And yes, I expect scientists to do everything [scientific] for us --- as does God --- that's why He gifted them to us.
So get saved [if you're not already] and get busy.
OK, so in order to do "science", according to you, the scientists must be "saved", so I'm guessing (and this is just a guess) the only science that we can reasonably trust from the outset, is done by those "saved by Christ", am I right so far?
Now, if perhaps someone were to
not be saved by Christ and they found something that indicated that, say, the Bible was wrong on a point by, perhaps, finding that real, actual geologic history extended back more than 6,500 or so years (in other words the earth was actually, literally around and experiencing things say, a million years ago), then the "scientist" would be in error because he or she is failing to follow the literal word of the Bible, their "evidence" would be incorrect
regardless of what that evidence said and they would be dismissed by the people to whom they were "gifted" (ie "given", ie "controlled by?"), the Christian Literalists.
Is this a roughly appropriate explanation of your world view of how scientists should act?
Is it, perhaps, possible that an "unsaved" person could do real science? Or would they merely be accidentally discovering things of value, not by their own skills. The "reality" of their discoveries would only be born out when they aligned with
your interpretation of the Scriptures (or if they limited themselves to something that wasn't discussed
explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures). Correct?
Can I pass this information along to the various Indians (many hindu), middle eastern (many Muslim) and Chinese (many Buddhists) that I have worked with in my career? Should I tell them they are specifically a gift to Christians and presumably to be controlled by
Christians?
Now I know you have never said you want to "control" scientists, you just want to
ignore the science when it goes against your specific interpretation of the Bible.
So in a sense, if you had your say, you might wish to somehow "disenfranchise" the "bad" science when it fails to support the Bible. (Or at least leave unmolested, the science that the Bible is silent on.)
Now, of course to be fair to you, AV, and many others, you've been amenable to science being found in the Bible but the history of science versus the Bible is usually written
after science has profoundly proven its point to a reasonable standard of evidence such that the religious can no longer hold onto patently absurd and outdated hypotheses.
Of course we all know that the Church
used to believe in the centrality of the Earth in the universe and they
thought the Bible supported that P.O.V. Now we know it is not true, so we find good Christians who try to tell us the Bible
never taught geocentrism, that was a failure of the "old" church thought.
Today we find folks who can, somehow, find "television", "mass transit", "E-mc[sup]2[/sup] in the pages of the Bible, but I don't recall
any of that being invented because of the Bible's insight, so it seems that The Bible is so useful to find "science" in because it is so poorly written as a technical guide (extremely vague and good for only "post hoc" findings).
In its vague and changeable verbiage almost anything imaginable can be found apparently! Perhaps that is its real "mystical" nature. That it is a blank slate upon which anything can be inferred.
But that leads to some problems around "absolute truth" in its pages. If people who lived as closely with the Bible in the past found justification for
the opposite of what people who live with it closely today, what can we know from its pages as "absolute" in any way.
(NOTE: In case you want to drag the discussion off into some minutiae, I'm not making
any claims about the Bible being right or wrong on any individual point here. I'm merely asking how such a "changeable" work can be known by some to contain absolute truth if others, reaidng the same words, knew differently? And how does one do this
relying solely on the Book itself?)