Science Only Works in a Biblical Worldview- Evolution Cannot Account for Science

[Job 33:6]

How do you get information from evangelists without using your senses?

Yeah that's true.

His information would be derived from.his senses. Only he would be acquiring the information, second hand.

 

[sfs]

His information would be derived from.his senses. Only he would be acquiring the information, second hand.

Right. His claim was that he learned something about reality without relying on his senses and his reason because he learned it from the Bible. Which is, you know, wrong.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. His claim was that he learned something about reality without relying on his sense and his reason because he learned it from the Bible. Which is, you know, wrong.

Hm yes, interesting.

 

[pitabread]

So are you suggesting that man created life originally?

Have you been taking debate lessons from Cathy Newman?

No that's not what I'm saying. At all.

aren't i so happy to see tax money go to those whom believe in aliens. Once more they are against a biblical creator not a creator constant with naturalism [aliens who evolved]

I have no idea how you got any of this from my point about NASA decontaminating their space craft.

So as stated "science" has been degraded to the religious worldview of naturalism.

Science operates by what is called methodological naturalism. This is whereby hypotheses can only be formed and tested around natural phenomena. The reason is that such hypotheses are inherently bound by the laws of the universe and therefore can be objectively compared. In contrast, supernatural explanations are unbounded and therefore cannot be tested or objectively compared.

If you think otherwise feel free to answer my challenge in this thread: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

Methodological naturalism should not be confused with philosophical naturalism. The latter is the world-view that there is nothing but the natural world.

This is what Todd's expanded quote was referring to: that scientists are restricted by methodological naturalism when doing science. But they are free to believe whatever they otherwise want because their world views are not restricted in that same manner. Many scientists are also theists.

You have taken it to mean something other than i quoted it for.

Because you don't seem to understand the meaning behind it. That's the danger of quoting a single sentence from a larger body of text. I would urge you to go back and read the full text: https://www.nature.com/articles/46661

I would also recommend learning the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. They are not the same thing and you appear to have them mixed up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We still don't know what it is anymore than we did then. Same with electric and magnetic fields. All we can do is describe how things behave in each of those three fields, but what they are is the biggest unknowns in science still.

Sure; ultimately, we don't know what anything really is - and it's not clear that question can ever have a meaningful answer if we can only describe things in terms of what we already know - but our understanding of the roles they play and how they interact with each other is constantly increasing. For gravity, the equivalence principle, its role as cosmological negative energy, gravitational time dilation, etc., are major steps in understanding how it all 'hangs together'.

 

[Nithavela]

Wolf to pug.

Selective breeding by human hand doesn't happen in nature.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... darwin suggested that natural selection was the mechanism by witch new organism and new traits, could develop, of course we know this false today and i think he even gave up on it in The Descent of Man if i am not mistaken.

Really? This is news to me - please elaborate, or give some references.

He suggested all life shared a common ancestor, this of course is far different than simply natural selection. And this is what my op is about, common decent of all life forms.

I think one of us is rather confused about Darwinian evolution, and I'm pretty sure it's not me...

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

What about evidence?

what about? it needs to be interpreted by us.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Science operates by what is called methodological naturalism. This is whereby hypotheses can only be formed and tested around natural phenomena. The reason is that such hypotheses are inherently bound by the laws of the universe and therefore can be objectively compared. In contrast, supernatural explanations are unbounded and therefore cannot be tested or objectively compared.

If you think otherwise feel free to answer my challenge in this thread: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

I dont disagree but you have missed what i am saying once more [could be me especially if you ask my wife] I am not refereeing to something like a miracle but the biblical creation account, witch can be tested, i will be doing a thread on that subject alone.

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011


“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations “
-enzyme expert Dr matti Leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature

Methodological naturalism should not be confused with philosophical naturalism. The latter is the world-view that there is nothing but the natural world.

This is what Todd's expanded quote was referring to: that scientists are restricted by methodological naturalism when doing science. But they are free to believe whatever they otherwise want because their world views are not restricted in that same manner. Many scientists are also theists.

Once more i dont fully disagree, thus biblical creation is auto left out of naturalistic world view not because it cannot be tested, but because it demands a creator outside of creation. A worldwide flood thus is rejected, yet the claim of it can be tested scientifically.

Because you don't seem to understand the meaning behind it. That's the danger of quoting a single sentence from a larger body of text. I would urge you to go back and read the full text: https://www.nature.com/articles/46661

I would say the same of my use of it when you seem to not understand the meaning i used it.

I would also recommend learning the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. They are not the same thing and you appear to have them mixed up.

Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility.

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."


Pick either one, they both prove what i quoted him for.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Really? This is news to me - please elaborate, or give some references.

I think one of us is rather confused about Darwinian evolution, and I'm pretty sure it's not me...

Will do glad your interested and it does show the indoctrination of the education system and how we accept what we are told without questing said authority. Future thread will get into it in full.


I like what creationist said of debates, you can win every debate on evolution by defining it right off the bat. I will show why you are indeed confused on purpose, it was by design. That should at least intrigue you my friend. Ever herd of bait and switch tactics ? me and you both swallowed the bait.

 

[USincognito]

“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations “
-enzyme expert Dr matti Leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature

LOL Sarfati and his appeals to authority. I guess because Dawkins has been cited 74,000 times we should listen to him instead of Leisola who has a mere 13,000 citations.

 

[Silmarien]

Why would a biblical worldview be necessary? I've been getting along just fine accounting for science by juggling a couple of updated classical Greek metaphysics: Neo-Aristotelianism when I feel like sticking as close to the manifest image of reality as possible and Platonic idealism when I don't.

You've set up a false dichotomy between biblical creationism and whatever caricature of materialism you're positing as the alternative. Some of us don't have much use for either option.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Why would a biblical worldview be necessary? I've been getting along just fine accounting for science by juggling a couple of updated classical Greek metaphysics: Neo-Aristotelianism when I feel like sticking as close to the manifest image of reality as possible and Platonic idealism when I don't.

You've set up a false dichotomy between biblical creationism and whatever caricature of materialism you're positing as the alternative. Some of us don't have much use for either option.

Great point. I am more interested in the creation vs evolution [atheistic] debate than nay other. But i am more than willing and interested to hear you out, make your case for the justification from your worldview. However my op does not say evolutionist cannot be great scientist or do science, only they must steal biblical assumptions about the world to do so.

 

[Speedwell]

Once more i dont fully disagree, thus biblical creation is auto left out of naturalistic world view not because it cannot be tested, but because it demands a creator outside of creation.

Which does not explain why the vast majority of Christians, who most definitely believe in a creator outside of creation, also reject biblical creationism.

 

[Speedwell]

Great point. I am more interested in the creation vs evolution [atheistic] debate than nay other. But i am more than willing and interested to hear you out, make your case for the justification from your worldview. However my op does not say evolutionist cannot be great scientist or do science, only they must steal biblical assumptions about the world to do so.

Most likely they just share them, as having arisen from a common source.

 

[Silmarien]

Great point. I am more interested in the creation vs evolution [atheistic] debate than nay other. But i am more than willing and interested to hear you out, make your case for the justification from your worldview. However my op does not say evolutionist cannot be great scientist or do science, only they must steal biblical assumptions about the world to do so.

My worldview involves a sort of Neoplatonic procession and return--I think computation and physical laws (including evolution) can be best made sense of by giving priority to structure over matter, and that the world as we experience it is emergent from that. It is a theistic worldview (since structure by itself is causally inert), but one that is independent of revelation. But my point is that while modern science did indeed develop in the heart of Catholic scholasticism, if you actually look at scholastic thought, you will see far more of Aristotle than of a strictly biblical worldview. If science needs a metaphysical foundation (and I strongly agree that it does), we can get far more mileage out of drawing from classical Greek thought than we can by looking at the Bible.

And there's a lot of stuff out there if you ditch atomistic materialism. There are some brilliant atheistic Aristotelian metaphysicists defending old ideas like universals and essentialism. There are physicist-philosophers in search of a Theory of Everything that unapologetically argue for Pythagorean idealism. You're fighting the ghost of scientific positivism here, which is frankly just boring. Non-theists have far more to contribute to the debate than just that.

Does a more biblical view have anything going for it? I actually think it does, in that it's the only ancient approach I'm familiar with that denies that the universe is eternal, but we have never needed the belief that the universe had a beginning to do science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Does a more biblical view have anything going for it? I actually think it does, in that it's the only ancient approach I'm familiar with that denies that the universe is eternal, but we have never needed the belief that the universe had a beginning to do science.

Those that believe in the Big Bang just might disagree about needing that beginning, since their entire theory rests upon the assumption the universe had a beginning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world

"The ancient philosopher Aristotle argued that the world must have existed from eternity in his Physics as follows. In Book I, he argues that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into existence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal."

But we know from science that his view is incorrect. That matter has a finite existence. That only Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely changes form - of which all matter is made. But unlike Aristotle we understand the substrate is nothing at all like the matter that exists.

 

[Silmarien]

Those that believe in the Big Bang just might disagree about needing that beginning, since their entire theory rests upon the assumption the universe had a beginning.

People do not believe in the Big Bang because they assume that the universe must have had a beginning. At one point, the Steady State Theory and its eternal universe were more popular, but the Big Bang model has won out because the empirical scientific evidence points far more strongly in its direction. This is not something that was adjudicable on empirical grounds until fairly recently, and the foundations of science aren't going to crumble to the ground if further study shows that the universe actually is eternal.

If you think that the Big Bang theory rests upon the assumption that the universe has a beginning, instead of being the inference, based upon empirical evidence, that the universe did in fact have a beginning, then you may not have a clear understanding of how science works.

But we know from science that his view is incorrect. That matter has a finite existence. That only Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely changes form - of which all matter is made. But unlike Aristotle we understand the substrate is nothing at all like the matter that exists.

Well, no. We don't understand that at all. Energy is matter, so it fits in quite nicely with the Aristotelian substratum. Could it have existed prior to the Big Bang? I prefer creatio ex nihilo, as I find it simpler and less speculative, but I don't think we can rule out the possibility that matter existed in some form prior to the Big Bang. (Or even that matter doesn't really exist at all. Relations, all the way down.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Will do glad your interested and it does show the indoctrination of the education system and how we accept what we are told without questing said authority. Future thread will get into it in full.


I like what creationist said of debates, you can win every debate on evolution by defining it right off the bat. I will show why you are indeed confused on purpose, it was by design. That should at least intrigue you my friend. Ever herd of bait and switch tactics ? me and you both swallowed the bait.

Meh.

 

[tas8831]

Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true?

Perhaps you could consider not misrepresenting evolution so as to have a more reality-based outlook on such matters? It would also help with your credibility.

Another thing that would help your credibility is not copy-pasting the work of others without attribution.

Or here.
People tend to find such antics to be a sign of ignorance and desperation.