One creationist version of science

Schrafinator,
You've confused the issue. What this guy is trying to say (I think) is that science depends on other ideas. The idea of 'Cause and Effect' is one. Science cannot prove 'Cause and Effect' because causes & their effects cannot be directly observed. You can guess, surmise, or blindly have 'faith' that they exist but science cannot prove their existence. Something other than science must prove science's foundation, 'Cause and Effect'. Christianity is the only philosophy that does this (for many reasons that I won't get into at the moment), that is why you see science in the christian west and not in China, India, or Saudia Arabia (there are scientists in the east but they depend on the pre post-modern christian ideas of 'cause and effect'). Science is inherently Christian and not atheistic, pantheistic, or polytheistic.Evan

I am not speaking of science as mere observations, like the Chinese inventions of gunpowder, kites, or printing presses (this is what you're referring to, right). I'm referring to the idea that there is order in the universe that would be caused by scientific laws, or cause and effect. I do not think that you will find this particular school of thought in the East. Please provide some examples if you do not agree.Evan

Regarding Christianity's assumptions. I am not saying that Christianity assumes the law of cause and effect, I am saying that science does. And I believe I have made a slight error, it is confusing to say that Christianity is the only philosophy who can prove the law of cause and effect, because it implies that this is possible with deductive reasoning without any assumptions. But I should instead say that the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only possible complete philosophy that is both self-consistent and consistent with the data of human experience. So it is therby the only one able to support the laws of cause and effect, which it in fact does.Science is not by itself a self-consistent philosophy because it assumes the law of 'cause and effect'. Eastern thought is inconsistent with the experiences of humanity. Western mythology does not attempt to be a complete philosophy, it does not explain the beginning of the world. Islam is self-consistent up to the laws of cause and effect, when it agrees with the Judeo-Christian worldview, but it is not self-consistent afterwards. You have remaining a few other western philosophies that are dependent upon Christianity but inconsistent with her and themselves.There is only one other truly self-consistent philosophy possible.
Here it is:akdfjlweicn.vioapern3920j;cm,cvpaeorucmz.opwrjkl39z8cComplete nonsense, and though it is a logical possiblility, it is inconsistent with the data of human experience.Evan

I'm sorry, I noticed an editorial error after I posted. Where I said 'science' above I meant to say 'materialism' (i.e. a totally naturalistic, with no supernatural, explanation for the world). Science is not a complete philosophy because it is merely a observational method.Evan

It has recently come to my attention that I have used multiple meanings for the word science. In post #9 what I meant (explicitly) by 'science' was 'an observational method'; in post #7 what I meant (also explicitly) by 'science' was 'a natural philosophy that the laws of cause and effect can be discovered using the scientific method'; In post #3 I used both meanings, sometimes in the same sentence. And while this may be okay in a dictionary it is very confusing in debate. My sincere apologies. I can understand your confusion, my meaning may be patently obvious to myself but not always to other people. Sorry!EvanP.S. I need to get a new editor!@^&? But wait, I am the editor?!?! Hmm. :-)

Yes, I agree that mere observation is a dead end. I am not saying that the Chinese don't assume the law of cause and effect. The Chinese may use the laws of cause and effect without having a reason to.In a Judeo-Christian worldview because you know that there really is cause and effect you would surmise that others would attempt to use it. They have to use the law of cause and effect because that's the way the world works. But they may not understand why there is a law of cause and effect because their philosophy contradicts it or doesn't attempt to explain it.Evan

John,
I did some research on Chinese religions. The fact that you thought I was far off got me thinking. I knew that I knew very little about the Chinese or Japanese religions. But the fact that you could tell made me think I must be really far off.The research I did was in Eerdmann's Guide to World Religions. I looked up Chinese religious thought. Tell me if you think this sounds right.I didn't just get the wrong answer, I got the wrong question! The Chinese don't ask about cause and effect. They're more concerned with how to live. Eerdman said that the fundamental statment in Chinese religion is, "Heaven has concern for us." In other words they don't concentrate on myth or science per se. Instead they are more concerned with, in the immortal words of Francis Schaeffer, "How should we then live?"So thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I retract my statement about science. Thanks again.Evan