Posted on 07/03/2012 4:40:01 AM PDT by Renfield
Quite true. What makes it “less so” is that it doesn’t follow the scientific method to any degree. It is not observable, reproducible, or predictive.
Sure, and those are religious / philosophical opinions having nothing to do with science.
Science, by definition of the word "science", belongs in the realm of "methodological naturalism", which means it only deals with natural explanations for natural events.
Those assumptions of "methodological naturalism" have proved to be powerful tools in explaining the Universe as we see it.
They don't necessarily deny the "Hand of God" or "God's will" in natural events, they simply can't use those as scientific explanations.
So instead, scientists talk about "natural laws" and "random occurrances."
None of this prevents genuinely religious people from seeing God's purposes in everything that happens.
Well, that's it for tonight, out of time, will pick up where left off sometime later...
;-)
They do have a tendency to exaggerate their estimates of the external reliability (generalizability) of their data. I see THAT all the time. As far as pandering for research money, we all gotta eat.
But "standing with science" in this case simply means accepting the scientific assumption that natural events have natural causes.
Of course, no one is required to accept those assumptions, so long as, while rejecting the basis for science, you don't pretend your work product is "science".
Plus, what you call my "religious doctrine" is nothing more than "theistic evolutionism", which is taught or recognized by the vast majority of Christian denominations.
So that is exactly "Christian creationism" in the sense of God creating the Universe, all its natural laws, behaviors and evolutions, with God's Hand and God's purposes behind everything we see, even if they appear "random" or "accidental" to science.
That's not just my personal opinion, it's what Christians have always believed.
But I think I do know your problem, because it's totally common and understandable.
Like many others, including some scientists, you've confused or conflated scientific "methodological naturalism" with something more sinister, what I call "MOP naturalism" = Metaphysical / Ontological / Philosophical Naturalism.
The difference is that where scientific methodological naturalism simply excludes the Hand of God from any working scientific assumptions, MOP naturalism excludes God from every aspect of existence.
So MOP naturalism is just nihilism gussied up to look half presentable.
Shadowfax: "The fence I refer to is that which separates the beautiful truth of God’s Word and the damned lies of the pit of Hell.
You can’t straddle the two.
Christ made that clear.
Either you are for Him or against Him."
Certainly, as it relates to a discussion on the science of evolution, that is just inappropriate nonsense.
The science of evolution and the salvation of Christ have nothing directly to do with each other.
Nowhere does the Bible say that one prevents the other, or that belief in one blocks the other's workings.
Shadowfax: "My problem with that is that it is contrary to the Biblical account."
Somewhere I read that the Bible includes not just Ten Commandments but, now I forget, is it 613?
And that somewhere in the world there are a handful of people who try to obey all 613.
So, does everyone else's inability to obey even the first Ten, much less all 613 make them "disrespectful"?
No, that inability is covered by Christ's offer of salvation.
Well, then, might not any other alleged "disrespect" also be covered by Christ's salvation?
Shadowfax: "What you just expressed puts you totally outside the realm of today’s scientific thinking.
The theory of evolution precludes an intelligent designer.
It states that all life arose completely by random accident through natural processes.
Again, the choice you are offering me is between my religion and yours."
Of course, any discussion of religion is "totally outside the realm of" any scientific thinking.
By self-imposed definition of the word "science", science and religion don't mix.
But that does not prevent any normal human or scientist from drawing their own conclusions about God's role in creating and guiding the Universe.
Now, out of time again, will come back to this later... ;-)
I'll say it again: that is all your religion, none of it is scientific.
And as religious beliefs, you are certainly entitled to honestly accept whatever you wish, so long as you don't pretend your faith is somehow "scientific".
Of course, I and most Christian denominations disagree with your interpretations of scripture -- we believing they do indeed allow room for scientific understandings, especially when you consider that in no way possible were ancient biblical authors going to address, for one example, Einstein's theory of relativity.
To put it simply, God spoke to & through those ancient Bible authors in language they could comprehend.
Today I'm certain He speaks to us in our own languages, if anyone cares to listen... ;-)
Shadowfax: "Your argument that death had to exist because of rampant reproduction of animals is a huge assumption on your part.
An assumption you’ve jumped to not because of the Bible or anything that it says but because of your attempt to reconcile your own ideas of origins with the Biblical account.) "
In fact, it is physically impossible to reconcile available evidence (i.e., fossils, DNA, geological strata, radiometric dating, our understandings of aging and physical needs to eat to survive) with unscientific assertions such as "no death before Adam".
One is left to conclude that either:
Actually, it's the Apostle Paul's New Testament testimony, or more precisely, your interpretation of Paul, and you are entitled to it.
I interpret the words somewhat differently, more metaphorically, but more to the point: none of that has anything to do with science.
And, as long as you don't call your interpretations "science", then you are free to honestly believe whatever you wish on these subjects.
Shadowfax: "I don’t know why that you think that a God who is powerful enough to do it all couldn’t manage it in 6 days or why God would lie about how He did it and exclude billions of years in history that atheistic man says is there but He doesn’t."
The answers are simple and obvious: God speaks to each of us in languages we understand best -- so He spoke to ancient Biblical writers using understandings and symbols of their time, not ours.
Our task then is to understand & translate God's messages into more modern forms.
Of course it's difficult, but are we not up to the task?
I think that will do it for this particular post.
A separate post from you follows...
Well, of course, I only confess the truth, and since your "analysis" here is obviously confused, I don't agree to it. ;-)
So first of all, we need to reinforce distinctions between:
Second, I do not in any way impose my religious beliefs on scientific theories (i.e., "the Big Bang" or Evolution).
Third, I do not agree that any scientific evidence necessarily invalidates the Bible's core messages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.