The relevence of Biblical claims to science

Like Nosy, I'm unable to parse this into a meaningful question. Instead of endless quibbles, I'd like to see an answer to this question from Quetzal's Message 18: Quetzal posed a list of specific issues in the OP, but I think from the point of view of most of us they must be held rhetorically since they're about issues we're unfamiliar with. But the point Quetzal is making is that all but one of these issues have answers in an evolutionary context, and he wants to know how in some way taking the sprirtual into account would improve upon these answers.Because Quetzal's questions require a bit a study, it doesn't seem necessary to use them as the basis for further discussion. Simply describe for us or provide examples (how many times have we made this request now?) of how the spirtual (or whatever term you want to us) would improve upon the answers provided by science.So far your answers have been remarkably free of substance. If I told someone about this discussion and they asked me, "So how does Maestro propose including the spirtual in research studies?" I wouldn't be able to answer.--Percy

Maestro threads accumulate posts at a stunning rate, and after leaving to do a bit of Christmas shopping I return to absolute bewilderment. I'm talking about my bewilderment, though others may share this feeling.I continue to see a terminology problem. I didn't see where this was hashed out already, though perhaps I missed it, but now there seems some confusion about the meaning of the word "why".When science asks "why", it is looking for physical, natural scientific answers, not "meaning of life" type answers. If science asks why infants vitamin K levels spike on the 8th day of life (which there apparently is no evidence for whatsoever, but accept for the moment this is true), it is seeking scientific answers, not spirtual answers. It is looking for the chemical, genetic and environmental factors that cause this to happen.When religion asks why the vitamin K spike (again, there's no such spike, but just accept it for now), the question is only relevant in a Judaic/Christian context. In this case, that's how we know that circumcision is a spirtual and not a scientific answer.After all these messages, there's still no proposal for an alternative to scientific standards, and the whole idea of arguing against scientific standards seems extremely poorly thought out. It isn't just that no one's been able to propose anything concrete. It's also that Creationist efforts to get Creationism represented in public school science classrooms can only be severely compromised by proposals that science classes shouldn't be doing science. I can only express my fondest hope that the next time Creationists bring proposals to my town's board of education that they argue strenuously for representation of spirtual issues in science classes. What we usually get is arguments about how strongly scientific Creationism is.As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong, since this thread has grown so quickly and is tough to follow), Maestro's arguments so far consist primarily of confusing the definition of the word "why" in different contexts. Science doesn't seek answers to the spirtual "why". When science asks "why?" it is really asking "how."What I think we're asking Maestro, and what he has yet to answer in my opinion, is how he proposes that taking the spirtual into account will help science answer scientific questions.--Percy

This is actually a reply to three messages, Message 83, Message 86 and Message 87.First, congratulations are in order for two unique and wrong spellings of epistemology in a single post. Epistemology is the study of the nature and origin of knowledge, not a process for gaining knowledge. Epistemology is sometimes called a theory of knowledge. Your Message 87 proposes not an epistemology, but a process that can only be part of an epistemological context. I hope the quotes around "scientific" are for emphasis and not to mean "sort of scientific seeming." Further, (b) can only be possible if (a) is true. In other words, (a) is necessary but not sufficient by itself. And (a) probably isn't even necessary, since the Bible can contain both true and false information, and so not be wholly true.This is all hooey anyway. All we want is an explanation or examples of how the spirtual can be used to inform scientific investigations. I don't think we need lengthy dissertations. It's a simple question, and there should be a simple answer. After a few hundred messages across three threads we still have no answer, and my obfuscation and dissembling alarms are going off like crazy. I wish somebody, anybody, would get to the point already.In my experience, when somebody thinks they know something, they will tell you about it straight out. When somebody doesn't know something, they hem and they haw and they delay and they talk about other things, but they never give you an answer because they don't have one. I'd love to be proven wrong in this case, and it would be even better if it could happen this year. I'm not getting any younger!--Percy

Science already understands these things far better than you're apparently aware, and the inaccuracy of Genesis concerning cosmological and planetary origins is well established.This thread should definitely *NOT* start discussing the origins account in Genesis. Please take this up in [forum=-2], which despite the title is where these topics generally get discussed.I'm sure this request has you non-plussed, since you probably believe you just provided an example of how the Bible can inform scientific research. But it is becoming apparent that your confidence that the spirtual can inform scientific research is based upon your belief in an inerrant Bible, and a lack of awareness of the extent to which scientific findings contradict it. I think it would be best for you to abandon your claim about the spirtual informing scientific research for the time being until you've spent some time discussing the various claims in the Bible that you think are true. You can start by proposing a new thread about the accuracy of the origins accounts in the Bible.--Percy

I probably would have let Maestro's use of epistemology go if he hadn't called my attention to it by misspelling it two different ways. But maybe we do disagree about the definition of epistemology. I couldn't agree that one could properly use epistemology to refer to a process or methodology. The process or methodology can only be part of an epistemological context. If Maestro's steps are an epistemology, then so is the recipe I'm following for dinner tonight. --Percy

I'm sure Quetzal will comment soon, but I think it's possible that he may have misunderstood where you wanted to take the discussion. Naturally if you stipulate a priori as an axiom that the Bible is true, then you can only conclude that where science disagrees with the Bible that science is wrong. That's a fairly trivial, and meaningless, exercise in logic that tells us nothing.You're supposed to somehow be working your way toward explaining how the spirtual can inform scientific research. I see no progress.--Percy

^Bump^

I agree from the point of view of minimizing the imbalance in numbers. My reluctance derives from Maestro's inability to coherently describe his position or provide an example - not an auspicious way to begin a Great Debate, and certainly not deserving of moderator time.I gave this thread a bump because it had gotten buried over the holidays, I wanted to be sure we were done with it. I'd been assuming that Maestro was hanging out on an empty campus while awaiting his last final by spending his spare time here, and that he wouldn't be returning when classes resumed. Chicopee isn't far from many colleges and universities, like UMass and Springfield College.--Percy

Agreed, a very nice guy. He's groping for answers because he's only just now discovering that his well founded beliefs are actually just assumptions.--Percy