What is science (or how do you define it?)

No, energy is an attribute of matter.

Nobody said it was. But you and I are not qualified to evaluate validity in any technical field except the ones we are professionally prepared in. The idea that every person can simply “do the research” and come to good conclusions is a fairy tale. You need more than just reading comprehesion to evaluate the quality of academic research.

4 Likes

On the bright side, yes, and then there’s when a Gettier like hole is stumbled upon in the dark.

hmm i am not convinced by that claim (i could give you an academic reason as I hold a B.Ed with Industrial Technology major and Design minor, however, ill stick with a biblical one as that is a higher source of authority)…

The bible provides a very good illustration of why we should view your statement as falling short on this

Acts 17:11 (NIV)
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

We do not see any Berean spiritual advisor leading the way in the above text… it indicates that all of those Bereans who heard the message of Paul went and read for themselves. The point is not that the Bereans were ignoring the writings of more learned individuals, but they clearly tested Pauls claims against previous knowledge to ensure its consistency and likely accuracy. We should do the same. The problem for TEism is that it bases its core doctrine on Darwinian theory…a theory where some of the most famous and well known proponents refuse God can play any part in the interpretation which forms their world view! That is an absurd position to take…the Bereans immediately take issue on this part, let alone what comes after.

A person’s goal is to compare the interpretation of the world around with scripture. When it is obvious that interpretation of the world around is in contrast with scripture (documented history that is authoritative and self-revealing), then one knows where the error lies… and it’s not with the self-revealing reference book!

Stephen Meyer states in his presentation (https://youtu.be/MUyVKztFXeg)
@ 7min mark

“Early scientists had a watchword that was part of the inspiration for science in the first place, and this word was intelligibility. There was a deep seeded conviction among the scientists who were founders in the various disciplines of science, that nature was intelligible because it had been made by a rational intellect…since God is rational and we are made in His image, we could indeed think Gods thoughts after Him. We could perceive the rationality, the order, the design, that had been built into the universe. That was the foundation of science, very much the opposite of the view of the new atheist!”

obviously, some of those fathers of science Meyer refers to are names such as Kepler, Boyle, Newton…these are not insignificant scientists.

Which biblical author-historian/s was/were present at creation to write the two entirely different accounts?

Scriptural writers and their culture couldn’t possibly comprehend some of the topics and related questions that have come up in this thread, particularly in regard to physics. And let’s face it, Adam, neither you nor I can either. I will not live long enough to review the math and physics I once knew in order to build on that to comprehend what some of the people here do as their every-day work, or even side interests.
Scripture simply does not, cannot speak to these things.

4 Likes

A few theologians who I appreciate are open to the agreement between the Bible and evolutionary science.

A curious feature with the Bible and science is the noise in the background. Even at the quantum scale these apparently undetermined happenings are inescapable. Biblical theology typifies chaos in the image of the sea (the quantum sea?) and Tremper Longman makes an interesting observation about how in the new creation there will be neither darkness nor sea.

1 Like

(Quote from Meyer)
I certainly agree with Meyer in a philosophical sense, and to me, that perception of the rationality and order is actually underlies what we call methodological naturalism.

2 Likes
  • Has anyone tried to estimate about how long an irrational, disorderly universe might have lasted … if that were ever the case?
2 Likes

It’s hard to believe Hegel actually said the goal of history is for reason to become conscious of itself. One respected authority on Hegel hinted at the notion Hegel believed it occurred in his life. The goal of history or this life, and how long should that take?

1 Like

Yes there are. Double blind prayer experiments, experiments into occult phenomena, NDEs, etc all can’t be done with methodological naturalism. If methodological naturalism was assumed for these experiments (assumed beyond the status of a “null hypothesis” to be statistically investigated), it would reduce them to a triviality.

Any experiment that offers a challenge to ontological/metaphysical naturalism cannot “assume” methodological naturalism because it would be presupposing its own results. Even our own ideas of what “naturalism” means now is different than it may have been a century ago without quantum mechanics and its probabilistic interpretations. The traditional Newtonian/Laplacian picture of the world has been superseded. We now understand that even observation itself cannot be separated the results we observe.

I used to think methodological naturalism was a necessary part of science. I no longer think so because nobody (including myself) has been able to successfully argue its necessity, to me at least. I no longer think science does or even can have a straightforward definition.

Note that I carry out all of my research under “methodological naturalism.” I don’t think it’s my place to say that studies who use the same statistical models and methodology with different underlying assumptions is not scientific.

Why? Why isn’t it your place when it’s your place to say you don’t know the only thing that can be scientifically known about science?

Order does not require meaning.

What is being overwhelmingly reinforced to me is how unconservative, anti-conservative all anti-science views are. You cannot get more conservative than science.

I’ve seen it denied unquestionably whether observation affects quantum phenomena. And yet this, irregardless of the position or possibility you consider, is a case where there cannot be a myth of neutrality.

This reminds me… and I’m again wondering if you will say whether nature and reality are synonymous.

Funny how memory works… my mind went to a text I hadn’t thought of for 15 or 20 years. Roy Clouser’s The Myth of Religious Neutrality. I couldn’t bring myself to purchase the book then, but it was intriguing to say the least. Looking it up today, I found it on Scribd, and love this quote from the introduction:

Back in the early 1960s someone whose name I can’t recall wrote a review of Dooyeweerd’s four-volume magnum opus, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought. The reviewer acknowledged the vast scope, enormous erudition, and striking originality of that work, but nevertheless closed with a wry observation. He commented that discovering Dooyeweerd’s work in the present philosophical climate was analogous to finding a huge oak tree in the middle of a desert. Although he couldn’t help being impressed by the oak, he said, he was left with the even stronger feeling of puzzlement as to what on earth it was doing there.

In this book I try to plant an oasis around the oak so as to diminish the wonder that it’s there, and thus allow the reader’s attention to be focused where it belongs: on the most original philosophical theory since Kant.

The Myth of Religious Neutrality, Revised Edition: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories by Roy A. Clouser

In my analogy, your interpretation of scripture is the map of the island of California. That’s my point.

That support only exists because you won’t allow any other interpretation. You have said so yourself.

And there you go. Anything that contradicts your interpretation of scripture is automatically thrown out.

Does this mean you reject the scientific Germ Theory of Disease? What about all of the other theories in science? Do you reject those as well? Do you reject the concept of the atom?

3 Likes

That’s correct, validity is not based on the popularity of an idea. Validity, at least in science, is based on the evidence.

The reason why we give weight to a scientific consensus is that the people who are part of that consensus are the experts in the field. It is entirely possible that the majority of experts are wrong, but that consensus isn’t going to change until you understand their position and understand the evidence that led them to those conclusions. The consensus isn’t going to change until someone demonstrates that there is a better explanation for that evidence.

3 Likes

Sure they can. If these phenomena are affecting the world around us in a detectable manner then they are part of nature and can be included in methodological naturalism.

Let’s look at this from the other direction. If someone claimed that gravity was supernatural, would all the physicists in the world stop studying gravity because it is no longer a part of nature?

Science is methodological naturalism. In essence, you are saying that science is not a necessary part of science.

2 Likes

Regardless of your or anyone else’s perspective on theistic evolution, the earth is ancient and evolution has happened with or without doctrinal permission.

There are also atheists who are proponents of gravity, medical research (which often involves evolutionary concepts), computer science, nutrition, and pretty much every science and technology. That does not mean it is all anathema.

2 Likes

So no matter what evidence is shown to you, you will never conclude that the Earth is old or life evolved, correct?

Why should we trust people who claim YEC is supported by evidence given this stance?

2 Likes