Science - A Definition

[philadiddle]

There's seems to be some confusion on this board about what we are all talking about here. Some of you wish to oversimplify the definition of science to mean knowledge, so that you can push your theological shortcomings into the scientific realm.

Not everyone trusts wikipedia (because it doesn't always support them) so i'll use dictionary.com as my reference.

First we need to know the use of the word science as it applies to this conversation. For example, someone could say "He's done that so many times he has it down to a science." or "There is a science to learning to play the guitar." Someone could also quote the roots of the word and say this "[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from sci

ns, scient- present participle of sc

re, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]"

But none of those 3 is the context in which we are using the word. So they are irrelevant to the conversation. We are using the word "science" as it applies to the study of evolution. Here is the full definition from dictionary.com;

sci·ence n.

1. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
   2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
   3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

(Definition 1 didn't copy properly, it should read a,b,c instead of 1,2,3 as the sub definitions.)

Notice definitions 2, 3, and 4 have already been ruled out. Number 5 has a proper name (notice the capitals) and refers to creationism according to dictionary.com.


This leaves us with definition #1. Notice that b.(2) says it is restricted to natural phenomena? So when TEs say evolution is not philosophical or theological in any way, that's because it's NOT. It is strictly science, just like meteorology, physics, and chemistry.

 

[laptoppop]

This thread discussing the scientific method may be helpful: http://www.christianforums.com/t3118633-the-scientific-method.html

My take is that if science and the scientific method by definition specifically exclude the supernatural (God), then they will never be in complete harmony with a reality that includes God -- i.e. our reality. Because of this we must be extremely careful when using scientific methods to investigate and describe historical events -- even the history of the planet and its inhabitants.

God is alive -- and He is not silent.

 

[Dannager]

This thread discussing the scientific method may be helpful: http://www.christianforums.com/t3118633-the-scientific-method.html

My take is that if science and the scientific method by definition specifically exclude the supernatural (God),

Okay, stop here.

Science excludes the supernatural. Not God. Just the supernatural. Now, if God sees fit to act in a way such that all his actions will be restricted to the realm of the supernatural (by definition, that which cannot be explained by rational inquiry), there is no way it can be incorporated into the scientific method. Should God ever act in a way which can be explained by rational inquiry, it can and will be examined with the scientific method. That is all there is to it. God is perfectly capable of acting in a natural manner, and in this respect God is not expressly excluded by the scientific method. Unfortunately, creationists bring only supernatural phenomena to the table.

 

[philadiddle]

My take is that if science and the scientific method by definition specifically exclude the supernatural (God), then they will never be in complete harmony with a reality that includes God -- i.e. our reality.

utter nonsense. Is the science behind how women get pregnant not in tune with reality? After all, the bible says He placed you in the womb. But now science can explain it in a natural way. Can u show a way to incorporate God into the science in this case?

A big problem with many Christians is that they don't realize God's ability to get things done through natural means. If someone prays to be cured of cancer, and a doctor removes the cancer, wasn't God working through that? Can u show me how science should incorporate God into that?

 

[laptoppop]

Granted, God often (typically, mostly, almost always) works through natural means. But His very nature is that of being *Super*natural -- it is an error to say that He *only* works through natural means. We cannot restrict God to fit our limits.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Granted, God often (typically, mostly, almost always) works through natural means. But His very nature is that of being *Super*natural -- it is an error to say that He *only* works through natural means. We cannot restrict God to fit our limits.

Science never says that God only works through natural means. Science is limited in that it can only work with what it can measure, since we have yet to find a way to measure the supernatural, science cannot deal with it. If you are able to measure the supernatural so we can include it in science, please tell us.

When I draw a house or building, I only take natural forces into account for the structural integrity of the house. I cannot calculate what supernatural events may be supporting or working against the house so I cannot use them in my plans. Am I wrong in not using supernatural supports in favor of natural lumber?

When my car won’t start, am I doing wrong in getting out my tools and manuals to fix it rather than first taking it to a witch doctor?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

then they will never be in complete harmony with a reality that includes God --


science doesn't "do" all kinds of things, important things.
it doesn't do ethics, art, music, justice, (the good, the beautiful, the just) They are simply domains unaccessible to science.
Ethics because the good is the ought to be, and science is descriptive not prescriptive. Art, music because those are things of taste, of human valuing, the just because it too, like ethics is prescriptive.
does this mean that these domains are unimportant? or less important than say physics or chemistry?
There are other things that don't seem to be very accessible to science: history, consciousness, love and other emotions, things with significant "taste" involved like architecture, religion and the like.

Does that mean that these things don't exist?
Scientific epistemology is the dominant epistemology in our culture but it is a blunt tool when used in a lot of importnat domains, it's mathematical priority, investigate physical manifestation, desire for measurement, all make it hard to apply to lots of things human beings find significant and important in their lives. Yet because it has been so effective in supplying the things of our lives we are often deceived into thinking it can do anything if given enough power, money, time, effort. It can't.

don't expect science to be in harmony with human beings or even with our world, it is much bigger than anything science can measure or even imagine.

 

[laptoppop]

Right. But evolutionary theory claims to describe the real history of the planet. Does this make it unscientific -- or do we accept as a postulate that God CANNOT have acted within known history?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Right. But evolutionary theory claims to describe the real history of the planet. Does this make it unscientific -- or do we accept as a postulate that God CANNOT have acted within known history?

history is not inaccessible to science, the example always given is CSI and criminal investigations. The problem is that history poses problems for scientific methodology and those limitations need to be understood. Just calling them "just so stories" as YECists are liable to do is not understanding.

The methodological principle of natural explanations is NOT that God cannot operate in history but that we can not see and attribute actions to a supernatural being. So science deals only in secondary physical causes.

imagine God's finger stirring the ocean. You can see the effect of the finger, but you can not see the finger (metaphorically). Science can not attribute the stirring to the finger of God, but it doesn't deny that the finger can exist, only that science is silent on the issue. This is a big difference from God CANNOT, it is man CANNOT study.

There are two other pieces of the puzzle that ought to be brought up.

1-supernational is by nature revelatory, revelations are by nature private knowledge inaccessible to the process of intersubjective confirmation.

2-supernatural revelations are by their very nature as private -divisive and argumentative without a reasonable way to adjudicate opposing points of view as in science's reference to public knowledge in the real world. much of the opposition to allowing supernatural into science is not just it's impossibility but it's history of unsolvability of basic issues. for example, see the church.

 

[laptoppop]

Very good -- I would just add that if there are two competing explanations, one with the finger of God stirring things up, and another without God's finger - science will give very strong preference to the natural explanation.

 

[Assyrian]

But it will be able to tell you the water is moving.

That is the difference. You don't have science coming up with natural explanations for a global flood or for all rocks dating no older than 6000 years. There is no evidence of the entire planet being under water at the same time, and the rocks show evidence of being millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of years old.

If the world was recently formed and then flooded, that is what the scientific evidence would say, regardless of how some scientists might explain these events.

 

[gluadys]

.
[*]Science Christian Science.[/LIST](Definition 1 didn't copy properly, it should read a,b,c instead of 1,2,3 as the sub definitions.)

Notice definitions 2, 3, and 4 have already been ruled out. Number 5 has a proper name (notice the capitals) and refers to creationism according to dictionary.com.

In that case dictionary.com is in error. Creationism is sometimes referred to as Creation Science. But never as Christian Science since that is the name of the denomination founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the 19th century.


I have no idea what their stance is on creationism. There is no mention that I can find on their web site

http://www.tfccs.com/search.jhtml?_DARGS=/search.jhtml