One doesn't have to be an atheist to accept the scientific method.
I know Northern Pines, I had teachers that were both Atheist as well as Christian, so I know that you don't have to be an atheist in order to accept the scientific method....but even that method took time to be what it is today, which tells me, that it can change again.......The thing is, the philosophy of science will only allow one to accept a "Naturalistic" premise. All your answers must be "Naturalistic" or else they won't be accepted. But you think such a thing won't compromise ones faith......and I say, oh yes it will. I had teachers that told me, that you have to have science on this side of the brain, while faith/religion on the other......that was how some of them were able to stay sane. That is something I totaly reject. Science shouldn't be on one side of the fence while religion on the other. Science and Religion/faith should be One. Science should dwell inside religion/faith. It started out inside Roman Catholicism and then later protestantism, before Charles Darwin made it completely secular.
Science needs a guide, thus, it needs religion/faith. Now science dwells completely in Naturalism......the place where Atheism calls home.
Yet the theories of gravity and plate techtonics, or the theory that the planets revolve around the sun are almost always accepted, all of which could be considered "anti-religious" and often were or would be considered heretical by many of the Church fathers are today accepted by "most" religious people in the world. And so we don't fear these theories anymore, why fear evolution? It just makes no sense to me outside of the belief that to accept it means one is somehow denying God or the Bible.
I doubt if the church fathers were all in agreement on these things. But Darwinism is different from all these other things that you mentioned, for all these other things never caused so many christians to loose faith in the Bible nor in christianity in general as Darwinism has historically done.
Like I said, I would rather believe both Scripture and Science. I will not call huge chunks of scripture "myth", fantasy, fairy tale......etc for the sake of embracing certain soft scientific views that will most likely adjust in 5 to 10 years. It ain't happening.
the reason I mentioned your faith is because as a former young earth, 6 literal day creationist myself, I've "been there done that" as it were. And in the end not accepting scientific evidence is due to fear.
Where there is smoke, there is fire, western christians had a right to fear in some sense, but I studied the history of science, and so I have answers for why I doubt certain ideas.......I actually thought things through.......unlike alot of young earth creationists. Also if you noticed, I no longer call myself a young earth creationist. I simply call myself a creationist that listen to mutiple schools of thought. I listen to Young Earthers, Old Earthers, and Theistic Evolutionists. I know why scientists say what they say, and I know why I am still critical.
And for many (as it was for me) it is because they were taught that to accept science, in particular evolution, is to deny one's Christian faith.
Historically, this has been true, most scientists were Old Earth Creationists before Charles Darwin wrote his book. It wasn't until after, that you start to see more and more Old Earthers either become Agnostic, Atheistic, or Theistic Evolutionists. And this has been true for many, and even if you still profess Faith in Christ and christianity in general, you became more liberal in regards to your interpretation of historical figures in scripture. The first 11 chapters of Genesis is a good example of this. Historically, those who embraced those views had to call the first 11 chapters of Genesis myth....fantasy.....etc. So maybe if people didn't call huge chunks of scripture "fairy tale, myth, fantasy.....etc", then maybe christians will stop saying that to embrace such and such is to deny one's Christian faith.
So there is some truth to that fear. I am one who would rather literally believe in both science and scripture. So yes, I will fight anyone tooth and nail who thinks Scripture is a fairy tale. And I will comb scientific views to see where the assumptions are......and thus come up with my own interpretation of what the facts are.......of that which will stand the test of time......for if it's true, then it should always be true....it shouldn't keep changing every 5 to 10 years.
You, on the other hand seemed to have given up. Why throw your hands up and wave the white flag? Why not continue to be skeptical? Why not be a cynic when it comes to the claims of "Naturalism"?
You seemed to be taking the stance that to accept science would somehow disprove your faith or at least are making arguments that lead me to that conclusion.
Real Science can never disprove anyones faith, but "Sola Naturalism"
will automatically compromise everyones faith, for it is atheistic. So if you are calling "science" Naturalism, then I would say yes, naturalism will disprove anyones faith, so yes, I am making arguments against naturalism........that's if you think "Naturalism" & "science" are one and the samething. But if I already know that "Naturalism" is full of crap, then how can it disprove my faith? How can something that is not real ever disprove anything?
. . . . with that bolded part you've revealed a basic misunderstanding of science in general. Granted, this is sciences fault, because the majority of scientists are POOR communicators to the public...there's a reason over the last 50 years we only know of a handful of scientists within popular culture, because they stick at communicating...lol! (and many are now admitting this) But your assumption that science first assumes everythng as if it were true is completely backwards.
You're right, the assumption that everything is true is fluff, but that's NOT what what science does regardless of what Expelled or whatever other propaganda films claim.
In fact, it does just the opposite. I It lays forth a hypothesis, and then it assumes the hypothesis is FALSE....it will then test, study, observe, study, test some more all in an attempt to DISPROVE said hypothesis. Only when ruling out all other options is a real theory developed to explain said evidence. For example . . . . if you were to take this statement to the scientific community:
You misunderstood what I meant, I'm sorry for not being clear. This is what I meant:"for you are observing the evidence with a pre-determined bias that may or may not be true. But you have to look at everything as if "NATURALISM" was true......and that's pure fluff to me."
This is what I meant to say.
They would say, ok, good hypothesis, now, Prove it! Then as a scientist it is your job to present evidence to support your hypothesis. This is simply how science works, and has worked for a very long time. You cannot even get published in a scientific journal until you've proven or disproven something. And in fact, just because science "disproves" one theory, does NOT mean you're opposing theory is correct. For example, lets say it was possible to "disprove" evolution....that's fine and dandy, but just disproving evolution does NOT prove creationism. If evolution is false, then there must be an alternative explanation. It "might" be a 6 literal day creation, but as a scientist, you have to PROVE it.
Proof is for mathmatics. The whole point is that the only answers they will ever accept are "naturalistic" ones. That's the point.
Again, that is simply NOT how science works. Just because a group of scientists somewhere "disprove" free will, does not indicate absolute determinism is true. You need an entire different set of evidence, tests, and studies to determine that. Disproving one does not prove whatever the "opposite" hypothesis is, because BOTH could be wrong.
If the only tools you have to work with is "Naturalism" then the atheistic scientists who reject free will, will automatically have the upper hand, for other scientists will have to work with one hand tied behind their backs. Have you seen a Naturalist explain away "all forms"(even the ones where a person saw physical things and places where they were never present)
of near death experiences, and haunted houses where the ghost/spirit/demon actually has a conversation with a person? If the only explainations you can have are of a "naturalistic" nature, then you have one hand tied behind your back........and this is what modern science does. Modern science will say that the demon/spirit/ghost was nothing more than a pre-recording that the brick wall recorded some 50 years ago, and so the girl saw a pre-recording. They ignore obvious signs of "intelligence" in favor of nonsense.
So yes, I am skeptical, and Lord willing, will always be skeptical of such naturalistic nonsense.
i don't refuse to call myself anything. OF COURSE I'm a "Creationist" in the sense that God began the universe out of nothing. (how else could claim to be a Christian?) However in the popular sense of the term "Creationist" we're talking about people who DENY evolution to one degree or another....so in that sense I'm not a "Creationist". I accept that evolution is true because, well it is. Just like gravity is true. I believe that the entire Cosmos is sustained and exists by the will of God. Yes, Theistic Evolutionist would be the most accurate term, but even that term has different interpretations of the phrase but generally speaking yes, I'm a Theistic Evolutionist.
I would never call evolving from a group of Apes to a group of humans as true, in the same sence as "gravity being true"......by the way....we still don't know exactly what gravity is.......there are still some assumptions that were made by Einstein, that may or may not be true......thus there is a flaw and some time in the future our understanding of it is bound to change. But I would say that one HIV strain evolving into another HIV strain is more true than gravity. The same for a group of humans evolving into another group of humans, the same for a FLU strain evolving into another FLU strain........etc.
This is what we can observe, everything else is mostly assumptions based on the idea of what could or should happen over a long period of time. So no, I would never call that as being as true as gravity.
I'm happy you admited to being a Theistic Evolutionist. Thanks for being honest, for we have some Theistic Evolutionists on the board who refuse to admit it.
Hi! I'm a Creationist, glad to meet you. Unlike some other creationists, I don't have a problem with Theistic Evolutionists.......I see it as a viable option, the onlything I reject is how some may interprete the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
I have listened to Young Earth arguments before, as I said I used to be one. I'm not anymore. There simply is no "debate" over the issue anymore than there is a debate with flat earthers, or people who deny the existence of gravity or modern geocentrists (yes, these people DO exist). The only debate exists in the public sphere because scientists are such poor communicators and people think evolution says "man evolved from monkeys"...which is simply not what the theory says. But the American public "thinks" it does.
I know, Robert Sungenis is a modern advocate of Geocentrism. I don't care about that issue for the Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture was heavily influenced by Aristotlian philosophy, and so, I point the finger at using Aristotle......I don't blame scripture for that. Also this debate happened when RC & EO were two different communions.
The Earth going around the Sun didn't seem to bother Capernicus's christianity, and so why should it bother ours?
The whole issue of flat earth is similar, there were christians on both side of the issue....for who was Saint Augustine and them arguing against? Were they not christians too? It didn't seem to bother their christianity, and so why should it bother ours?
The same can't be said for Darwinism, alot of people got jacked up over that. I read or heard somewhere that Stalin rejected christianity in seminary after reading Darwin's book. Now that may or may not be true, but that's what I heard.
And I don't think darwinian scientists are poor communicators.......the belief is truely that a group of Monkey's or Apes eventually evolved into something that looked somewhat human, and in turn they eventually evolved into us.
Yeah, and Orthodox Christianity was responsible for just as many evil things. Does that fact "disprove" Orthodox Christianity?
No, for the first 300 years we were "mostly" pacifists. So that balance everything out. The same can't be said for modern Atheism of the past 200 years.
Carl Sagan brought it up all the time. So you're a bit late!
OK, I'm late
Oh yes, it did "play a role"...but that didn't seem to be your initial suggestion,
True, your counters made me modify what I will say for now on in the future. However, the very foundation of Naturalism makes it natural, normal, and more easy for someone to be a Hitler, Stalin, Hugh Hefner.....etc.
nor is it the suggestion of Expelled. Expelled explicitly implies to be an evolutionist is to be a Nazi, Communist, or supporter of some form of evil oppression.
I have the movie expelled, and I saw it again on youtube, and they don't really say that. This is what they said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuVSIG265b4
He said not everyone who read Darwin became a Nazi, the case he made was that Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for the phenomenon of Nazism, but it was a necessary one. And I agree.
Again, just read what people believed about being "Christian" in the Byzantine Empire, or Western Europe or even in America 200 years ago. In the past to be a good Christian meant to be a slave owner, a crusader, an Emperor who felt it his duty to put down the heretics, Jews, Samaritans, and all sorts of evils. This is what Christians believed at the time. And now we distinguish between being a "true Christian" and these "fake Christians"...but to THEM they believed it a good and holy thing to own other human beings, or to kill the Jews because they rejected Christ. As I said, the atheists are just borrowing the arguments we Christians used first. No difference.
What did christians say and do in it's first 300 years? The first decades of darwinism was what it was, and that will never change.....regardless of the historical revisionism of modern day Naturalists.
Just like modern Muslims who kill are just doing what their founder did, and what early Islam did. And so, modern naturalists in the Obama administration who want to kill babies, grandma, grandpa, make people sterile, and create a progressive/socialist or facist society are just being like the naturalists back then.