Science: A Method not a Source

Science is a method. You are correct on that.The problem with using the bible as evidence is many folks who favor such use won't accept any evidence to the contrary. Examples: a global flood about 4,350 years ago and claims for a young earth.How do you deal with that problem?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

As usual, we have something from the master to guide us:

​

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

​

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].

​

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When following the scientific method, if your results lead to a particular conclusion you accept that conclusion.When following the religious methodology, if your results lead to the wrong conclusion (one which does not follow scripture, for example), you don't accept that conclusion.A perfect example is the recent creationist RATE Project. A number of credentialed scientists, who were also creationists, set out with over a million dollars of creationist money to disprove the decay constant. This was seen as a critical step in showing that radiometric dating techniques are wrong and the earth is indeed young. These creation "scientists" came up with results that showed millions to a billion years of decay, confirming what real scientists had been saying. So naturally they refused to believe their results and fell back on scripture as the more accurate source of information on this topic.Creation "science" is the opposite of real science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Simple. The results of the RATE Project study showed evidence of radioactive decay going back millions to a billion years. This is incompatible with their belief in a young earth, so they refused to accept their own results.From a review of the RATE Project:

In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.

​

Assessing the RATE Project

From another review:

Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old.111 This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old.

​

Are the RATE findings sufficient grounds to reject mainstream science? What is known to science is radioactive decay would produce the quantity of daughter products on the Earth in a timescale of millions or billions of years. Unknown to science and lacking any independent verification is the idea that nuclear decay rates were accelerated in the past by five orders of magnitude (100,000 times) or more.112 Thus, we are faced with a choice: either we can accept the vast majority of radiometric data that indicates the Earth is very old, or we can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old based on a handful of anomalous results. Looking at the data objectively, the RATE research does not meet the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate that radiometric dating is fallacious.

​

Page not found - Reasons to Believe

This illustrates the difference between creation "science" and real science. The folks who conducted the RATE Project refused to believe their own results, and instead fell back on prior belief based on scripture.This is the exact opposite of real science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's for you and them to figure out. A young earth is their belief based on the bible, and how they got there is not my problem.They clearly reject science and the scientific method when it conflicts with their beliefs.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Here's your magic tree:

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.