Sojourner<>< said:
Each individual scientist has an individual voice hasn't he? And as with any mass of individuals I would have to doubt that they are all speaking in unison.
No. Science is not decided by vote, but by the persuasiveness of the evidence. An individual scientist speaking out of tune with the rest will only be accorded a hearing if she can present evidence for her position. This is generally how new science is born. And sometimes it can take decades before there is enough evidence to be convincing.
In order to solve a problem, one has to first make an educated guess or hypothesis before any progress can be made.
Even before that one has to define the problem and the observations that prompted the question to be answered.
In order to form a hypothesis, human ingenuity is utilized. Human ingenuity draws from knowledge and understanding that the problem solver has previously acquired through his/her own experience (see Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). Unfortunately, since we cannot observe life being created as it originally came into being on this Earth, one's belief system plays a major role in this critical step.
Not really, since the aspect of the origin of life that will be studied scientifically is the mechanism of creation. Belief that God created life does not preclude a scientific question as to how life was created as distinct from who created life. Nor does it preclude the possibility that God used the extant powers of matter to create life.
So the believer has as much motivation to subject this matter to scientific study as the unbeliever does.
Furthermore, the results of a scientific study will necessarily be the same for both the believer and the unbeliever because of the rigour of the scientific method. Either both will come up with a fully natural explanation or neither will.
Ontop of this, human nature includes a kind of primal lemming characteristic that can convince us to run with the pack (safety in numbers). So, if the majority of the scientific community agrees that the earth is old, this would affect the belief systems of more individual scientists than the young earth theory, even though nobody was there to see what really happened.
Scientists are trained to be skeptical and to evaluate theories on the basis of the evidence and nothing but the evidence. The reason the majority of the scientific community accepts an old age for the earth is because of the evidence, not because of what they believe. After all, their belief systems are quite different from one individual to another.
Now we have two teams, one larger than the other, with the larger team generating more evidence than the smaller, thus perpetuating the momentum of the mass right off the edge of a cliff.
Evidence is not generated. It is discovered. Yes the "team" with more credibility will get more in the way of research grants and be able to discover evidence more readily. That still doesn't mean the evidence is manufactured. (When it is, and that is discovered, the perpetrator is in scientific disgrace.) The "team" is also able to discover more evidence more efficiently because it is using a theory capable of making correct predictions. So, this "team" has a good idea of what new evidence to look for and where it can be found.
If creationism were a good theory, it would predict new evidence and go out and find it. It doesn't and can't do that because it is false.
Forgive me if I did not word this correctly. Being that we have determined that evidence is generated by testing a hypothesis that is formed using an underlying belief system, I meant to identify two separate groups of evidence that have origins stemming from either atheistic and theistic beliefs.
May be I could have used two better words.
No matter what words you used, you would still be wrong. Evidence is not generated by testing a hypothesis. A hypothesis is tested by observing the evidence. There are no separate groups of evidence. There may be groups of scientists which support different hypotheses about the evidence, but the evidence is the same for all. And it is with reference to evidence which is the same for all that it will be decided which hypothesis is closer to being correct.
True, but evolution as the origin of life is a scientific viewpoint supported by an atheistic world view.
Three falsehoods in one sentence.
1. Evolution is not about the origin of life.
2. Evolution is not atheism.
3. No scientific viewpoint is supported by an atheistic world view.
A little more on point three.
Science is always and only supported by evidence and nothing else. It is never supported by a world-view, though some world-views may be antagonistic and some sympathetic to science.
However, supporters of some world-views do attempt to call on science to support their personal beliefs (or lack thereof). This is always a misuse of science, no matter who does it, no matter if the perpetrators are scientists themselves, no matter if their names are internationally recognized, no matter what world-view they are promoting.
Science does not deal in beliefs. It deals in evidence and theories which make that evidence understandable in terms of natural processes. Scientists, being human, often do deal in beliefs and may be especially tempted to use their scientific knowledge to support their beliefs. However, the direction is always a futile and unwise attempt to have science prop up beliefs, never to use beliefs to support science.
I did not mean to imply evolutionists will not be saved. However, evolution as the origin of life is not biblical and can be damaging to the faith we need in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. The Apostle Paul gave us ample warning to be weary of worldy philosophies, and those who build their homes on sand rather than rock will be washed away.
Whatever one believes about science has no bearing on salvation, agreed. However, it does concern me that an anti-scientific attitude goes against mainstream Christian theology -- including conservative, evangelical theology--as it has existed for two millennia. I do not agree that evolution is unbiblical or damaging to faith. I see much greater damage being inflicted on biblical faith by creationism--especially young earth creationism.
We can discuss that in depth in another thread if you like.
