist scientism wages against biblical theism. Each side fails to hear the other, neither can accurately present the other's beliefs, neither side adheres to strict honesty, each demonizes the other, each is polluted with ignorant peacocks who master a few arguments and pretend to have annihilated the other's position.

There's probably more chance for peace in the Middle East than in this debate. "Radicalized scientist"--heh heh, about as common as leaves on the ground in November.

 

You're one to speak of demonizing.

Creationists trust what they have learned from the Bible over what they have heard from scientists. They are mainly religious people, and very few people with strong biological training are creationists. One claim I hear particularly often is that complex systems cannot arise without a designer. Another is that evolution is not well supported by the evidence and is mainly based on speculation.

Have I accurately and honestly portrayed creationists?

 

But then there are scientists such as Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, while not creationists, are theists, even Christians.

 

And there are still non-believers, such as Stephen Gould, who speak respectfully and favorably about religion, and deny that science has anything negative to say about faith.

It is not surprising after a small, but well-funded attack on science by a minority of unorthodox Christians, that some scientists have erroneously assumed that religion is opposed to truth.

Most know better. Most of us are theists ourselves.

 

Yes, completely.

"Complex" may be the wrong word, though, although you are probably correct when you say that you hear it often. A pile of straw lies in a complex pattern, so complexity and randomness are not mutually exclusive. "Complex system," on the other hand, includes the word "system," which implies design.

Design and randomness are mutually exclusive by defininiton. Theistic evolution can get around that problem. Atheistic scientism, (the only folks of whom I wrote, you'll notice), cannot. But I'll give them credit for trying really hard.

 

"Religion" is no problem to anyone until it makes claims to be objectively true. Everyone agrees that we ought to be nice. Sometimes I even try to be nice myself.

Presuppositions, basic beliefs, ultimately dictate the interpretation of scientific data; the data doesn't interpret itself.

 

What do you mean by "atheist scientism"? Science that does not include theism?

 

Scientism is the stance that science uncovers ultimate truth. The term pretty much implies atheism, but I added "atheistic" to avoid the predictable comebacks. I was circumventing theistic evolutionism.

The scientific method assumes that no "god" has meddled with the data. If Adam looks thirty years old, then he absolutely is thirty years old. There is no allowing for the possibility that God created Adam last week.

But if God did create Adam last week, then science is helpless to demonstrate it.

Science is a fine thing, but atheists elevate it above what it merits. Then you wind up with Peter Singer and the crowds who pay him good money to say the things he says. (At least he's consistent.)

 

Not ultimately, as the more scientists interpreting, the more variety of presuppositions and basic beliefs the interpretation must withstand. Also, the data very often is or isn't consistent with the explanation. When it is not, the explanation must be reworked.

 

Wow, I've never heard any scientists claiming that. I haven't seen any scientific papers lately in which the authors claimed to have learned anything about an "ultimate truth" concerning God or morality.

So you're pointing out that if God decides to trick us with false evidence, science will come to the wrong conclusion? How is that a failure of science?

 

They don't claim it; they take that stance and assume it. For instance: "the cosmos is all there is and all there will ever be." That assumes that there is nothing true beyond what a scientist can study and unravel: the cosmos. If there's no truth beyond it, it is ultimate.

You have repeated an old and pedestrian misrepresentation of YECism.

When the Lord fed the multitudes with bread that was not in existence earlier that day, the bread looked like it had been in existence earlier that day. That isn't trickery through false evidence, as you allege.

The failure is on the part of the scientist who tries to use science to study something for which science is ill-suited, or who begins with presuppositions at variance with God's revealed truth.

 

Except that most scientists are religious to some degree. They just don't try to apply science to it.

Huh? Most creationists (in my experience) claim there is scientific evidence for their claim. You seem to be claming that there is none, but that science should consider God anyway.
When has science ever been advanced in its predictive abilities by a theory that included God's intervention?

Which scientists are these?

 

From the link provided above:


Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris - a member of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee - said: "If human benefit can be derived by perfecting therapeutic cloning techniques or from research into subsequently-derived stem cells, then it would actually be immoral to prevent it just because of a 'yuck' factor."

The article goes on to say;




"They would insert human DNA into a cow's egg which has had its genetic material removed, and then create an embryo by the same technique that produced Dolly the Sheep.
The resulting embryo would be 99.9% human; the only bovine element would be DNA outside the nucleus of the cell. It would, though, technically be a chimera - a mixing of two distinct species into one. "


I submit that ethics are not a strong suit for most "scientists".

 

I spoke of scientism. Whether or not most scientists err in that way was not under consideration. (I suspect that most do not.)

I don't see your point, so I'll review mine. If God creates anything, that thing looks as though it was there earlier. That's just the way existence and observation works. The fact that it "looks" contrary to its actual age renders science impotent to judge its age. You labeled such a state of affairs trickery and false evidence on God's part.

I assume that it never has, but I don't see why you'd even bring that up.

I wrote "The failure is on the part of the scientist who tries to use science to study something for which science is ill-suited, or who begins with presuppositions at variance with God's revealed truth." As to the latter, my earlier "cosmos" quote suffices. As to the former, the matter of origins is beyond the reach of science. Science cannot explain regeneration. It cannot explain a mother's love or the fallenness of man. They try, but the limits of their tools leaves them wandering in darkness.

 

So, if God purposely creates a universe with observeable age, including rocks, distant galaxies millions of light years away, etc.; yet it is NOT that old, then God is lying.