quote:
Philosophers cant agree on what science is, which is strange because they continue to tell us that creation science is not science, and also contradict themselves when saying creation science is not science because its not testable.
Philosophers fully realize what science is. It is the explanation of natural phenomena through natural mechanisms. Science relies on theories/hypotheses that are tested through empirical data and observations. Creation "science" relies on either untestable, supernatural mechanisms (ie miracles) or ignores empirical data and observations that falsify their position. The theory that they rely on is the inerrancy of the bible, which they have yet to demonstrate as a reliable relfection of the natural world.
quote:
Some people say if you believe in miracles you wont be able to do science properly. But many founders of modern science were christians who believed in miracles.
Show me one "founder of science" whose theories are used today and require a belief in a diety or miracles for the theory to be true. Show me one scientific theory used today that requires the intervention of any diety. Show me how not believing in God makes Newton's laws of motion fall apart. Sorry brother, you are barking up the wrong tree.
quote:
So natural law may be just our own description of how God normally upholds things. This does not necessarily mean miracles cannot happen, ever.
But this necessarily means that evolution is wrong and the earth is only 6,000 years old? How about God created the natural laws at the creation of the universe (Big Bang) which he knew would result in the life-forms we see today over billions of years? Why doesn't this fit into your world-view? Is the inerrancy of a literal reading of Genesis so important that you feel that it is necessary to limit God?
quote:
Secular philosopher argue there is no absolute truth, but is what he just said an absolutely true statement?
It's like saying "Never say never." Philosophers are absolutely right in saying that they will never be absolutely right. Mind bender, ain't it.
quote:
One cant know for sure miracles cannot be a part of this world.
No we can't know for sure. However, we are still able to predict things within the natural world without resorting to miracles. Why is that? If miracles are necessary, then predictions that ignore miracles should not come true. But they do. The correlation between the DNA of living species and the fossil record is just one of those predictions that did not require miracles but yet still came true. Predicting orbits for satellites requires mathematics, not prayer or miracles. Science has had a lot of success with a bias against miracles, and absolutely no success when it includes them.
quote:
Sceptics argue Jesus cannot walk on water for something denser than water would sink to the bottom, but only if something else is not acting on it.
And skeptics argue that Mohammed Ali was not a true prophet of God. Which skeptics is science supposed to listen to? Why should science be limited to christianity? Why don't "creation scientists" try to apply Native American creation stories into their theories? It would seem that scientific skeptics only discount one more diety than creation scientists do. Either you include all of them as being equal or exclude all of them. Science has had the greatest success when it excludes all religions and dieties. Can you show us how science has been successful when a diety is an integral part of a theory?
™ Version 4.2
