Quick question for you then. If you were setting an exam to test the student’s knowledge of these things, what question(s) would you ask?
I am limiting my comments to friends and family to, what I find to be the absolute worst part: tying the belief in YEC or ID or anything else to the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. The pews in churches I am familiar with are filled with people who practice homeopathy, believe in essential oils, seek alternatives to every concievable biomedical therapy, deny vaccines, are teatotaling kombucha brewers who think the stuff is ok for kids, and who really believe that “supplements” will so vigorously boost their immune systems that they will be impervious to covid (and when they get it and survive, claim the “supplements” were the cause; and when they die, their spouses claim “it was the Lord’s will).
Honestly, there is so much nonscience nonsense going on, I don’t see see a cure for YEC in these cases, without a complete overhaul of paradigms. I won’t live long enough to see it. I certainly don’t have the strength to bring it about. So, I will (at least for now) focus on the importance of keeping the Gospel free from any work of man, such as scientific understanding. That will be big enough.
For now.
Good point, to keep the discussion about what you see as the essentials of the gospel, even though they may disagree on those essentials. Our society in general has come to grasp for solutions to problems by reaching for magical answers. This extends into the church and theology as well with prosperity gospel thought, and is responsible for some of the politicalization of church as people reach for solutions there.
I got in trouble the other day when I made the comment that the same people at church who refused the vaccine saying to “Trust God” were also the ones that were carrying firearms in church, as evidently God needs a little help with security.
Not sure, but a lot of the material can be used as-is.
btw, I think it would be good if seminary students, in homiletics class, would be required to write sermons that touch on some scientific topic and the Christian response to it. Plastic pollution and global warming would be examples.
What science exams in schools and universities do is give you a specific scenario and ask you to apply your knowledge to working out the answer.
For example, when asking you about radiometric dating, they might give you a table with some measurements of 87Rb, 87Sr and 86Sr in a sample, and ask you to plot an isochron to determine the age of the sample. And of course, you’d be expected to show your working.
A question about computer programming might ask you to write a program to calculate prime numbers.
A question about distinguishing science from pseudoscience might give you details of a specific claim (for example, cold nuclear fusion), and ask you what specific aspects of the claim might single it out as pseudoscience.
It’s questions such as these that tell whether you have actually understood the subject matter at hand sufficiently to be able to apply your understanding in practice. On the other hand, if you’re just asked to describe in general terms what differentiates science from pseudoscience, that’s something you can learn and rattle off parrot fashion.
It’s questions such as these that tell whether you have actually understood the subject matter at hand sufficiently to be able to apply your understanding in practice.
I would think that the goal for the seminary student would be to become scientifically literate, not do radiometric dating, write computer programs, and the like. Distinguishing science from pseudoscience is not that difficult. And it’s easy to tell if somebody is shoveling bulls***. No need for a grueling interrogation.
Scientists already say what isn’t science. Intelligent Design and astrology are examples.
You seem to be not speaking to the issue I’m raising about the possibility of metaphysics or as I saw recently, the philosophy of nature.
“Hey guys, I know you might not believe in this, but I think there’s a way we can still believe the Bible and Evolu-“
“That’s fake”
This is how most of these convos go down with those who don’t believe in evolution.
To say what science is, they should be able to say what it is not.
This is the issue I was speaking to.
I would think that one of the big things for pastors and everyone else for that matter to learn, is critical thinking skills and avoiding logical fallacies. If they could do that, it could be applied not only to science but everything else.
Distinguishing science from pseudoscience is not that difficult. And it’s easy to tell if somebody is shoveling bulls***. No need for a grueling interrogation.
These are pretty strong words, and I’m wondering where my comment fits.
These are pretty strong words, and I’m wondering where my comment fits.
That wasn’t addressed to you. I meant it to go to jammy
I would think that the goal for the seminary student would be to become scientifically literate, not do radiometric dating, write computer programs, and the like.
I think you’re missing my point here. I’m not suggesting that seminary students should do radiometric dating or write computer programs. Those are just examples to illustrate a point: that the difference between rote memorisation and informed knowledge is taking what you have been taught and applying it to different specific situations.
What I do think needs to be taught and tested in any science course is (a) basic maths, (b) basic laboratory technique, and (c) the core principles of how measurement works. These things are the very foundation of every area of science, and that being the case, understanding them is prerequisite for scientific literacy.
That wasn’t addressed to you. I meant it to go to jammy
It’s @jammycakes thanks. It kind of irritates me when people shorten it to “jammy”.
(btw: bonus points for anyone who can tell why I chose that particular username.)
It’s @jammycakes thanks. It kind of irritates me when people shorten it to “jammy”.
Oops! I could call you by your ssn# if you don’t mind sharing it…
He doesn’t have one, but I’m sure they have an equivalent in the UK.
(btw: bonus points for anyone who can tell why I chose that particular username.)
It’s your name, pronounced by some significant kid in your life, or yourself. I was charmed the first time I saw it, puzzled over it, and then said it out loud.
Or a significant other. ; - )
Aah, Dale. I failed to see that possibility. Yes. I may have lost the game in my haste.
It’s still charming, however.
National Insurance Number… in case you were interested.