Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

Most of what is called "creationist science" is not science at all. The world that we live in might be such that creationist science is impossible. But it is not logically impossible.It is logically possible that prayer could be the best way of gaining scientific insight, and it is logically possible that such insight would always turn out to be correct, as shown by scientific experimentation. In a world where that happened, the monateries would be the centers of scientific research.This is not what happens in our world. But it is not logically impossible.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Real creation scientists use the same methodology as other scientists. They follow the evidence, where it leads them, even if this refutes some of their creationist assumptions. Glenn Morton is one example of such a scientist.Unfortunately, "creation science" is only a pretense for many who use that label.

Don't ask me. Check his web pages. On my reading of those pages, he has found evidence that refutes creationists' misreading of the bible.Here is a web page from another Christian who finds that scientific evidence refutes creationist misreadings.

I'll disagree with your subtitle. Religion and science can be compatible. There are many deeply religious scientists who are doing sound science.Many of those deeply religious scientists believe that the universe is God's creation, and that science can allow them to understand that creation better, and to thereby better understand their God.

2 + 2 = 4

It isn't just mathematics.It is incontrovertible that 1 metre = 100 centimetres. We could, of course, change our measuring standards and abandon that "fact". But until we do, it is not subject to experimental falsification.If is also incontrovertible that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.We can consider two kinds of fact.

There are facts about the world.

There are structural facts; facts about our procedures and our definitions, such as are needed to establish sensible methods and criteria for our investigation.

​

It is the facts about the world that can always be challenged by new data. Structural facts are normally held to be incontrovertible, except that we might abandon them if we change our procedures and methodology (as in a paradigm shift).

​

The problem with Faith's position, as expressed in Message 79 and Message 81, is that she is wanting to hold facts about the world as incontrovertible. To do that is irrational, for if a fact cannot be potentially contradicted by data, then patently it is not a fact about the world.

​

Sorry if this was a little off-topic. I wanted to clarify, so that we can be more careful about what kind of fact we are saying is tentative.

​

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Indeed, though I question the "just".But we did not change them because we determined that they were wrong. Rather, we changed them because we determined that the newer definitions would provide more effective standards on which to base our measurements.If you want to continue with this digression, I think we need a new thread for that.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber