Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?

Scientific inquiry was the the fruit of the christian worldview and so I doubt any christian would want it to stop ...Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

There is a HUGE difference between wanting scientific inquiry to stop, which is the topic of this thread, and wanting a given scientific theory to be viewed as false.A scientific theory can go against a doctrine, but you can't really equivocate the two concepts.Anyhow, I don't really get how the OP got the idea that, because a certain religious group does not accept a given scientific theory, then that they probably want (or should want) scientific inquiry to end.

I wanted to start a topic on this some time ago, but didn't have the time to unfortunately.Modern science as we know it originated from the christian wordview in europe. If you believe that the world is but someone elses dream, it won't give you the foudation required to go out and study it, because at any moment the dream can change.But if you believe in an eternal God who never changes, and who upholds his creation, then it gives who the foundations and axioms needed to go out and observe the world, because you will expect it to be consistent an ordered, and that it will contain laws that will not change.The ancient greek is probably a hybrid between the two former, since although their worldview did encourage the observation of nature, it also put huge philosophical restrictions on what they should be observing. The planets HAD to move in perfect circles, because the circle was the purest form of movement in their view. Aristotle's idea of what composed mater (namely fire,water,earth and air) was purely philosophical and had no basis in any sort of scientific inquiry. The philosophical appeal was the only reason this view was favored over Democritus's atom theory. The existence of irrational numbers in mathematics was first rejected because of philosophical objections.Of course, I could go on and on, from the false impression of the church in Galileo's time to the historical revisionism of Columbus's story. If their is a genuine interest to discuss this (not debate), then I'll start a thread on it as soon as I can.

Yeah I agree I may have shifted the goalpost a little bit, but it was because I hadn't been clear enough in my first post that you responded to.In it I said that ''scientific inquiry was the fruit of the christian worldview'', meaning of course the same meaning the OP used when he asked about scientific inquiry, which is modern science. (there would be no point of asking if we should stop scientific inquiry as the ancient greeks did it)My bad, I should have been clearer in that first post in order to avoid confusion. Dunno when I'll have time to start a thread, since I want not only to start it off but also stay in it to discuss. It'll probably go to next week after my exams.

This is probably another topic. But to make it short, I disagree.An intelligent christian that rejects the ToE won't reject the science behind it, he will reject the assumptions and the interpretations behind it.Imagine a person who rejects uniformitarian approach to geology, does this mean he rejects geology ? Of course not, he juste rejects a particular assumptions made to interpret geological finds.Same goes with the ToE.

Ok let's take the example of C14 dating. I do not of any creationist (apart from maybe kent hovind lol) who think the dating process is inherently flawed, and reject it based on that fact.They reject the C14 results, because they reject the assumptions behind it. One of those assumptions of course is that the rate of decay has been constant.Now don't get me wrong, measuring the current decay rate is not an assumption, it is an observation. As is measuring the current level of C14 in a fossil. Creationists will never dispute these. But they will dispute that you cannot assume that the rate has been constant in the past, which isn't an observation, but an assumption.I don't want to sound negatively about assumptions. They are an important part of scientific inquiry. Hell, creationist make assumption all the time when they do research, and of course since all this goes both ways, evolutionists reject their data because they reject the assumptions behind them.

I agree, those are both assumptions of the ToE, but as you said, this is so also because they are the same as science overall. But of course, the ToE rests on other assumptions.When Darwin wrote on the origin of species, what had he actually observe ?
He had observed finch beaks being bigger and smaller from island to island.And what did he extrapolate did from this ? That all the animals on the earth had a common ancestor, and that life could be arranged in a tree of common descent. When you consider what he had actually observed, no doubt does it sound a bit of a stretch to arrive at such a conclusion.So why then, did he arrive at such a conclusion ? It is because he assumed that the little changes he saw could be extrapolated through time as to amount to big changes. Is it 'bad' of him to have done that ? Of course not, it is perfectly legitimate. But you will also notice that it is this assumption that is being rejected by creationist. (Another assumption he made was that the earth was very old, based on Hutton and Lyell's assumption of uniformitrianism)Irony of history, evolution itself became an assumption for another part of science, namely paleontology. The fact of evolution was assumed for every fossil found, although at that time in history evolution was far from the established proven theory it is today. And it's ok, since if it hadn't been that assumption, it would have been another. This is all perfectly legitimate.

If you look at my previous post, you will see that I didn't equate assumptions with wrong.

This'll be for jazzns also I guess (but I can only reply to one post)Of course, supernovae observations have shed some light on this. But you will agree that when C14 was first used, constant decay rates in the past were an assumption.Supernovae data came afterwards. And of course cary their own assumptions, and creationist will attack these assumptions, not the observations. And of course, they will propose their own assumptions, and interpret the observations accordingly, and evolutionists will atack these assumptions.Assumptions all the way to the bottom, like turtle shells You can't get rid of them, because that's how scientific inquiry work. Like axioms in mathematics I guess.

I wasn't clear enough then. The finch beak was simply an example. I wans't to start saying every single thing he did observe, since iti would have been way to long. But Overall, his observations are all analog to the clasic textbook example of finch beaks. In other words: Variations among existing species.And of course, fossils had been dug up before Darwin. But they were all reinterpreted in the light of the new 'fact' of evolution when Darwin published. Which of course wasn't close to be a proven fact.

Isn't asking this equivalent to comparing creationism and evolutionism as a whole, in one thread ? (since you ask for ALL the facts)I assume the genesis account to be accurate, and this is my primary assumption. Counter-intuitevely though,there is no arguing this. As I can start with any assumption I want.How then can we determine if a given assumption is valid or not ? Well it comes when you start looking at facts, and if those fit with your assumption, you can continue trusting it as to look at other facts, and if it still fits quite nicely, then you continue to trust in your assumption, with each time having more confidence in it. This will end in one of two ways: either you will cover all the facts and so your assumptions is valid up to that point, or your assumption will not be able to take into account a fact, and so it will be falsified.Note that this is right in line with the basis for Karl Popper's falsification citerion. you cannot prove anything, only falsify.

Well of course this isn't the only information biologists today have, and I never said such a thing.But apart from variations among species, what other information did he have ? The fossil record, by his own admission, didn't show evolution at all in his time, so this sure was not information he relied upon.Neither did he directly observe the impacts of natural selection. He deduced it from the variation he saw in species from island to island.The only other observation I guess he could have had was when he saw humans who lived in a non-civilised state, but this only became important in his book 'the descent of man'He also observed some geological sites which he interpreted through uniformitarianism, but this was not foundational to his theory of evolution.

I have the impression that a thread on this will be done once the creationist movie 'the voyage' will come out on sale.But the first one will be two hard to handle I think, I think I did a good job trying to take away the negative connotations attached to the word 'assumptions' in its relation to scientific inquiry, and still took a lot of writing for this simple fact. I'm afraid going all out and introducing a whole set alternative assumptions to the current data in science (historical science, at least) would be uncontrolable.But hey, when that movie is released, I'll be in the discussion.

I'm not really respondint to what yo uhave said. But being in math's and physics I would love to have the references to those supernovae data you were talking about, so I could check it out.

He said he would talk about it. We'll see hehePoor Cal, he's Gish galloping at an ever alarming rate on his threads. He seems like a nice guy, but this is not how you debate.