At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?

If it is non-material how do you propose that science might study it?Or are you suggesting that science should accept scripture and "divine revelation" as empirical evidence?

---

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

Yes, but not accepting your assertions as evidence.

quote:

---

It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.

​

--L. Sprague de Camp

---

If you make enough predictions some will be accurate. But you can't make claims for the inerrancy of the biblical record while there is that giant boo-boo of the global flood. Not so. You first have to eliminate the materialistic explanations. And for rusted chariot debris at the bottom of a lake there are many such explanations. Non-materialist explanations are not needed, nor is there any evidence for them. There are claims based on religious belief, and some of those claims can be verified. But then the Iliad claimed Troy was a real place, and that was verified a long time later. Do you claim some supernatural event there as well?The problem is that you are doing religious apologetics, seeking to support religious beliefs. You are not doing science, which goes where the data lead.

---

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

That's the key, isn't it? Some measure of religious faith.But how much?

quote:

---

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

​

CRS Statement of Belief

​

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

​

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

​

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

​

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

​

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

---

Does this sound like science to you?Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing (or teaching) apologetics (defense of religion), not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science and move into the realm of apologetics.So "some degree of religious faith" is certainly possible for scientists, but the fundamentalism seen in CRS's Statement of Belief, and many others like it, would disqualify one from doing science. Those beliefs are inherently anti-science, and I don't see how one could hold such beliefs and do legitimate science. (I guess that's where creation "science" comes in, eh?)

---

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

That's the question, now, isn't it?When religious belief takes over, as in the example I provided and many others on the web, one can not follow the scientific method. Its that simple. The two concepts are diametrically opposed: you either follow scripture and belief, or you follow evidence and the scientific method. Don't even bother to tell me your (mis)beliefs about evolution.I studied that field through the Ph.D. exams, some decades ago. I think I can still remember a few of the basics on a good day.But I've gotten a lot of fine chuckles from fundamentalists on the web. I think the most notable was the one who lectured me on "the second law of thermal documents."

---

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