Science vs. Christian

[Job 33:6]

Science lacks infallibility. So does our ability to understand His word.

What doesn't lack fallibility, is observation of what is real. For example, the idea that a rock is hard. It can be observed to break other objects before it is broken. It has a higher density than a pillow. It can scratch things before it is scratched.

There isn't any way that mankind can't interpret a rocks hardness in a fallible way. It is as it is. And science allows us to reach an objective conclusion that extends beyond human interpretation. Leaving behind the fallible and affirming truth.

 

[MrsFoundit]

For example, the idea that a rock is hard. It can be observed to break other objects before it is broken. It has a higher density than a pillow. It can scratch things before it is scratched.

Yes, as a reliable functioning system for observing relative properties of physical things, it works.

What doesn't lack fallibility, is observation of what is real.

Observation of what is real about a fallen Creation conducted by fallible people is a fallible process. Science essentially excludes supernatural interference with the physical, it must do so or it would not possess enough consistency to work. I believe science is very fit for purpose as science, but not to inform a comprehensive world view which for unscientific reasons includes the subjective as a source of truth, miraculous interventions and ultimate fallibility of everything except God.

 

[Job 33:6]

science essentially excludes supernatural interference with the physical, it

Science can only confirm what is physically evident. For example, if Jesus appeared to us and He walked on water, science could affirm the existance of a man walking on water. It simply wouldn't be able to affirm how (presumably).

In this sense, science does not exclude supernatural interference, no more than it would exclude affirmation of Jesus walking on water. But in the absence of us experiencing Jesus walking on water, science of course couldn't be used to justify it.

In the absence of us actually seeing a global flood, we could only rely on residual evidence which otherwise suggests events to the contrary. The same goes for a 6 day creation.

To conclude though, it isn't science that excludes the supernatural. It is a lack of experience of the supernatural that excludes the supernatural. Without seeing Jesus walk on water or being able to video record it, or test it in any way, it should be no surprise that science wouldn't support it.

Rather than excluding this kind of natural event, the scientific method more accurately simply doesn't say anything about it. How could it? How could anyone affirm a concept that they hadn't experienced?