One creationist version of science

Found on a fundamentalist forum :"Science is a way to determine whether or not a theory can stand up to a standard or criteria that will bring conclusive "evidence" to a hypotheses. Science is a tool and being such is used as a means to determine that which the tool users sets out to accomplish. To accomplish anything you must hold some form of direction or "theory" to even start using the tool. From the outset you have a bias, you are using the tool to confirm a thought or "theory" that you wish to prove. Science, as the tool, only serves to project possiblity and possiblity only is possible by a set or determined path. Science must adhere to that path. Science cannot work outside of set limitations. As an example you must adhere to the law of gravity, the set points in any experiment are those which are universal in all theories and any hypotheses that is outside of the universal is null and void before it begins. Science does not formulate or create the universal it only acts within it. If you take away any of the universals then science itself will fall on its face. The universals are what makes Science work at all and according to science the universals are a chance or random occurance; and to adhere to that must then also adhere that any possiblity is not possible at all. Nothing then can be "expected" or concluded by science at all. Without a beginning that is rational or logical it is impossible to "expect" logic or rationality to be the conclusion. Science can not say that tomorrow the sun will rise and set and that the moon will follow the sun to rise in the night sky.""Christianity is the most logical consistant most coherant viewpoint that can be held when you look at it from our viewpoint. That you can not look at it from that viewpoint is due to your bias toward the belief that there is no God. Without God to create and continue to establish the absoulutes within our universe your viewpoint has no merit. To say that we will not "see" the evidence before us is to allow your bias and presuppositions but preclude ours."

quote:

---

Christianity is the most logical consistant most coherant viewpoint that can be held when you look at it from our viewpoint.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!I love this!"Christianity makes sense if one believes in Christianity."Brilliant!

quote:

---

That you can not look at it from that viewpoint is due to your bias toward the belief that there is no God.

---

Wow, all those non-Christian religious people will be puzzled to learn that they are Atheists because they are not Christians.

Schrafinator,
You've confused the issue. What this guy is trying to say (I think) is that science depends on other ideas. The idea of 'Cause and Effect' is one. Science cannot prove 'Cause and Effect' because causes & their effects cannot be directly observed. You can guess, surmise, or blindly have 'faith' that they exist but science cannot prove their existence. Something other than science must prove science's foundation, 'Cause and Effect'. Christianity is the only philosophy that does this (for many reasons that I won't get into at the moment), that is why you see science in the christian west and not in China, India, or Saudia Arabia (there are scientists in the east but they depend on the pre post-modern christian ideas of 'cause and effect'). Science is inherently Christian and not atheistic, pantheistic, or polytheistic.Evan

quote:

---

Science is inherently Christian and not atheistic, pantheistic, or polytheistic.

---

Non-obscene words fail me.

quote:

---

Science cannot prove 'Cause and Effect' because causes & their effects cannot be directly observed.

---

Something like that... as per David Hume.

quote:

---

Something other than science must prove science's foundation, 'Cause and Effect'.

---

No logical structure can prove itself. Good so far...

quote:

---

Christianity is the only philosophy that does this

---

But this is silly... Christianity is the only philosophy that can ASSUME premises? That makes no sense.

quote:

---

that is why you see science in the christian west and not in China, India, or Saudia Arabia

---

And this is a misrepresentation of history, though, granted it is a pervasive myth and is even taught in US schools as if it were true. Good old fashion 'christian' science would not be here if its foundations hadn't been laid by the Chinese, Indians and Muslims. Up until about 250 years ago the Christian West was on the bottom of the scientific barrel. Nearly all of the great early discoveries were borrowed and often plagiarized from non-western, or non-christian, sources. Pick up a book titled 'Lost Discoveries' by Dick Teresi.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Non-obscene words fail me.

---

Lol...... pure poetry------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I am not speaking of science as mere observations, like the Chinese inventions of gunpowder, kites, or printing presses (this is what you're referring to, right). I'm referring to the idea that there is order in the universe that would be caused by scientific laws, or cause and effect. I do not think that you will find this particular school of thought in the East. Please provide some examples if you do not agree.Evan

Regarding Christianity's assumptions. I am not saying that Christianity assumes the law of cause and effect, I am saying that science does. And I believe I have made a slight error, it is confusing to say that Christianity is the only philosophy who can prove the law of cause and effect, because it implies that this is possible with deductive reasoning without any assumptions. But I should instead say that the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only possible complete philosophy that is both self-consistent and consistent with the data of human experience. So it is therby the only one able to support the laws of cause and effect, which it in fact does.Science is not by itself a self-consistent philosophy because it assumes the law of 'cause and effect'. Eastern thought is inconsistent with the experiences of humanity. Western mythology does not attempt to be a complete philosophy, it does not explain the beginning of the world. Islam is self-consistent up to the laws of cause and effect, when it agrees with the Judeo-Christian worldview, but it is not self-consistent afterwards. You have remaining a few other western philosophies that are dependent upon Christianity but inconsistent with her and themselves.There is only one other truly self-consistent philosophy possible.
Here it is:akdfjlweicn.vioapern3920j;cm,cvpaeorucmz.opwrjkl39z8cComplete nonsense, and though it is a logical possiblility, it is inconsistent with the data of human experience.Evan

I'm sorry, I noticed an editorial error after I posted. Where I said 'science' above I meant to say 'materialism' (i.e. a totally naturalistic, with no supernatural, explanation for the world). Science is not a complete philosophy because it is merely a observational method.Evan

quote:

---

But I should instead say that the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only possible complete philosophy that is both self-consistent and consistent with the data of human experience.

---

"....the only possible..." ???
Even obscene words fail me this time. I am rendered speechless.

It has recently come to my attention that I have used multiple meanings for the word science. In post #9 what I meant (explicitly) by 'science' was 'an observational method'; in post #7 what I meant (also explicitly) by 'science' was 'a natural philosophy that the laws of cause and effect can be discovered using the scientific method'; In post #3 I used both meanings, sometimes in the same sentence. And while this may be okay in a dictionary it is very confusing in debate. My sincere apologies. I can understand your confusion, my meaning may be patently obvious to myself but not always to other people. Sorry!EvanP.S. I need to get a new editor!@^&? But wait, I am the editor?!?! Hmm. :-)

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I noticed an editorial error after I posted. Where I said 'science' above I meant to say 'materialism' (i.e. a totally naturalistic, with no supernatural, explanation for the world). Science is not a complete philosophy because it is merely a observational method.

---

It is possible to edit your messages, rather than post a second correctional message (see the "edit" button at the bottom of the various messages?). In the above case, you could have gone back and changed that "science" to "materialism". I feel that such a change is only appropriate if done immediatly, before anyone has a chance to respond. Even then, including a message explaining what editing was done, is a nice thing.If a significant time has passed, between the creation of the message and the edit, it is especially important that the nature of the edit be made explicit. It could be done by adding (when editting) a message such as "Added by edit: Please substitute 'materialism' for 'science' in the above message". Or just by making the change, and then adding something along the lines of "Note: by edit, 'materialism' has been substituted for 'science' in the above message.Without such added information, it's not really fair to change the content of your message, after the fact.An edit explanation message is a nice thing, even if the edit was only to correct typos, spelling errors, etc.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-26-2003]

quote:

---

I am not speaking of science as mere observations

---

"Mere observation" is a dead end. "Hmmm.... Its raining." <-- concept.

quote:

---

like the Chinese inventions of gunpowder, kites, or printing presses (this is what you're referring to, right).

---

Technology implies at least a practical understanding of the principles that underlie it. "Oh sure, you built a rocket, but do you understand rocket Science ( with a capital S )?" You are building a false dichotomy. You don't get a clock to work without understanding principles of gearing and ratio. You don't get multi-stage rockets to work without understanding something about chemistry and aerodynamics. No webpage found at provided URL: http://library.thinkquest.org/23062/frameset.html?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0226------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Yes, I agree that mere observation is a dead end. I am not saying that the Chinese don't assume the law of cause and effect. The Chinese may use the laws of cause and effect without having a reason to.In a Judeo-Christian worldview because you know that there really is cause and effect you would surmise that others would attempt to use it. They have to use the law of cause and effect because that's the way the world works. But they may not understand why there is a law of cause and effect because their philosophy contradicts it or doesn't attempt to explain it.Evan

quote:

---

The Chinese may use the laws of cause and effect without having a reason to.

---

Sorry??? Certain reactions appear to consistently follow certain actions. Gee, seems like a good reason to me.

quote:

---

They have to use the law of cause and effect because that's the way the world works.

---

Lol.... no kidding. But somehow, only Christians understand this? That's silly.

quote:

---

But they may not understand why there is a law of cause and effect because their philosophy contradicts it or doesn't attempt to explain it.

---

Why? "God poofed it into existence" does not tell us why. Statements like that are vacuous, and that is the only "why" I can think of that Christianity can give. Besides, nearly every religion has a "< insert deity > poofed it into existence" clause. Hence, any religion can answer 'why' in the same manner.I can't see any argument here besides "Its that way 'cause my religion is right." Sorry. I am not impressed.You don't really know much about Chinese religion or Chinese science or culture do you? Come on, 'fess up.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 02-27-2003]