Can the Book of Genesis Be Reconciled with the Evolutionary History of the World Without a “God of the Gaps”?

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

The reality is that Science cannot see or identify God or His hand so He is invisible and therefor beyond the vision of science which makes him denied.

No, it doesn’t make Him denied, it makes Him out of the scope of detection. Your statement is equivalent to saying the the existence of manganese nodules in ocean deeps was denied before instruments were developed to detect them.
“I can’t detect it” doesn’t mean “It doesn’t exist” – if it did, all I would have to do to be safe from a mountain lion in the woods would be to hike in pitch dark.

@RichardG

This divinometer of yours is a red herring and you know it.

Except it isn’t – it’s critical to clear thinking. If I don’t have a Geiger counter, that doesn’t mean there isn’t radon in my basement, it just means I can’t detect it.

@RichardG

The truth is that Science ignores the possibility of God because of their inability to rationally accept His existence.

False. Many scientists rationally conclude God’s existence but acknowledge that He is beyond their ability to detect.

@RichardG

Whether we use “deny” or Ignore" or “exclude” makes no difference.

Now you’re just playing linguistic games – those terms are not the same.

[St.Roymond]

@1Cor15.54

@RichardG

Scientism is a recent term that is as derogatory as YEC

It’s not. It’s descriptive.

Neither term is derogatory, both are objective descriptions.

@RichardG

@1Cor15.54

it’s not derogatory, it’s descriptive.

So is YEC.

It describes what they think and everybody laughs at them. The same applies to pure scientism.

I don’t laugh at either – in both cases, I feel sorry for them.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

Many scientists rationally conclude God’s existence but acknowledge that He is beyond their ability to detect.

That has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the people involved.

I am talking about science not scientists, and scientific theories not the scientists who make them.

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

This divinometer of yours is a red herring and you know it.

Except it isn’t

It is your get out for accetping science and God.

@St.Roymond

Now you’re just playing linguistic games

You (et al) started that one a long time ago.
goes with the territory.

Richard

[Roman]

@1Cor15.54

It is an inherently nihilistic philosophy (which is not to say that everyone who subscribes to scientism is necessarily a nihilist, since human beings are rarely consistent in their beliefs) and yet it enjoys an extraordinary (and unwarranted) degree of intellectual credibility, in the modern age.

This credibility extends, at times, even to devout Christians, some of whom have come to believe that apologetics is dead and that the Christian faith can no longer be rationally defended on metaphysical and/or historical grounds.

what do you think makes scientism so intellectually persuasive, even to some devout Christians?

Could part of the explanation be that exposing the philosophical assumptions of scientism is not the same as offering a convincing, positive account of how the biblical text—especially Genesis—relates to modern scientific knowledge?

In other words, might scientism’s apparent credibility depend, at least in part, on how convincing the alternatives are?