Faith writes:
Not at all anti-science.
Are you sure?
Faith writes:
Better to be at odds with all the scientific world than deny or try to rationalize away what we truly believe to be what God has revealed.
Because that sounds rather anti-science to me.
You may be 'right' or 'true' or 'valid' or 'reality' or whatever.
I don't think you are, but that's not the point.
The point was that Creationism is anti-science.
And you seem to agree with that... except for when you explicitly deny it.
But the sciences of the prehistoric past are the problem since none of the past can be subjected to testing, being all one-time events that can only be interpreted.
All science is 'science of the past.' There's no other kind. All 'science of the past' helps us make
predictions of the future. But there's no such thing as 'science of the future.' It's all about studying the past. Studying what happened in reality to see if we can make helpful predictions.
I've seen Old Earth Geology and Evolutionary Biology overturned time and time again by creationist arguments including my own, but because there is no way to test the sciences of the past it's the biases of the status quo that prevail no matter what.
Science accepts and incorporates the Biblical testimony.
It tested Geology based on Flood-Geology Biblical ideas. No one found any oil faster than anyone else.
It then tested Geology based on science-of-the-prehistoric-past. Anyone doing that found oil faster and better than anyone else.
You can call that whatever you'd like.
But it seems to me that this indicates that science gets closer to reality while Biblical testimony was... not very helpful.
You've spun a lot of talk here with the apparent intention of circumventing the claim that the Bible IS knowledge.
The Bible is not knowledge.
We assumed it to be knowledge based on it being the Bible.
We tested it.
It failed to accurately represent reality.
We made no progress.
So it was incorporated as 'human fallibility.'
And science moved on to actual knowledge of the actual world and things started to represent reality really well.
We made progress.
If the Bible is knowledge, it is useless, incorrect knowledge that should be placed aside and not used to make accurate predictions of reality.
You might as well just deny it outright as most here do.
Why deny it?
Why not accept it, test it, and use it for whatever it can be used for?
That's what we did.
And it turns out it can't be used to accurately predict reality.
It can, however, be used to provide solace to some people who seek a certain kind of peace.
So that's what it's used for. Not all people, but some for sure.
God's word is meant to be believed spiritually, it can't be tested by physical scientific means, though it certainly speaks on physical realities.
Still sounds anti-science to me. Regardless of it being usable or truthful or anything else.
You either recognize it or you don't. Since science doesn't recognize it
Science recognizes it, incorporates it, tests it, and uses it.
It's just didn't pass the mustard, that's all.