Read the sentence above and note how the author of this article is inclined to elevate "knowledge" to the level of "truth" and "love," as if the former were an essential attribute of God.
I don't know which traditions this fellow is referring to, but he does not speak for biblical texts wherein the essence of God is set forth. Omniscience (knowledge of all things) is an attribute that is not trumpeted, but given, just like the laws of nature that operate apart from our knowledge. Nor is "knowledge" a moral imperative where man is concerned. In fact it is, according to the earliest biblical accounts, a quest for "knowledge" that lead to a great divorce between God and man. As a result we cannot even be sure of eyewitness testimony from others, let alone ourselves.
According to the biblical texts, "Love" is how the Creator would be revealed in essence, and it is well-demonstrated in the fact that He allows human science to soil His creation with so much blather.
The author of this article sets up a straw man in asserting that faith seeks proof of God in the unknown. Besides, even Meyerowitz has not fully explained how flowers came into being.
Pure science does nothing more than substantiate the fact there is a God who created, and who sustains, the universe we observe to this day. Unfortunately the philosophy of evolution has somehow gained credibility as if it were pure science.
"Unfortunately the philosophy of evolution has somehow gained credibility as if it were pure science."
Do you ever go off script? Saying the same thing repeatedly makes it no more true than repeating 2=3.
Biology is pure science. Evolution is a fact. Creation is not in evolution. Deal with it.
He's in good company. The the most important basillica of Eastern Christianity was named Hagia Sophia, or "Holy Wisdom." There is a book of the bible named, "Wisdom." Okay, it's deuterocanonical, but it is accepted by the vast majority of Christians (Catholic & Orthodox).
a quest for "knowledge" that lead to a great divorce between God and man.
Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not of the tree of "knowledge of the laws of nature."
Nor is "knowledge" a moral imperative where man is concerned.
So God does not want us to learn. Why then did he give us reason? Why did he make us naturally curious?
According to the biblical texts, "Love" is how the Creator would be revealed in essence, and it is well-demonstrated in the fact that He allows human science to soil His creation with so much blather
How does learning about his creation soil it? And how is that well-demonstrated?
The author of this article sets up a straw man in asserting that faith seeks proof of God in the unknown.
No! You did not read the article carefully. Miller's sees God in the known, not the unknown. He is saying precisely whare you are saying, that one SHOULD NOT seek God in the unknown, which, unfortunatley, a lot of people do.
Pure science does nothing more than substantiate the fact there is a God who created and who sustains, the universe we observe to this day.
Pure science cannot substantiate anything. It can only postulate and falsify.
Unfortunately the philosophy of evolution has somehow gained credibility as if it were pure science.
Evolution is a science. It is makes loads of falsifiable predictions which, to date, have not been falsified after being subjected to extensive testing.