Posted on 01/30/2017 6:30:05 PM PST by plain talk
Mock & scorn if you wish, but science has demonstrated a great ability to explain the natural realm, in natural terms.
More important, the Bible was never intended to be natural-science, rather it records God's supernatural deeds & words.
It certainly asserts God's superiority over nature, but makes no attempts to explain nature in natural terms.
So again I say: reject as much of science as you wish, just don't call your own religious beliefs "science", because they are not.
Not "peddling" anything except accuracy in definitions and uses of words -- differences between natural-science and supernatural revelations, for example.
Here's what you may be certain of: when that day comes, it will not be events of natural-science, but rather of divine intervention, a totally different subject.
.
The day that matters will come much sooner than that. It’ll be the “day of Trumpets” Tishri 1, 2024.
When that day comes, all of the silly things invented by men that you worship as “science” will be lost in the reality of whether or not you have obeyed Yehova’s Torah or not.
Those that have, the “Bride of Yeshua,” will be changed in the twinkling of an eye, just as Paul told the Corinthians 2000 years ago, and those that have not will be left here to experience Yehova’s Bowl judgements being poured out on humanity for the 10 most horrible days that men have ever experienced.
Do you think ‘evolution’ will be of help?
Will ‘science’ show you the way through?
Just wondering.
.
I don't think people like yourself, who make careless false accusations, will ever pass His tests.
The truth is, nobody here "worships" science, it's impossible.
Science, by definition, is simply the search for natural models of natural processes.
Nobody "worships" a model, regardless of how attractive, it's just a model, with no spiritual content whatever.
So, I'll say it again: the events you expect will not be natural science processes, they will be divine supernatural interventions.
Natural science has nothing to say about the divine or supernatural, and the Bible has nothing to say about natural science except that God created it, rules over it and, on occasion, overrules it for our sakes.
The truth is, nobody here "worships" science, it's impossible. Nobody "worships" a model, regardless of how attractive, it's just a model, with no spiritual content whatever.
True. But there are two kinds of meaning for the word 'science'. The first is as you describe, a useful methodology for testing a hypothesis.
But there is a second kind, which I call SCIENCE!
SCIENCE! is what Neil deGrasse Tyson does when he takes what is normally a neutral term that describes a useful methodology and stretches it all out of proportion in order promote a pop political agenda of pure materialism and atheism.
SCIENCE! is my shorthand for this kind of word abuse. ('Climate change' = AGW is another example.) It is a rhetorical bludgeon used by NdGT, Bill Nye, Ricky Gervais, Richard Dawkins and others to attack any faith belief - other than their own - by asserting that only things that can be seen or felt actually exist (which is itself also a faith belief). It is the same terminological sleight of hand that Engels and Marx had used to promote dialectical materialism. 'Marxism is scientific!'
SCIENCE! directly attacks Judeo-Christian beliefs by design. It attacks the beliefs that enabled free scientific inquiry in the first place (that God is a rational being who loves us and made a Creation that operates according to logical rules, so by learning more about how Creation works we can learn more about Him). SCIENCE! shuts it all down in favor of strict authoritarianism and credentialism in the service of hard materialism and marxist ideology.
That meaning has a long and distinguished ancestry, beginning with "natural philosophy", becoming "natural science" around the time of our Founding Fathers.
That's the term and meaning I'm here to defend, along with our Founders who used & understood it.
In their minds, and mine, "natural science" is simply the study of God's handiwork, to learn something about how He did what He did.
It's first & foremost methodological rule is: only natural explanations for natural processes.
In other words, science by design and definition does not touch on anything divine or supernatural.
Gideon7: "But there is a second kind, which I call SCIENCE!"
Sure, and the big, super-educated terms for that are: "metaphysical naturalism", "philosophical naturalism" or "ontological naturalism".
These terms, which also go back centuries, represent a religious commitment to the methodological assumptions of natural science.
Put simply, they mean: atheism.
Yes, I "get" that people like our FRiend editor-surveyor refuse to distinguish between the methodologically natural science of our Founders and the metaphysical atheism of today's scientific priesthood.
So that's why I'm here, to point out such distinctions.
"so long as you don't call your religious beliefs "science"." And wow man, by who's authority do you issue that command from? lol. Anyways, your fight is not with me but that of denying God. You'll figure it out one day.
No, it's not my "perception", it's what scientists have consistently, and increasingly accurately, reported for the past 100+ years.
In recent decades the number of tools available for estimating geological ages has grown exponentially, from one or two (i.e., carbon-14 dating) to now dozens of radiometric and other methods.
As for Earth's rotation & revolution, those were hypothesized even in ancient times, but not confirmed as theory until the Age of Exploration and men sailing around the globe.
Today's it's confirmed fact, from cameras in space.
Likewise, the ages of geological materials are also confirmed based on numerous independent methodologies arriving at similar times.
VaeVictis: " 'so long as you don't call your religious beliefs 'science'.
And wow man, by who's authority do you issue that command from? lol."
US law forbids the teaching of religion as "science" in public schools, has now for many years.
Definitions of just what is, or is not, science are, by law, in the hands of scientists themselves, not anti-scientists such as VaeVictis.
VaeVictis: "Anyways, your fight is not with me but that of denying God.
You'll figure it out one day."
Sorry, but I have no argument with God, because I don't believe God has any beef with science.
Indeed I think God wants us to understand something of how He did & does it.
That, at least, has been a basic assumption behind what was centuries ago called "natural philosophy" and around the time of our Founders became "natural science".
Today's science is short for our Founders' "natural science", which began as an exploration of God's good works.
Neither they nor I believed the Bible forbids such enquiries.
Do you?
Do you realize how long man accurately reported the earth was the center of our universe? How many people where chased out of ‘science’ because they said the sun was at the center? Plato wrote about it, so it had been around in 4th century BC. It wasn’t defeated for about 2000 years after that. So evolution is in its infancy still if it has only been around for 100-200 years.
The problem here is you supplant the story God gave in Genesis 1. Here He clearly shows what happen. He is the only one that actually witnessed what happen. It is better to have faith in His word “without proof”, than faith in man’s ability with unverifiable proof from speculation and assumptions.
You are welcome to stand with the world, with the wisdom of man.... but I must share with you why that is a bad idea. First God said His foolishness is greater than man’s wisdom (I Cor. 1:25). A person can’t serve two masters (Matt. 6:24) and for those that love the world, the love of the Father is not in them (1 John 2:15). Lastly, for any Christian, it is an idolatry of man’s wisdom to place this belief ahead of what God said.
If supporting evolution is what it takes to be a scientist, then I want no part of that club. I am happy with being an “anti-scientist” as I will not be an “anti-Christ”.
Of course, I "get" all that, but why do you conveniently forget that those who most strongly and violently opposed science in the days of, say, Galileo, were people who believed his radical scientific ideas opposed Biblical teachings?
And, in fact, that's just what you do today, so why try to turn the tables?
And remember, the ancient ideas of an Earth centered Universe were not overthrown by some new religion, but rather by the data and theories of men who followed the evidence wherever it lead them.
And that is precisely the standing of evolution theory today.
It exists because, and only because, that's what the data from over 100 years of study tells us.
Literally, there is no other natural explanation for what we see.
VaeVictis: "The problem here is you supplant the story God gave in Genesis 1.
Here He clearly shows what happen."
Sorry, but that's simply not true.
The Bible says nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about how physically God created anything.
One of the very few clues it gives us says that God began with dirt to make mankind.
Dirt to man is also what evolution tells us, so I have no problem with it.
VaeVictis: "It is better to have faith in His word 'without proof', than faith in man’s ability with unverifiable proof from speculation and assumptions."
Sorry again, but you are very confused.
"Faith" is never the appropriate response to scientific theories.
Theories are just models, ideas confirmed by evidence, but always subject to rejection or revision when new data or better ideas come along.
We do not "believe" theories, we merely, at most, provisionally accept them as pretty good ideas, pending further analysis.
In the case of basic evolution theory, it has been confirmed innumerable times by literal mountains of evidence, and never seriously falsified.
So basic evolution theory is on pretty firm ground.
However there is always the possibility that tomorrow someone might confirm evidence which seriously falsifies some portion, or all of evolution theory, and then scientists would go to work trying to understand and devise better theories.
That's how science works, and has now for centuries.
VaeVictis: "but I must share with you why that is a bad idea. First God said His foolishness is greater than man’s wisdom (I Cor. 1:25). "
No such Biblical references point at natural-science, but rather at ancient religious "wisdom" -- gnosis -- a spiritual knowledge, not science.
In fact, science itself makes no claims to "wisdom" or even "truth", nor does it demand "faith" or "belief".
Science is the opposite of religion, and that's why I say the Bible does not oppose it.
VaeVictis: "A person can’t serve two masters (Matt. 6:24) and for those that love the world, the love of the Father is not in them (1 John 2:15)."
But science itself is not about "loving the world", rather it's about understanding God's natural creations.
As such, historically many scientists were clergy or strong believers in the Bible.
So there is nothing inherent in natural-science which "loves the world" or opposes God.
VaeVictis: "Lastly, for any Christian, it is an idolatry of man’s wisdom to place this belief ahead of what God said."
Once again: science itself makes no claims to "wisdom" and has no requirements for "belief" or "faith".
Science is strictly a methodology for understanding the natural realm and is in no way, shape or form opposed to God's Word.
VaeVictis: "If supporting evolution is what it takes to be a scientist, then I want no part of that club.
I am happy with being an 'anti-scientist' as I will not be an 'anti-Christ'."
But you are presenting a false choice.
There is no need to reject one or the other, both properly understood, are acceptable.
Sure, if you chose to reject one or the other, that is your choice, but it is not necessary for those who love both God and His creations.
Remember, in Genesis 1, God Himself seven times pronounced His works "good", and that should be good enough for us.
ping
It’s ok to be ignorant. Posting ignorance is however not good
...
Not just ignorance, but virtue signalling among the ignorant.
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.