The Resurrection Blog

Home » Notes » The ‘Gods of Science’

The ‘Gods of Science’

Buy Book Here

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 28 other followers

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 28 other followers

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.

Parker

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. You say “Macroevolution is not something has ever occurred in history, especially from a blind, aimless source.” I say, “Sure it has. The fossil record is clear.” That species evolve over time is an observation. That it is natural selection that causes the changes is a theory that is consistent with both logic and various empirical observations. If you want to deny well-supported scientific theories, you can, but you’d be ill advised to treat the theories of gravity with the same disdain. If you step off a cliff, neither denying gravity nor praying to God will keep you aloft. You should also realize that the medications that may some day keep you alive have been developed by scientists who believe in natural selection. And that our management of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is entirely based on the theory of natural selection.

    As far as the Bible being a collection of books with different forms and purposes, I am informed about that by Bart Ehrman’s terrific book with the terrible title, “MIsquoting Jesus”, which describes the findings of many serious academic studies of the history of the Bible and Biblical scholars. I am amazed when I talk to born-again Christians who know nothing about who wrote the Bible, why they wrote it, and how we study the variety of ancient partial manuscripts to try to determine what the original authors wrote. Most people that I talk with think that somewhere there is a single, complete, original manuscript of the New Testament that was written by the disciples who travelled with Jesus. That they are wrong on every count does nothing to change their view of the Bible. Instead, they don’t want to hear anything about the real history of their sacred text.

    I find the parallel between their rejection about the reality of evolution and the reality of the history of their Bible striking. I’ll never understand people who can stare reality in the face and deny its existence.

    • haparker321 says:

      OK,

      I should specify the question: Where do you find the fossil record ever supporting macro-evolution? The truth of the matter is that these findings turn out to be fraudulent.

      Furthermore, creationists (like myself) who deny evolution are not debating what IS found at the sight; rather, we debate HOW these findings should be interpreted. For most instances, these examples of ‘macro-evolution’ are not really well supported. The same can be said whenever evolutionists discuss their ‘Out of Africa’ theory to discuss origins or any other absurd ideology (e.g. the origins of the human brain). Most of these theories rest on little or no evidence; the problems lie with the philosophies that dominate science.

      I don’t know if Bart Ehrman would be a good source to quote and I documented his fraudulent arguments on two other posts The Ehrman Chronicles-The Bombastic Tales of Blowhard Bart: Parts I & II. I have read one book of his and I laughed almost until my sides hurt; there is no reason to consider him a serious scholar.

      We can talk more about history over email or schedule a debate if you would like. I even invite you to either review or purchase an existing copy of my book.

      Parker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: