is creation outside of science's scope?

[Mallon]

We must recognize the limits of our techniques, and the presuppositions involved in them.

It's a little ironic hearing this come from someone who supports creation "science," which goes beyond the limits of science to incorporate the supernatural (yet still calls itself "science"). Shouldn't you be taking a piece of your own advice, pop?
If YECs are so 'underwhelmed' about science (which, by definition, entails methodological naturalism), why are they constantly trying to validate Scripture empirically?

 

[laptoppop]

It's a little ironic hearing this come from someone who supports creation "science," which goes beyond the limits of science to incorporate the supernatural (yet still calls itself "science"). Shouldn't you be taking a piece of your own advice, pop?
If YECs are so 'underwhelmed' about science (which, by definition, entails methodological naturalism), why are they constantly trying to validate Scripture empirically?

Actually, I do not see it as trying to validate Scripture. I see it as investigating our environment, etc. in light of the specific revelation of a loving God. Scripture does not need us to validate it. It is good to understand God's creation. Scientific methods absolutely have a place in that investigation -- but I will be honest about having a presupposition that God exists and that He has revealed Himself.

 

[gluadys]

Science is fine for what it does - - but while it can help figure out natural processes and characteristics it cannot find the Truth by itself.

And where have I (or any TE) ever claimed it could? I am getting as edgy as you pop over being accused of claims I never made. If you are going to use language like this, you might try to substantiate that this is what TEs are actually saying before throwing down the gauntlet.

Science cannot describe all of nature properly because it uses methodology that specifically excludes God by restricting it to only natural, repeatable processes.

Please explain to me once again, how the study of natural repeatable processes designed and created by God specifically excludes God.

Does it not rather confirm the orderliness and reliability of God's creation?

As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease. Gen. 8:22

The sun rises and the sun goes down and hurries to the place where it rises.
The wind blows to the south and goes to the north; round and round goes the wind and on its circuits the wind returns.
All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they continue to flow. ...
What has been is what will be and what has been done will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.
Eccl. 1: 5-7, 9

The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head.
Mark 4:26

How does the study of any of these processes exclude God? Are they not of God? Has God abandoned them since he created them?

Why do you keep insisting that "natural" excludes God?


"natural" does not exclude God and since "natural" does not exclude God, choosing to focus one's study on the natural created order is not excluding God.

Because it (properly) limits itself to repeatable processes, it cannot speak to the complete Truth of a reality where God is real and exists -- it can only speak to a very small part.

And where have TEs ever disputed this? All we are saying is that it is very good about speaking to the small part it has chosen to focus on, and when science tells us something about the natural world it is speaking of what it knows.

We must recognize the limits of our techniques, and the presuppositions involved in them. Scientific methods are fine, but they presuppose only natural processes (i.e. no supernatural intervention by God), and so their results will always reflect their presuppositions.

That's a little better. At least you are not saying that it is God who is excluded. Only God's supernatural interventions. That seems a reasonable boundary to me. Why do you find it problematical?

I get the feeling that although you rightly claim that science cannot speak to the complete Truth, you are also faulting it because it cannot. You seem to be disappointed that science does have limits. And that one of those limits is that it does not and cannot handle supernatural interventions as scientific data.

 

[Digit]

If that's the case, then the peer-reviewed, self-correcting nature of science will inevitably lead us closer to truth of the YEC interpretation of Genesis.

But assuming that science has got it right, what sort of protocol does YECism have in place to correct its mistaken interpretation?

I understand what you are saying, but I fear it doesn't work like that. I see a world where man continually convinces himself that there is no God. As long as these people are those who are reviewing and correcting, then they will stray from the truth.

In regards to what does YEC have to correct it's mistakes, isn't that the Bible? I mean, that's the main thing that we seem to have issues with on this board, it's that YEC take historic scripture as it's foundation. Isn't God the very best possible being to correct and set us on a true course?

Digit

 

[Mallon]

I understand what you are saying, but I fear it doesn't work like that. I see a world where man continually convinces himself that there is no God. As long as these people are those who are reviewing and correcting, then they will stray from the truth.

That's not the case, though. A great percentage of scientists believe in God (the Christian god, even).

In regards to what does YEC have to correct it's mistakes, isn't that the Bible?

But that's circular logic. You can't use the Bible to inform your mistaken interpretation of the Bible. You need an outside check. That's why we don't subscribe to geocentrism anymore: Someone had the tenacity to study the orbits of celestial bodies.

I mean, that's the main thing that we seem to have issues with on this board, it's that YEC take historic scripture as it's foundation. Isn't God the very best possible being to correct and set us on a true course?

The Bible isn't God. You are equating your interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself, which you are in turn equating with God.

 

[Digit]

But why the double standard? Consider that hermeneutics is without error when it correctly interprets scripture. Just as science is without error when it correctly describes nature.

But when it comes to an apparent discrepancy of scripture with nature, you assume that the error is in the description of nature rather than in the interpretation of scripture.

Ok I understand your point here, and yes you are correct - I assume the error is in our understanding of nature. The reason for this is not so much that I believe hermeneutics (how the heck do you pronouce that word? her-man-you-tics?) to be infallable, it's just as fallable as anything, and indeed I've had to research and reassess many things recently which I thought I new the whole of, the reason I tend to think our understanding is incorrect, is that based on God's nature, as revealed to us in the Bible, I cannot believe He would use a system like evolution to create us. A system that is very contrary to how we are to act and live our lives, where it's basically the survival of the fittest and most adaptive species built on the deaths and failures of the weak and lesser. That's not the ONLY reason mind, it's just one really, but the system doesn't fit the character for me.

Note I am not saying the error is in scripture. But hermeutics, the guidelines we use to understand and interpret scripture, a just as human and open to falliblity and even the effects of the fall as science is.

I totally agree with this.

Why not then apply an equal standard of investigating the adequacy of your hermeneutics to intepret scripture correctly as to the adequacy of science to interpret nature correctly?

To an extent, I believe I do as I outlined above. I've certainly asked enough questions around here to warrant that being accepted.

The problem I always find in these conversations is that literalists always gloss over two factors. On the one hand they seem to forget that science has a base in nature and that nature is God-given. Science is not a study pursued in a vacuum divorced from God's reality.

Don't you think secular science is? I mean, there are many systems that are utilising things which God created, yet just because they do so, does not mean they are not doing so without any hint at God, or His hand in things, or God being factored into their results, findings, theories and structures. I mean there are many courses for example, and studies that deal with human behaviour, or even counselling. Look at marriage for instance. I believe the base I have for my marriage is far superior to that of a base I could have learned from secular courses, as I attended a church-run marriage preparation course. By factoring God into this, and how we behave and more so why we behave that way, based on our creation, gave me a much greater understanding and acceptance of it and how to work through our opposites in a relationship. Secular courses would do much the same thing, except they would not mention God at all and that omits some important aspects of human nature. They are still working with the same subjects, using the same materials all of which God created, but they are divorced from him aren't they?

On the other hand they also seem to forget that while scripture, like nature, is rooted in the truth of God himself, human interpretations of scripture, like human interpretations of nature don't have that unlimited freedom from error that God himself has.

I will admit that this was something I initially took for granted, but you are right in this, it is something that some of us occasionally fall prey too, and it is only through careful study and research that we can divine the true meaning.

Is it so awful to contemplate the possibility that we can be just as wrong about how we read scripture as about how we read nature?

Well no, it's not a horrendous crime or anything, although no one likes their foundation shaken for sure.

Misrepresenting this need to check the accuracy of our hermeneutics as elevating science above scripture is a slanderous and untrue accusation.

I think this would be true if not that science is by and large secular-man's new god. Unless you dispute that? I personally always see it turned to for an answer and it is constantly referenced as superior to God in every way, shape and form. Witnessing to an Atheist grounded in science is very often extremely difficult because as long as science has provided an answer for something, there is no longer a drive or desire in them to look elsewhere. Am I alone in finding this?

Digit

 

[Digit]

That's not the case, though. A great percentage of scientists believe in God (the Christian god, even).

I would be interested what a "great percentage" is if you can provide it? If not, it's no big deal, I just don't really feel that a large part of the scientific community is Christian. In addition, I find this a moot point anyhow because if they subscribe to TE, then they have adopted secular sciences theory on our origin which, as I've come to learn, doesn't necessarily exclude God, but it definitely doesn't require him. TEs factor in God and Atheists factor in chaos as a chance for creating the first living things.

But that's circular logic. You can't use the Bible to inform your mistaken interpretation of the Bible. You need an outside check. That's why we don't subscribe to geocentrism anymore: Someone had the tenacity to study the orbits of celestial bodies.

It's not circular. The Bible can be studied alone and seperate from our understanding of the world around us, it's easy to take one thing in the Bible out of context and have it make sense compared to something we have deduced in the real world, yet we study it in context with all other passages and references. Then, we look at our real world findings, and if they conflict with that, then surely it makes sense to stick with what God recorded?

The Bible isn't God. You are equating your interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself, which you are in turn equating with God.

The Bible is God's Word. It isn't inspired by God, it's God Breathed. We had a long discussion on this and I sort of went from one to the other and after a little more research concluded that the inspired meaning of God Breathed simply came from translators, the original, literal, meaning is God Breathed, from the mouth of God. However we interpret that today, it means specifically they are God's Words. Do not take it to mean I am saying that the Bible is God, that's a little silly. However I do believe that scripture is from God and it is His Words we see inked on those pages, and that man had no artistic license or freedom to put his own spin on things. So in that light, I feel the Bible is a good source to turn to, as it is turning to God's account of things.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[archaeologist]

i try to keep up but my last response was interupted by repair work and all i had written was lost. i will wait till later to make some responses to points raised in earlier pages but this one i will address just a couple more recent ideas:

That's not the case, though. A great percentage of scientists believe in God (the Christian god, even).

depends on your definition of the word 'christian' and from what i have heard it is not that large, but then that information came from non-believers.

How does the study of any of these processes exclude God

if you don't include Him or attribute its origin to natural events then you have excluded God.

All we are saying is that it is very good about speaking to the small part it has chosen to focus on, and when science tells us something about the natural world it is speaking of what it knows.

that is assuming science got it right/

If that's the case, then the peer-reviewed, self-correcting nature of science will inevitably lead us closer to truth of the YEC interpretation of Genesis

that is assuming that God and creation are subject to humans peer review process. creation is a solitary event, and lies far outside of the scientific field science has no authority to determine how the world was created and it hasn't the means to make any conclusive remarks or discvoeries..

How God did it is not revealed to us in specific terms. most painters and inventors do not tell all their secrets but we have clues. when God said He hung, He made, He stretched then we have a pretty good idea that He was invlioved and that there was NO process used. God did it so that He gets the glory and it is not compromised by adding evolution or some other formula science dreams up.

I find this a moot point anyhow because if they subscribe to TE, then they have adopted secular sciences theory on our origin which, as I've come to learn, doesn't necessarily exclude God, but it definitely doesn't require him. TEs factor in God and Atheists factor in chaos as a chance for creating the first living things.

i agree with this. TE is accepting that which is not God originated or ordained thus that which is secular needs to be removed.

REMEMBER WHAT GOD SAID:
"what fellowship doeth righteousness have with unrighteousness?"

there is no room in the christian thinking those things which orignate from the unbelieving side of life. God makes it perfectly clear that we as believers are to be 'in the world BUT not of the world' we must remove secular influences so we can better tell the world about what God did and How it applies to our lives.

crawfish, i wiil try to get to your posts later.

 

[archaeologist]

the question is here:

do you believe God and His word or do you believe science and its conclusions?

God does not lie, and there is an evil one urking seeking whom he may destroy, thus when science disagrees with God one needs not to blindly accept science but be discerning and look to the source.

if it comes from the secular world then that source is most likely anti-God. we all have the same evidence, it is how one applies their believe that will determine the interpretation and interpretation is not inspired.

so if it disagrees with God's word then it is most likely ----wrong.

this does not mean that we do not find out more details but if those details describe something different than what God described, then those details are wrong.

 

[gluadys]

Don't you think secular science is?

No. Because there is no such thing as "secular science" or "believers' science". There is only science.

There is only science because there is only one created reality and God doesn't change it depending on whether the observer is a believer or not.

 

[archaeologist]

[QUOTE Because there is no such thing as "secular science" or "believers' science". There is only science][/QUOTE]

that is where you make your mistake. yes there is a difference in science and those that believe God are not to follow those that don't.

how can one be the light to the world, if they follow the world's ways and thinking?

YES there is two sciences, one recognizes the truth while the other follows theories that are human constructs and not of God.

There is only science because there is only one created reality and God doesn't change it depending on whether the observer is a believer or not.

one needs discernment to see if they are following the truth and by compromising by adding secular scientific theories and methods into a believer's work, is not of God.

there is a big difference, one which would recognoze that creation is not a scientific issue but a theological one.

 

[archaeologist]

one has to remember that those scientists who do not believe have no light in them--1 John so why would you accept their work and theories when God is not there?

 

[Digit]

No. Because there is no such thing as "secular science" or "believers' science". There is only science.

There is only science because there is only one created reality and God doesn't change it depending on whether the observer is a believer or not.

I use that term to refer to science as carried out by non-believers. I think that is fairly clear, and I definitely think there is a difference between the two, if there was not, we wouldn't see things like, "Creation 'science'" referring to it as some sort of pseudo-science. The difference is that creationists take into account the Biblical record, and base their findings off of the facts within it. Maybe you don't wish to believe there are two different sciences, and indeed maybe they have not been named so, but I feel I need to draw a distinction between the two, as they approach things in the same fashion, it's the way the results are interpreted which makes them different. Actually, perhaps you are right, science is science, it's more our resulting interpretation of our findings. So in that regard, please realise I am drawing a distinction to the belief
differences of scientists in their interpretations of the results.

There.

Digit

 

[archaeologist]

"Creation 'science'

i actually question this term. to me it seems like creationists are trying to make a compromise and fit creation to secular models...won't work.

i feel that we cannot make predictions from creation because it was not a scientific act. it was a one time event done by God using His power which places creation outside the scope of science, making its work moot and pursuing alternatives is simply a waste of time.

we do not need science to see God or to see they give glory to him. we do not need science to tell us how it was done because we know how it was done--God made it.

God did not use science or processes derived from human constructs because He wanted everyone to know that only He is God and only He could have done it.

this event has its purpose and it is not subject to scientific scrutiny especially when science omits the data,information and other evidences that lead to God and away from human alternatives.

 

[Digit]

i actually question this term. to me it seems like creationists are trying to make a compromise and fit creation to secular models...won't work.

i feel that we cannot make predictions from creation because it was not a scientific act. it was a one time event done by God using His power which places creation outside the scope of science, making its work moot and pursuing alternatives is simply a waste of time.

we do not need science to see God or to see they give glory to him. we do not need science to tell us how it was done because we know how it was done--God made it.

God did not use science or processes derived from human constructs because He wanted everyone to know that only He is God and only He could have done it.

this event has its purpose and it is not subject to scientific scrutiny especially when science omits the data,information and other evidences that lead to God and away from human alternatives.

That term is not something I use, it's more of a condescension to Creationists that insinuates that our method of divining facts about our surroundings and nature, is not scientific, or to be taken seriously.

Digit

 

[archaeologist]

at this time, i would like topoint out one piece of information that could be described as hypocrisy in the part of those who look to science over scriptures.

why is it that you look to science for answers concerning the two easiest events talked about in scripture yet ignore the fact that science CANNOT determine; a). if Jesus was born of a virgin, if born at all, b). if the ressurrection really happened, c) if there is a hell or not and d). if there is a heaven.

that smells of hypocrisy to me. using science to determine what God says in one part while avoiding the failings of science and returning to what God says in other parts.

sorry, but you can't have it both ways. if you must take heaven and hell by faith then you must take creation and the global flood by faith also.

if you don't then you are not being honest about what and whom you believe. Christinaity is not cherry picking and you do not get the option to pick what you want to accept by faith and what you will reject in light of scientific 'proof'.

think about it

 

[gluadys]

it's the way the results are interpreted which makes them different.
Actually, perhaps you are right, science is science, it's more our resulting interpretation of our findings.

This is a comforting but false mantra.

God's reality is self-consistent. Hence only one interpretation of results is valid. If the "secular" and "non-secular" interpretations are different, one of them is wrong.

In fact, the interpretations are not divided like that. The vast majority of believing scientists agree with what you choose to call secular science.

Indeed many of the perspectives of what you choose to call secular science were initially developed by Christians, not by atheists.

 

[Digit]

This is a comforting but false mantra.

God's reality is self-consistent. Hence only one interpretation of results is valid. If the "secular" and "non-secular" interpretations are different, one of them is wrong.

In fact, the interpretations are not divided like that. The vast majority of believing scientists agree with what you choose to call secular science.

Indeed many of the perspectives of what you choose to call secular science were initially developed by Christians, not by atheists.

Yeah I also agree with a vast majority of secular science too. Yet there are differences whether you like it or not. I am simply telling you how we view it, and I think it's a fair and true viewpoint too.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[Citanul]

why is it that you look to science for answers concerning the two easiest events talked about in scripture yet ignore the fact that science CANNOT determine; a). if Jesus was born of a virgin, if born at all, b). if the ressurrection really happened, c) if there is a hell or not and d). if there is a heaven.

You're right in saying that science cannot determine those things. However, science can determine that the Earth is older than 6,000 years and that there was no global flood.

Where there is no evidence either way, then it is perfectly reasonable to take things on faith. However, when the evidence contradicts a specific interpretation of scripture then it is necessary to resolve that conflict, and TEs resolve it by stating that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.

 

[Digit]

You're right in saying that science cannot determine those things. However, science can determine that the Earth is older than 6,000 years and that there was no global flood.

Where there is no evidence either way, then it is perfectly reasonable to take things on faith. However, when the evidence contradicts a specific interpretation of scripture then it is necessary to resolve that conflict, and TEs resolve it by stating that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.

It seems a lot of this rests on the dating methods used and those themselves rely on some assumptions, neither of which are concrete methods to deduce it.

Digit