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.
But was he a creationist in the sense of our discussion? Was he also a YEC who denied real-world evidence in order to promote a narrow and false theology in order to proselytize and to try to have laws passed for that narrow and false theology to be taught in school as science?
There is no inherent conflict between science and religion unless you misuse either or both.
There is no inherent conflict between creation and evolution unless you misrepresent and misuse either or both.
You seem to think otherwise. You seem to equate evolution with atheism, evidence by your calling talkorigins an atheist site. You are a YEC and equating your "evolution model" with atheism is an article of faith.
So if you truly think that Faraday was a modern-day YEC-type creationist, then please present the evidence. Or admit that Faraday has nothing to do with the discussion.
However we can't agree on a definition of the Theory of Evolution so it's unlikely the broader subject of science will fare better.
A very good point.
Broad subjects are extremely difficult to condense into a single sentence that can govern all aspects. As you say, this should be used as a 'starting point' into the proper investigation and understanding. Not as some sort of challenge to force an elephant into a thimble.
But why does science work? According to C.S. Lewis: Science began with belief in a Lawmaker
C.S. Lewis may or may not be correct in how Science began.
But that has nothing to do with your question - why does science work?
Science works because it makes progress in getting closer and closer to reality. Science depends on objective observations - that is, what anyone and everyone can test and verify. Science glorifies finding an error and coming up with a better, newer solution. Noble prizes were created to acknowledge such achievements. Science incorporates techniques that reduce any reliance on "alternative motives" that people can sometimes fall victim to. Science is not one person anywhere. One person only comes up with an idea. Other people must also be able to verify the same idea. Many times these 'other people' are from different countries and cultures. This ensures that "personal bias" is weeded out and all we're left with is the correct solution. Science is self-correcting. Even if there is an error made by one person (on purpose or by accident) others doing the same testing... the verification... will find that error and account for it. Science works because it doesn't have an end. There is not "finished" science. There is always testing, re-testing, and finer tuning to be made. Science works because it continually changes, continually making progress, continually building knowledge.
Science working has nothing to do with C.S. Lewis. It has nothing to do with Charles Darwin. It has nothing to do with a Legislator or Creator or God. It has nothing to do with any specific person or being. Science works because it never stops asking "why?" and it will only accept honest, real answers.
Michael Faraday Even though Darwin published his work on evolution near the end of Faraday’s life, several very good reasons exist to conclude that Faraday rejected Darwinism. In 1859 Darwin published his book The Origin of Species, which many have seen as undermining such a confident faith. The remarkable thing is that Faraday says nothing about evolution that implies any kind of unresolvable problem. Though by now his physical condition was deteriorating, he could think clearly for much of his time and express himself eloquently where that was necessary. His silence on Darwin’s work is highly significant. Like many physical scientists, he may have dismissed evolution as “only a theory.” More probably his faith was so strong that nothing, even in science, could shake it (Russell, 2000, p. 115).
Actually, Faraday said much about his religious beliefs, and Darwinism was directly contrary to his core beliefs, a fact that Faraday was no doubt keenly aware of. As one who interpreted the Bible as literally as possible, many students of science conclude that Faraday could not accept Darwinism. The teachings of his small fundamentalist church included a strong emphasis on God’s creation as purposeful and harmonious, designed for man’s well-being. He had an abiding faith in the Bible and in prayer. Unlike Newton, however, he made little attempt to “harmonize” his science with his Biblical faith, supremely confident that the two were both based on divine truth and were necessarily in agreement. … He fully believed in the official doctrine of his church, which said: “The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances (Morris, Henry. 1988. Men of Science Men of God: Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible. Master Books. p. 37). http://www.create.ab.ca/...l-faraday-christian-and-scientist
James Clerk Maxwell Maxwell was widely read in theology. He interacted with many of the best theological minds of his day, always as a solid evangelical Christian. In fact, he often chided other believers for tying religious truth too tightly to the science of the day. He understood this not as a problem for God’s unchanging Word, but as a problem for man’s ever changing understanding of how the world works.
Maxwell’s faith in the Bible even shocked a young Karl Pearson who, when he questioned the Flood, was reprimanded by Maxwell for questioning the Bible!
“The conversation turned on Darwinian evolution; I can’t say how it came about, but I spoke disrespectfully of Noah’s Flood. Clerk Maxwell was instantly aroused to the highest pitch of anger, reproving me for want of faith in the Bible! I had no idea at the time that he had retained the rigid faith of his childhood, and was, if possible, a firmer believer than Gladstone in the accuracy of Genesis.” http://creation.com/einsteins-heroes
Yeah, those creationist "scientists who were creationists" lists are so stupid that they're just tiring.
Those lists are kind of along the lines of the arguments that strain all logic to arrive at a conclusion that there must be a god, at which point suddenly that indistinct "a god" becomes their specific god accompanied by their entire intricately detailed theology. How blazingly stupid!
Just because a scientist was Christian doesn't mean he followed creationists' particular narrow theology. Did they ever bother to ask him to be associated with them and their false theology?
Edited by dwise1, : Replaced impersonal "you" with "they" for clarity sake
Sorry, the Bible was written by human beings UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. That's what makes it God's word.
And your understanding of it is still filtered by your "fallen" intellect. You can't have it both ways. No matter how TRUE™ the Bible is, your discernment of its truth is no better than anybody else's.
Sorry, you are wrong. As I keep saying, the ability to believe the Bible is the word of God is a supernatural gift from God that overrides the fallen intellect. The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and the ability to discern this is given to those who believe in it.
The sensible reason to believe it is that it would benefit you greatly if you did. But since you don't have the gift of discernment I guess you can just go on refusing to believe it and forego the benefit. Your choice.