Now that Ashley seems to think how science tends to be the new ‘god’ of this world, she again tends to equivocate its findings and foundations to mean the same thing. I posted earlier on her website asking her to consider the philosophical biases and commitments secular scientists have held onto dearly as the creation movement steadily progressed into the public sector. Unfortunately, she tends to think scientists have not suffered much from these philosophical views.
“I don’t think that science suffers from the human limitations of scientists. The scientific method is a self-correcting procedure that keeps expanding our knowledge despite the foibles of scientists, foibles that include various kinds of biases.”
If this were true, why fight to disprove that natural selection is neither a mathematical nor scientific chance? Most of us in the public arena can do these experiments on our own and come to the conclusions that scientists have disputed for decades. Evolution, specifically macroevolution is not something has ever occurred in history, especially from a blind, aimless source.
“That’s where religion falls short.”
Science as a discipline has been established by religious people first, not secularists. If anyone is going to credit religion for anything, at least give it honor by getting the facts down first.
“The best that it can do is to reduce its embarrassment by calling the statement “poetic” or a metaphor for a deeper truth. But the minute that they do that, they have admitted that the sacred text is not literally true.”
Again, you cannot really throw all sacred religious texts into that group, especially the Bible itself. The reason why I say this is because the Bible is a collection of books containing a variety of literary genres e.g., the book of Acts details history while the book of Psalms depicts poetry and prophecy. If Ashley wishes to give a more accurate understanding of religion, at least she should take the time to research these findings first.