Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

I'm going to address an earlier post as well as this latest post of yours in this one reply. First of all you do not start with "facts" in the sense of looking at raw data. You are looking at someone's written interpretation of events... perhaps raw data. They are not even highly descriptive.Second, you yourself admitted that initial "readings" of scripture may not be correct and that a person must come to understand what is actually meant, rather than just any possible interpretation. This raises the question of how you can call any of the interpretations of events in scripture as "facts"? In every case YOU (the reader) could end up being wrong.Third, none of scripture is a direct communication from witnesses of an event. Scribes who copied or translated the original observations may have also been just as errant as any reader. This is not to mention that the creation stories were from oral traditions, making error more likely/probable.Isn't modern science, by studying the raw materials and attempting to come to conclusions based on processes working on those materials, a valid way to double check the written interpretation of events found in scripture? Hasn't this already been proven in the past regarding other mistakes in reading scripture? There is no basis for your claim. Science existed outside of the west. Science flourished outside of Xianity. What we consider modern empirical science formed outside of Xianity and had to be protected from its fact cleansing fires. If not for opponents of Xianity much of what we know today would never have been discovered or would have been lost.The only valid claim one can make along these lines is that scientists successfully imported, developed, and protected scientific advances within Xian nations until overt pressure from religion was removed. At that point science began to flourish in the western Xian nations. It is more in spite of than because of.That said there were some very devout Xians who did great scientific work. I am not trying to say that Xians are incapable of doing science. I get what you are saying, and it makes sense as a logical possibility. Essentially you seem to be saying that everyone has to rely on books for statements about the past and so gain knowledge about it. Okay that's true.But there is a difference between historical books regarding figures like Napoleon and scientific theories about geological/biological processes, versus religious texts.The first two cases are not treated as full truth, but caveated based on level of corroborating evidence. While it would seem odd to doubt Napoleon existed given the amount of corroborating evidence, people can and many do doubt events or statements ascribed to Napoleon... even things written about him at that time. Same goes for scientific theories. In my life many concepts of geologic and biological development have changed. Evolutionary theory itself has changed based on level of evidence for specific processes, though nothing so far has emerged to challenge (indeed much has come to support) its basic principles.In contrast, scripture does not have much corroboration. I'm not going to get into the "did Jesus exist" thing, because I think there is some evidence which suggests such a person could have. What I would doubt is actions and statements ascribed to him. There is essentially no corroborating evidence for it.This is even worse for Creationist theories. There is nothing but the written translation/interpretation of an oral tradition handed down by generations of people which relate to events no individual human could have been party to. Even if we say God told somebody, the question is when, and how did that person and everyone else manage to get it right as they passed it down.Even the Flood suffers from this problem. There is no real corroboration outside the text on a global scale. And even if we assume the authors were telling the truth as they saw it, couldn't they have been errant, or translations errant? Maybe Noah only meant that the whole of HIS world flooded, meaning the region in which he lived. Maybe two of every animal meant only domesticated animals for food and service, and descendants expanded it using dramatic license. Unlike Napoleon, not at the time that he is claimed to have lived. And not nearly with the vast amounts of corroborating material Napoleon has to support that he interacted with the people of the time in the way that he is said to have done.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

A a general rule, lines of argument that are so general they could be raised in any discussion are ruled off-topic except for threads where they are the designated topic of discussion. Responding to scientific arguments by questioning the definition of science is one of these. In any scientific topic someone could say, "But you're conclusion is wrong because you're using an incorrect definition of science." This approach has been tried time and again, and it will be consistently ruled off topic. Anyone who would like to discuss the foundational ideas of science is welcome to propose a new thread, as has happened here many times. I'll approve it as radidly as I can.Faith is a more nebulous concept, but this is a science forum. We're not discussing faith in a science forum. Faith-based approaches to science can be argued in the religious forums.When discussion devolves to arguing about the definitions of words like fact, interpretation, logic and fallacy then it is well past time for moderator intervention, which is what I'm doing. Anyone who would like to discuss the topic of the opening post, which is how faith-based beliefs can be reconciled with evidence that contradicts them, is free to proceed. Significant and/or determined digressions will receive warnings and eventual suspension.Please understand that no relevant topic is off-limits here. But one of the goals of EvC Forum that differentiates it from other boards is to keep discussion focused and on-topic. We don't try to keep any subjects from being discussed. When an interesting digression is ruled off-topic by moderators, simply propose it as a new topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Your error in thinking is that "Creation Science" does not merely cover the Theory of Evolution, but it covers physics, chemistry, geology , archelogy, and astronomy. The conclusions drawn from each of those scientific disciples are at odds with "creation science"

You do realise that your claims are being very ironic. The vast majority of scientists who look at the data dispute that. As a matter of fact, some of those scientists are ex-YEC's, who went into geology to 'prove' YEC.

A key concept of science is refutation.
There are many examples of widely beiieved scientific theories being eventually refuted by opposing physical evidence.
Has "creation science" ever refuted any of it's theories?
No because it is not science in any way that is recognisable as science.What is the scientific method that "creation scientists" are using?As far as comparisons with historical figures goes - If the only evidence for the existence of Napoleon was a single uncorroborated source that also proclaimed various outlandish and physically impossible events - then yes I would seriously question his existence. That is not the case.

Real creation scientists use the same methodology as other scientists. They follow the evidence, where it leads them, even if this refutes some of their creationist assumptions. Glenn Morton is one example of such a scientist.Unfortunately, "creation science" is only a pretense for many who use that label.

Really? Has Glen Morton ever found any evidence that disagrees with anything said in the bible at all?Do real scientists ever behave in the way you describe? Yes they do.My point is that ANY research taken from a faith based point of view can logically ONLY ever lead to conclude that which it already believes to be true. Even if in fact it is competely false.If anyone has any examples of "creationist scientists" refuting anything from the bible I would be delighted to hear them.Can you have real science without even the possibility of refutation?I would say No.

Don't ask me. Check his web pages. On my reading of those pages, he has found evidence that refutes creationists' misreading of the bible.Here is a web page from another Christian who finds that scientific evidence refutes creationist misreadings.

And here's what the Affiliation of Christian Geologists has to say on the subject.But the question is not whether one can be a Christian and do science; but whether one can be a YEC and do science; to which the answer would seem to be: not at the same time.

Even a YE creationist can do science if it relates to (for example) cucumber average size and the effect of increased sunlight!! I never disputed that.My point is that ANY faith position is logically unable to scientifically investigate any area that overlaps with that faith position.Can a Christian who believes faithfully that God formed life, scientifically study Abiogenesis? I would say no.

Exactly. His perspective is not that the bible can be wrong but that creationist have interpreted it wrongly. My argument is that he can never logicaly do any scientific research that conflicts with his own faith position on the bible. Not somebody elses.

But so long as he argues that the Bible must be read in the light of science, he may change his views on science in accordance with new evidence; he just has to change his reading of the Bible to conform with that.Few people can know so well as Glen Morton knows that there is nothing sacrosanct about his own personal "faith position on the Bible".

Faith does not entail 100% certainty in actuality, it just means that the possessor of said faith belives that he/she will be justified what they cannot currently prove empirically. I've often shown just how underestimated the reality of faith plays in the lives of everyone, especially those who tend to view such a notion as being silly-hearted or fanciful. The reality is that everyone exhibits faith every single day of their lives without even realizing it, even the things they claim is known empirically by science. And yet they speak so disparagingly about faith. Evolutionists use just as much faith as the average creationist. But you also have to consider that evo's have been the ones caught red-handed with numerous demonstrable frauds to further their own agenda-- an agenda of dethroning the notion of a Creator. Like it or not, evolution has given the breath of life into a meaningful stance on atheism. Without a reason to exist at all, what fulfilling purpose would an atheist have for explaning his own existence without the theory?To be fair, its completely reasonable to suppose that certain creationists are willing to 'create' their own evidence instead of following the evidence wherever it may lead. And such subjectivity has no place within the realm of science which rightly sees no bias. However, you might be less inclined to peg creationists with such offenses when its unquestionable that evo's have a far worse record of fraud to further their cause than creo's.Some food for thought.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

quote:

---

I've often shown just how underestimated the reality of faith plays in the lives of everyone, especially those who tend to view such a notion as being silly-hearted or fanciful. The reality is that everyone exhibits faith every single day of their lives without even realizing it, even the things they claim is known empirically by science.

---

Of couse what you refer to is not the same as the religious faith being discussed - the trust in unverifiable dogma without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. This equivocation on "faith" is a common creationist trick.

quote:

---

But you also have to consider that evo's have been the ones caught red-handed with numerous demonstrable frauds to further their own agenda-- an agenda of dethroning the notion of a Creator.

---

I doubt that you could name even ONE fraud where that was the agenda. And I doubt that you could come up with even half-a-dozen cases of genuine fraud. I suspect that your "numerous" frauds include many unsubstantiated allegations.

quote:

---

However, you might be less inclined to peg creationists with such offenses when its unquestionable that evo's have a far worse record of fraud to further their cause than creo's.

---

It certainly is questionable. I doubt that you could come up with even one case of a fraud in evolution where the main purpose was to "further the cause of evolution".

We're drifting way off topic, but this is a good point. Piltdown man was fabricated to advance the position of England in the paleontological world as a possible origin for humanity. The recent, at the time, discoveries of Neanderthal man in France were stunning and created feelings in England that their own country was being ignored, and what better way to counter this than to discover evidence of human origins in England. Whoever fabricated Piltdown did it as a way to promote England, not evolution.Though no scientific legitimacy was ever attached to Nebraska man, it was likely fabricated for similar reasons, to bring some attention to the Americas as a possible origin for humanity, not to advance the cause of evolution.--Percy