Faith vs Science

They can't even agree on what books should be included or excluded.

PaulK writes: Really, if they could show that God wrote Genesis 1 as a literal account of the creation they would have made their case. So why don't they ?

Because the story in Genesis 2&3 refutes the story in Genesis 1; the method is different and the order of creation is different.

That's why we get the folk claiming the Bible talks about two instances of creation or that gen 1 is the plan while gen 2&3 is the execution.

Phat writes: The words themselves are evident though. They are evidently there. I argue that in matters of faith & belief, the book or books of any given religion count as support for any arguments presented.

But there lies much of the problem.

The readers often do not like the words themselves and so find ways to get around the words themselves.

The goal is to find an explanation that fits the conclusion wanted.

A great example is in Genesis 2&3. In that story the god character lies and the serpent tells the truth.

But that is NOT what the believers want so it has to be something different, find some other meaning than the words themselves.

Faith begins with the conclusion, looks for or manufactures support and ignores anything that might conflict.

Science is just the opposite.

Science presents something and says "Please show how this is wrong". Science advances by finding mistakes and false conclusions.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Phat's playing with the format but in the meantime, try 2016 Best Posts Of The Month.

Phat writes: I would agree that for many of us, our pride in ourselves...in our supposed wisdom, in our cherished identity can and do cause us to get angry.As for quote mining and misrepresentation, I can only say that I go into a mine to find valuable nuggets.

But what is often not done is acknowledge those nuggets that refute your position and that is why there can never be "Creation Science" or "Creation scientists". A scientist who sifts through the data and selects only the nuggets that support his theory should get fired immediately and all of his works subject to intense scrutiny.

Phat writes: I can see where purposely attempting to falsify a theory is a key component of the scientific method, right? But should the same discipline be used in regards to faith? Is that why you used to always tell me to "throw God away" and I never understood why?

Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary analysis.

There was a poster here for awhile to took over Ron Wyatt's marketing after Ron died and I asked about him ignoring evidence in some of the "evidence" he presented (one example was his claim that a photo showed a 'guard shack' when there were no widows facing the gate and rocks with pictographs he claimed showed calves when in fact they showed all kinds of animals and human figures in full phallic pose.

When I pointed out that a guard shack with no windows facing the gate was just stupid and that the rock did not show calves his response was "Why would I present evidence that did not support me?"

The difference between science and theology is that there seems to be a culture of honesty and morality when dealing with science that is totally missing in much of the Faith and Theology camp.

Phat writes: What constitutes valid evidence? (In regards to both Faith & Belief and Science Forums) Is valid evidence the same for both science and faith? Must Faith have evidence? We know that science requires evidence. Faith is often personal. Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged? How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?

Faith should not have evidence. Once there is evidence we move from the realm of Faith into the area of conclusions.

Of course people can get angry when their beliefs are challenged but they cannot then act based on that anger.

Creationists cannot claim Faith and then claim it is supported by evidence or Science. If they do make such claims then their beliefs MUST be challenged.

Phat writes: jar writes: Because the story in Genesis 2&3 refutes the story in Genesis 1; the method is different and the order of creation is different. That's why we get the folk claiming the Bible talks about two instances of creation or that gen 1 is the plan while gen 2&3 is the execution. Yes, but if you were the only witness called to the stand on behalf of the believers, the case itself would be incomplete.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. That is not a matter of witness but rather one of fact. What does the story say? It really is that simple. Now apologists can market what the story really means all they want, but that is irrelevant to what the story actually says.

It is this significant difference that so often really is the issue. If someone says "I believe the stories mean the same thing" then that is fine but if they say "I believe the stories are the same" it moves out of the realm of Faith and into the realm of Evidence and the evidence must always override belief.

Phat writes: jar writes: The readers often do not like the words themselves and so find ways to get around the words themselves. The goal is to find an explanation that fits the conclusion wanted. Whose goal? Remember that we all have gray matter. There is really no us and them....

There is what is supported by evidence and what is unsupported by evidence. The goal is owned by the Apologist who wishes to market a belief and those who wish to adopt that belief without critical examination. And in that instance there really is them and us; those who examine critically and those who refuse to examine critically.

Phat writes: If as claimed the Bible is used as a source, should it simply be allowed to be accepted as a valid source or does it require some sort of standard (apart from Jesus Christ Himself)

Sorry but the "apart from Jesus Christ Himself" is certainly not evidence of anything.

The Bible stories like any stories can be accepted as evidence that at some time someone wrote what the stories contain, but that is about the only weight the Bible should be given.

Phat writes: Must Faith have evidence?

No, Faith never has evidence. If there is evidence no faith is required.

Phat writes: Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged?

It's perfectly normal for folk to get angry when their beliefs are challenged. What is important is whether they get angry at the challenger or themselves? It is only when they get angry with themselves, when they stop and seriously critically examine their beliefs that growth is possible.

Phat writes: For the YEC, I ask if there should be a different definition as to what science is apart from critical thinking and the scientific method.

No, that is simply silly. If there is a different definition then it is NOT science.