Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9054 total)
111 online now:
DrJones*, nwr, Percy (Admin), Phat, Pollux (5 members, 106 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,237 Year: 5,883/14,102 Month: 31/438 Week: 75/83 Day: 25/6 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 93 of 252 (814515)
07-10-2017 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-10-2017 4:10 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

If you absolutely know something is the truth revealed by God, it can't be anti-science to treat it as the known truth.

Science takes all the available information, and forms a theory that explains all of it.

On some level, your statement can be very-strangely sort-of similar, but not really.
That is, if you take what you 'absolutely know' and remove any other contradicting information... you can take that 'smaller pool' of information and form a theory that explains all of that 'smaller pool' of data.

The 'but not really' part is that science never does this.

1. Science never "absolutely knows" anything, and questions/tests everything. Constantly. There is no fear of being wrong and correcting previous mistakes within science. It's actually a big part of the self-correcting mechanism of honest progress.
2. Science always takes 'all the available information.' If you're knowingly ignoring certain information... especially information that would skew the results you're currently getting into something else if you included it... then you're definitely anti-science.

The scientific method is always followed where it's the only source of knowledge.

Science allows for all sources of knowledge. It looks at all information regardless of how it was understood to be knowledge.

The deniers are those who deny the Biblical revelation.

Biblical revelation was included in science until it was proven to be extremely unreliable. Often, the Biblical revelation did not align with reality. Therefore, the Biblical revelation was not factual... it wasn't an accurate description of real things... it wasn't knowledge. It was imagination.

You (or anyone else) are free and encouraged to test it again, though. If you can show that Biblical revelation is, indeed, knowledge... science will accept it again and correct all it's issues. That is the self-correcting nature of science.

If you cannot test it, though.
If you cannot show that it reliably describes reality... then science cannot use it.

Science only uses that information that reliably describes reality. Science only uses knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:02 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 136 of 252 (814623)
07-11-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:02 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

Not at all anti-science.

Are you sure?

Faith writes:

Better to be at odds with all the scientific world than deny or try to rationalize away what we truly believe to be what God has revealed.

Because that sounds rather anti-science to me.

You may be 'right' or 'true' or 'valid' or 'reality' or whatever.
I don't think you are, but that's not the point.

The point was that Creationism is anti-science.
And you seem to agree with that... except for when you explicitly deny it.

But the sciences of the prehistoric past are the problem since none of the past can be subjected to testing, being all one-time events that can only be interpreted.

All science is 'science of the past.' There's no other kind. All 'science of the past' helps us make predictions of the future. But there's no such thing as 'science of the future.' It's all about studying the past. Studying what happened in reality to see if we can make helpful predictions.

I've seen Old Earth Geology and Evolutionary Biology overturned time and time again by creationist arguments including my own, but because there is no way to test the sciences of the past it's the biases of the status quo that prevail no matter what.

Science accepts and incorporates the Biblical testimony.
It tested Geology based on Flood-Geology Biblical ideas. No one found any oil faster than anyone else.
It then tested Geology based on science-of-the-prehistoric-past. Anyone doing that found oil faster and better than anyone else.

You can call that whatever you'd like.
But it seems to me that this indicates that science gets closer to reality while Biblical testimony was... not very helpful.

You've spun a lot of talk here with the apparent intention of circumventing the claim that the Bible IS knowledge.

The Bible is not knowledge.

We assumed it to be knowledge based on it being the Bible.
We tested it.
It failed to accurately represent reality.
We made no progress.
So it was incorporated as 'human fallibility.'
And science moved on to actual knowledge of the actual world and things started to represent reality really well.
We made progress.

If the Bible is knowledge, it is useless, incorrect knowledge that should be placed aside and not used to make accurate predictions of reality.

You might as well just deny it outright as most here do.

Why deny it?
Why not accept it, test it, and use it for whatever it can be used for?

That's what we did.
And it turns out it can't be used to accurately predict reality.
It can, however, be used to provide solace to some people who seek a certain kind of peace.
So that's what it's used for. Not all people, but some for sure.

God's word is meant to be believed spiritually, it can't be tested by physical scientific means, though it certainly speaks on physical realities.

Still sounds anti-science to me. Regardless of it being usable or truthful or anything else.

You either recognize it or you don't. Since science doesn't recognize it

Science recognizes it, incorporates it, tests it, and uses it.
It's just didn't pass the mustard, that's all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4043
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 138 of 252 (814628)
07-11-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by CRR
07-11-2017 6:09 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
CRR writes:

However we can't agree on a definition of the Theory of Evolution so it's unlikely the broader subject of science will fare better.

A very good point.

Broad subjects are extremely difficult to condense into a single sentence that can govern all aspects.
As you say, this should be used as a 'starting point' into the proper investigation and understanding. Not as some sort of challenge to force an elephant into a thimble.

But why does science work? According to C.S. Lewis: Science began with belief in a Lawmaker

C.S. Lewis may or may not be correct in how Science began.

But that has nothing to do with your question - why does science work?

Science works because it makes progress in getting closer and closer to reality.
Science depends on objective observations - that is, what anyone and everyone can test and verify.
Science glorifies finding an error and coming up with a better, newer solution. Noble prizes were created to acknowledge such achievements.
Science incorporates techniques that reduce any reliance on "alternative motives" that people can sometimes fall victim to.
Science is not one person anywhere. One person only comes up with an idea. Other people must also be able to verify the same idea. Many times these 'other people' are from different countries and cultures. This ensures that "personal bias" is weeded out and all we're left with is the correct solution.
Science is self-correcting. Even if there is an error made by one person (on purpose or by accident) others doing the same testing... the verification... will find that error and account for it.
Science works because it doesn't have an end. There is not "finished" science. There is always testing, re-testing, and finer tuning to be made.
Science works because it continually changes, continually making progress, continually building knowledge.

Science working has nothing to do with C.S. Lewis.
It has nothing to do with Charles Darwin.
It has nothing to do with a Legislator or Creator or God.
It has nothing to do with any specific person or being.
Science works because it never stops asking "why?" and it will only accept honest, real answers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 6:09 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Coyote, posted 07-11-2017 11:12 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021