Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[River Jordan]

Re science -- and as the song goes:

You got to know when to hold'em
Know when to fold'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

It's interesting to me how when I first started as a youth minister about a dozen years ago, kids asking about YEC things was not uncommon. But over the last 5 years or so I've barely seen any of that stuff.

From what I can tell from the kids it's not much of an issue these days (they're fine with science).

 

[AV1611VET]

It's interesting to me how when I first started as a youth minister about a dozen years ago, kids asking about YEC things was not uncommon. But over the last 5 years or so I've barely seen any of that stuff.

From what I can tell from the kids it's not much of an issue these days (they're fine with science).

Are you a YEC?

 

[River Jordan]

Are you a YEC?

No.

 

[dlamberth]

From the sociological data we have, I don't think that those particular people (mostly younger) are being driven away from our common Christian faith solely due to a misrepresentation of the Nature of Science being taught in their churches.

It's typically a bunch of other social issues all bundled together that bring on the urge to "deconstruct."

I somewhat agree with this comment. But there's more going on with the youth beyond social issues that troubles their perception of the Christian faith. This isn't the place to get into it but in listening to my 4 children that's my take. Science, in our conversations, does seem to come forward often in the sense that they are turned away in how science has become negatively politicized by segments of the Christian faith. And they don't want to be a part of any of that.

 

[SelfSim]

There's a difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The former is the method science is conducted under, the latter is a philosophical view. The two are not the same.

Where does what you claim there, appear in the widely taught, well published scientific method?
I see nothing in that method that says what you claim.

See above. You may be mixing up methodological and philosophical naturalism.

It doesn't matter which flavour you're choosing. Science commences with no presuppositions 'under which science is conducted' (unless you can somehow demonstrate that it does .. good luck .. I'll bet you will fail).

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't matter which flavour you're choosing. Science commences with no presuppositions 'under which science is conducted' (unless you can somehow demonstrate that it does .. good luck .. I'll bet you will fail).

From AI Overview:

Presuppositions are necessary for science to be rational and legitimate.

They are the foundation for scientific evidence and conclusions.

Presuppositions can include assumptions about the physical world, ourselves, or how laws of physics came to be.

Presuppositions can be difficult to identify and address, especially when they are sensible and unproblematic.

Scientists should be careful to choose and disclose their presuppositions, and to justify them with common sense.

 

[River Jordan]

Where does what you claim there, appear in the widely taught, well published scientific method?
I see nothing in that method that says what you claim.

It doesn't matter which flavour you're choosing. Science commences with no presuppositions 'under which science is conducted' (unless you can somehow demonstrate that it does .. good luck .. I'll bet you will fail).

It's more a matter of discussion among philosophers of science, so that's where you'll find most of the discussions about it. But it's pretty standard knowledge in my experiences.

Yes we do conduct science with presuppositions. In the grand scheme of things we presume that our observations reflect reality for example. More specific examples would include presumptions like that tagged organisms behave the same as their untagged counterparts, or that organisms generally behave the same in the lab as they do outside of it.

Here's an essay from Stanford that explores methodological vs philosophical naturalism: Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Here's one from Dr. Rusbult from the ASA: Philosophical & Methodological Naturalism - Science and Theology)

And here are search results from Google Scholar: Google Scholar

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes we do conduct science with presuppositions. In the grand scheme of things we presume that our observations reflect reality for example.

This is where I have a major beef with science.

Their "reality" is limited to the physical world, and doesn't include the spiritual.

So when God performs/performed a miracle, and science analyzes that miracle with their myopic viewpoints, then it stands to reason their conclusions will be wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is where I have a major beef with science.

Their "reality" is limited to the physical world, and doesn't include the spiritual.

So when God performs/performed a miracle, and science analyzes that miracle with their myopic viewpoints, then it stands to reason their conclusions will be wrong.

As has been asked repeatedly: how can science study a miracle?

 

[AV1611VET]

As has been asked repeatedly: how can science study a miracle?

They can -- to a point.

And when they reach that point, and can't go any further, they need to at least consider it may have been AN ACT OF GOD.

Not move decimal places around like skaters in a rink; not invoke deep time to cover something a million miles away; not assume similarity assumes connection (as in using DNA to say we had common ancestors); and the like.

Making up false historic stories like comets hitting the earth and giving us our oceans, Earth getting hit by an asteroid and resulting in the birth of our moon, Earth capturing a passing moon and making it ours, and so on and so forth.

That stuff is anti-Biblical nonsense.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They can -- to a point.

And when they reach that point, and can't go any further, they need to at least consider it may have been AN ACT OF GOD.

Not move decimal places around like skaters in a rink; not invoke deep time to cover something a million miles away; not assume similarity assumes connection (as in using DNA to say we had common ancestors); and the like.

Making up false historic stories like comets hitting the earth and giving us our oceans, Earth getting hit by an asteroid and resulting in the birth of our moon, Earth capturing a passing moon and making it ours, and so on and so forth.

That stuff is anti-Biblical nonsense.

Of course it's anti-Biblical. The Bible is neither a science book nor a history book.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is where I have a major beef with science.

As a philosopher, and especially as a Christian philosopher, I tend to lean toward identifying 'forms of approach' within the sciences rather than using a blanket term by which to assume all scientists are necessarily conceptualizing their presuppositions and working definitions.

Their "reality" is limited to the physical world, and doesn't include the spiritual.

For scientists who work within 'creationism,' engagement with reality is done via a more conceptually 'rationalist' approach rather than from a strongly 'empirical' approach. Some of this is reflected in the second article that @River Jordan posted above. #647

So when God performs/performed a miracle, and science analyzes that miracle with their myopic viewpoints, then it stands to reason their conclusions will be wrong.

Yes, secular scientists who think they're working within a sort of 'empirical positivism' do tend to think in ways that are very rigid and constrained where the relation between experience and theory is taken seriously. There's a reason they think this is valid, but I'm not one of them since I take a view more in line with Critical Realism rather than a Direct Realism informed by Positivism.

You're right to say that the way some secular scientists conceptualize the category of 'miracle' is a bit myopic, although I'd rather used the term exclusionary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it's anti-Biblical. The Bible is neither a science book nor a history book.

Just because the Bible is not a science book, doesn't give science the right to relegate It to the "anti-" world.

Science has questions that the Bible answers in spades.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just because the Bible is not a science book, doesn't give science the right to relegate It to the "anti-" world.

Only when someone like you comes along.

Science has questions that the Bible answers in spades.

No it doesn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course it's anti-Biblical. The Bible is neither a science book nor a history book.

I agree with the first premise (i.e. that the Bible isn't a science book), but I think we have to be very judicious when using the second premise since, at least, some of the accounts in the Bible are either historical in nature or are "historically reflective."

Regardless, from the vantage point of Historiography, what Jewish authors were doing in their writing in the 1st millennia B.C. isn't quite the same as what they were doing in the 1st century A.D., and the biblical writings altogether are especially different in nature from what modern historians typically do today when writing history.

 

[dlamberth]

They can -- to a point.

Warden's question is exactly the right one to be asking.
The question he asks is "How can science study a miracle?
Just defaulting to it's "An act of God" is not in anyway close to science studying miracles.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree with the first premise (i.e. that the Bible isn't a science book), but I think we have to be very judicious when using the second premise since, at least, some of the accounts in the Bible are either historical in nature or are "historically reflective."

Regardless, from the vantage point of Historiography, what Jewish authors were doing in their writing in the 1st millennia B.C. isn't quite the same as what they were doing in the 1st century A.D., and the biblical writings are especially different in nature from what modern historians typically do today when writing history.

Still does not make the Bible a history book. It's a book OF history, especially the history of the Jewish people as their ancients wrote it, but it's not A history book.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a philosopher, and especially as a Christian philosopher, I tend to lean toward identifying 'forms of approach' within the sciences rather than using a blanket term by which to assume all scientists are necessarily conceptualizing their presuppositions and working definitions.

That's your prerogative.

But realize that, by choosing to lean toward their 'forms of approach,' you're putting yourself at risk of agreeing with them when they make mistakes and have to cover for them later.

For scientists who work within 'creationism,' engagement with reality is done via a more conceptually 'rationalist' approach rather than from a strongly 'empirical' approach.

There is no such thing as a scientist working "within creationism."

Unless by that, you meant a scientist working this side of reality, aka the physical realm.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden's question exactly the right one to be asking.
The question he asks is "How can science study a miracle?
Just defaulting to it's "An act of God" is not in anyway close to science studying miracles.

'An act of God' answers everything and thus answers nothing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Still does not make the Bible a history book. It's a book OF history, especially the history of the Jewish people as their ancients wrote it, but it's not A history book.

I can go with that.