Origins & "Ordinary People"

In the July/August 1999 issue of TOUCHSTONE, Nancy Pearcey writes, "Finally, [intelligent] design is a winner with the public because it is a scientific research program that actually makes sense to ordinary people."Is it true? Do "ordinary people" need scientific mythology, just as children need Santa Claus? Or, does God hope that "ordinary people" will mature enough to accept known scientific facts, such as the Big Bang, Earth's age, and Darwinian biological evolution?The existence of God and historical reality of Jesus and His deity are not dependent on Biblical inerrancy and scientific mythology (modern creationism): YEC, OEC, ID. Wouldn't it be better, in the long run, to show the compatibility of Christianity with correct science?See Faith & Reason Ministries: Reconciling Christianity with Accepted Science, http://www.faithreason.org/

quote:

---

Originally posted by johndcal:
In the July/August 1999 issue of TOUCHSTONE, Nancy Pearcey writes, "Finally, [intelligent] design is a winner with the public because it is a scientific research program that actually makes sense to ordinary people."

​

Is it true? Do "ordinary people" need scientific mythology, just as children need Santa Claus? Or, does God hope that "ordinary people" will mature enough to accept known scientific facts, such as the Big Bang, Earth's age, and Darwinian biological evolution?

​

The existence of God and historical reality of Jesus and His deity are not dependent on Biblical inerrancy and scientific mythology (modern creationism): YEC, OEC, ID. Wouldn't it be better, in the long run, to show the compatibility of Christianity with correct science?

​

See Faith & Reason Ministries: Reconciling Christianity with Accepted Science, http://www.faithreason.org/

---

JM: The problem with this assertion is that it assumes science works best when it conforms to popular opinion. The tacit assumption here is that if 'normal people' can make sense of it, then it must be right. However, most people cannot understand quantum behavior so does that mean it is incorrect or that we should go back to the old models of the atom?CheersJoe Meert