Examining the Assumptions of Mosaic Creationism vis-a-vis the Assumptions of Evolutionary Creationism

[Bill_II]

Greetings from my side of the river.

@Mike_Gantt

Science, by contrast, through telescopes and microscopes, gives us visibility into physical dimensions invisible to the naked human eye.

Except the geologists that first determined the earth was very old used nothing but what was visible to the naked human eye. Science at it’s most basic is simply the process of making a statement which can be tested to determine if it is true or false. The earth is flat is such a statement that can be tested. The statement that God exists can not be tested so it is not considered to be science.

@Mike_Gantt

Since the Bible was written in the language of men, it cannot be expected to use a language not yet invented at the time of its writing.

Which doesn’t preclude the Bible from making statements that can be scientifically tested. The language used doesn’t matter.

@Mike_Gantt

Therefore, it seems very unnatural to me to say something like “God did make a science claim” or the Bible “speaks scientifically badly.” It’s imputing a frame of reference to the Bible that it did not have, and could not have had.

You are arguing using the personal incredulity fallacy. Just because it doesn’t seem natural to you doesn’t mean the Bible didn’t do it. And it is not a frame of reference. When someone says, “That is scientific.” what they really mean is that is a claim that has been tested and found to be true. At it’s heart that is what science means. Scientific facts are those that have been tested and verified.

@Mike_Gantt

To finish off, I do not think it is anachronistic at all to that the Bible speaks historically. You don’t need telescopes and microscopes - that is, you don’t need the scientific frame of reference - to speak history. You just need a witness.

I just looked back to your OP and noticed that you did not include your assumption that all of the historical statements in the Bible are true. You have certainly indicated this in your previous posts including such statements as it is easier to get history correct than it is science. This is one of your key assumptions that should be listed in the OP just so everyone is clear.

Historical claims can likewise be subjected to verification. Sometimes science is used (think medical examiner) and sometimes the historical method is used (think new versions of previously accepted history). The claim of history that the earth is 6,000 years old can certainly be tested by science. It is not history vs SGH it is just history being verified or falsified by science.

So I say the Bible makes some statements that science has shown to be incorrect. Those statements include such things as the earth is flat and the earth is 6,000 years old.