Jump to content


Photo

Science, Philosophy, And Truth


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4 replies to this topic

#1 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:54 PM

This is a great article that I am still reading (it is long but worth it) on the relationship of science, philosophy, theology, and the search for truth. It exposes how atheistic presuppositions and philosophy are being sold as "science" and defines clear boundaries as to where the presuppositions ends and the real science begins. It also outlines the inconsistencies of atheistic presuppositions and philosophy and consequences of divorcing science from philosophy (which Christians are buying into). I hope that all members get a change to read through this at some point.

http://www.creationr...Reed lo res.pdf

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 March 2012 - 11:11 AM

Thanks for the link Jay, it is very enlightening, and goes to support some of my assertions concerning how evolutionists “doctor” the mix when it comes to science. You can use references like this to give evidence for the tactics of evolutionists. I’ll just use the first one to pull it apart due to their dishonesty:

In his “Six foundations of modern natural history” matrix, you’ll notice that Simpson proclaims naturalism as the “Basic postulate of science” (a totally subjective statement), then adds the caveat that “supernatural is excluded from scientific explanation by definition”. This begs the questions; who is creating the definition? Since when did science exclude anything? What is supernatural, and why is it “excluded” from science?

Who is creating the definition? – Simpson “created” the definition himself, and then excluded what he didn’t like! The bottome line here is that it was Simpson that added the caveat. Evolutionism, by definition (the Encarta dictionary) is the “belief in the theory of biological evolution”. Therefore “evolutionism” is a “belief system”, and Simpson is a proponent of that belief system.

Since when did science exclude anything? – Science is the study of phenomena by using systematic observation and experimentation. But, since evolutionists like Simpson came on the scene, the words ‘physical’ and ‘natural’, were added to the general definition of science, in order to exclude that which they did not like. In fact, in a cursory look at the historical definition for “Science” , we can easily deduce that evolutionists have been mucking up the definition by making it more fuzzy with terms like falsification, or simply removing that which they do not like. In the following “Historical” documents, we see quite a different definition for science:

From 1925 we have the following; “Knowledge arranged under general truths and principles; certainly grounded on demonstration; any art or species of knowledge, whether abstract principles or the phenomena and forces of nature
(Donohue’s School Dictionary)

The above delineates the difference between other than natural (the abstract), and the natural, as BOTH were a part of science. The evolutionists have worked hard to hide this fact, and do so while brain washing our youth in the academic setting.

From 1929 we have the following; “Systematized knowledge
(Laird and Lee’s Webster’s New Standard Dictionary)

The above doesn’t restrict science to the physical only… Amazing, is it not!

From 1982 we have the following; “Knowledge as of facts, phenomena, laws and proximate causes, gained and varied by exact observation, organized experiment and analysis.” In fact, the term “Natural sciences” was a separate entry (or as a sub category) as defined; “The sciences dealing with the physical universe”.
(The Webster Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary © 1892)

As we see in the above, the “natural sciences” weren’t all there was. In fact, the “natural sciences” were nothing more than a sub-set of science in general!

What is supernatural? – Supernatural, by definition is that which is other than natural, or greater than natural, or above the natural. It is also equated to (i.e. synonymous with) metaphysical, transcendent, abstract, incorporeal, ontological, immaterial, unconfined (etc…). A thought, altruistic love, the Laws of Logic, the Laws of Mathematics, even the empirical scientific method (etc…) ALL fit in the same definition. So, if the evolutionists want to exclude the Supernatural (metaphysical, abstract, incorporeal etc…), they’ll need to go ahead and throw the baby out with the bath water, as science cannot proceed without it.

Why do evolutionists attempt to exclude the Supernatural from science? – Because they don’t like that which they cannot explain, and anything that has something to do with God. But instead of saying that they “exclude” the abstract or metaphysical (etc…) from science (which they actually do not), they use the word “Supernatural”, because this is the word most used to describe God! So, they want to give the connotation that it would be wrong to include anything other than the materialistic in science, so they use the word Supernatural, to given the connotation of God as being a bad thing.


I could have gone on the the other five (so-called) foundations, but that would ruin the conversation over the flaws provided in just the first one, AND where would the conversation go then?

Attached Files



#3 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 April 2012 - 07:09 PM

This article mentions positivism, which I found to be interesting since it seems to sum up most atheists/agnostic's thinking that I have ran into. It also seems to be a recurring tactic for evolutionists on this forum and around the internet. I have seen mods point this out time after time.

Logical positivism: a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless.[SOURCE]



Secular thinkers advance the worldview until challenged, and then piously claim to be merely adhering to the scientific method. This is more than a defensive tactic; it provides the basis for arguing an inevitable link between science and atheism. Christians have fallen for this over and over because we fail to see the unstated premise of positivism, the idea that science rules the realm of truth. Whenever we grant science the power to dictate truth outside its legitimate boundaries, “methodological” naturalism expands unimpeded into a full-fledged worldview. Given the persistence of this secular sliding scale, it would be foolish to see it as accidental—it is a deliberate weapon against Christianity (Adler, 1992). This is not new; Stark (2003) noted the same ploy was used by many Enlightenment savants. As a result, secular propagandists have turned science to the “dark side” for many years, despite its Christian roots (Glover; 1984; Hooykaas, 1972, 1999), and have then used “dark-side” science to bolster their worldview.
[SOURCE]


Basically, they presuppose that observation and experiment are the only way to arrive at truth and meaning, putting science on a pedestal, and criticizing the supernatural and metaphysical.

This line of thinking ignores three things:
  • Science produces data which inevitably must be interpreted by flawed human beings: This opens the door to bias, which can lead to a distortion of the truth. Peer review can even be blind to such biases.
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: Although scientific inquiry is limited to material interactions, it is fallacious to conclude that immaterial (supernatural or metaphysical) beings and causes cannot exist.
  • First-hand Historical Accounts: Historically verifiable (verified) evidence exists in the Bible and secular historical sources that reveals a supernatural Creator exists, and that miracles have occurred.


#4 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:58 PM

JS and Ron,

Here's what I say to those who argue that we must exclude the supernatural in research. To dismiss the possibility of the supernatural a priori is the fallacy of begging the question--that we should dismiss a supernatural cause simply because it's supernatural. This is arbitrary--an unargued philosophical bias. Why should the possibility of a Creator God be dismissed before investigating the evidence?

What atheists believe can also be considered a religious view. But they never arbitrarily dismiss the possibility of natural origins; rather they assume they're true.

I heard tonight that the Iranians are re-engineering our drone that crashed. Can you imagine them excluding the possibility of the an aeronautical engineer before they start to examine the drone? But this is exactly what the atheist/evolutionists do.

TeeJay

#5 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:57 PM

I heard tonight that the Iranians are re-engineering our drone that crashed. Can you imagine them excluding the possibility of the an aeronautical engineer before they start to examine the drone? But this is exactly what the atheist/evolutionists do.

TeeJay


I agree with the premise since we have historical evidence from eyewitnesses and revelation that God does exist that they must dismiss. They have more contemporary eyewitnesses to the design and creation of planes and drones, which require an aeronautical engineer, so they like to dismiss such arguments as being irrational, yet the argument for God stands based on evidence that would hold up in a court of law, or scrutiny of any historical document.

I do agree with the logical assertion that you are hinting at; that by examining the complexity of design in living things, and information storage in DNA, it is absurd to conclude that such things have arisen on their own.

The closest we have gotten to "abiogenesis" is making amino acids. Everything else is a hypothesis after that. There is no data to suggest that life gradually grew more complex throughout history, there is no data to suggest that amino acids could ever, by any natural (unguided), process produce any semblance of life, primitive or modern. There is only faith, and philosophical musings by which people are attempting to figure out how this could happen.

So what we see is that atheists dismiss logic, and history in order to start from a blank slate to build their presuppositions, philosophy, and faith.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users