The relevence of Biblical claims to science

How is this anything more than just a complex form of the god of the gaps argument?Just because we don't currently know why the spike happens does not show that science is completely incapable of figuring out why the spike occurs.You need to give an example of where science would necessarily not find the answer based on the limitations of science. Giving an example where science is simply lacking or dosen't give a damn dosen't count.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-21-2004 12:14 PM

You totally missed the point. The key here is that you cannot just offer something we just don't understand YET as evidence of something that the bible explains better then what could be achieved through science.Just because we don't know some subtle biochemical process about babies might just mean that no one has bothered to look into it yet.You did not show in your example how science is incapable of discovering a meaningful reason for the phenomenon. All you showed is that science would probably not discover YOUR reason for the phenomenon based on a personal correlation with a section of the bible.

I totally agree with you Maestro. The Bible is full of answers that science will probably never begin to touch. The thing is that those answers need to be given to people through witness and preaching in homes and churches. Those answers have no business in a science classroom or a discussion about scientific matters.I believe that Jesus has helped me find answers to many of my life problems but it is my faith and I cannot expect personal products of my faith to convince anyone that God's hand is evident in nature and creation. It is MY OPINION and BELIEF that God's hand is evident and I can share that belief when I feel it is appropriate or I find someone looking for answers on spiritual matters. Only when it is brought into the realm of the rational and logical does my opinion, religious or otherwise, simply not matter to the said realm.P.S. I know you are being overwhelmed by responses right now. Thank you for your patience and your responses.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-21-2004 01:10 PM

I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt since it didn't matter one iota either way. Even if it is true it doesn't support his claim that science is incapable of discovering a valid reason for a certain phenomenon by the fact that an explanation presumably doesn't currently exist.

It is these "Purpose Questions" that I am talking about in my post #50. It is valid and some here discussing this with you even agree that there are the questions and the Bible answers them to our satisfaction as believers.Science though does not recognize the need for the "Purpose Questions" since it is not interested in the metaphysical by definition. All the issues you are bringing up are valid from the perspective of seeking knowledge in the abstract but you must realize that science by definition limits itself to a subset of all thing you can possibly know. Science only tries to discover and explain the things that all people of all faiths and backgrounds can observe about the natural world without subjectivity. Science combined with a search for the inner truth that many of us know in different ways is something other than science. This other thing is subjective, sometimes irrational, and most certainly not universal to all people. That is why in a public education system of a free state or a topic of conversation based on the principles of science there is no room for this 'extra-science' thing.

Once again you are assuming that science cannot have an answer just because it may not currently have an answer. Also your answer is subjective and therefore other people following your train of though may not and presumably will not come to the same conclusion. The parts of science that hold true today are those that no matter who you are you can look at the data and you will always come to the same conclusion regardless of personality/religion/subjectivity/etc.

It is perfectly valid to believe and even discuss Creationism. It is when you decide to make it into "Creation Science" that you run into the problem that I have outlined for you.As long as you are willing to realize that it is part of a subjective religious faith then we should have no more problems. Lets get everyone else to stop trying to get "Creation Science" into our schools and there is no more public controversy. Then we can open up some threads (shameless plug for my Evolution != Atheism thread) to talk about how our different brands of Creationism are valid within our shared religion. And in this thread we can use all kinds of subjective and non scientific standards that we want.