[From Bryan Thalhammer (2001.0407.2210 CDT)]
Kenny, Kenny!
Let's not confuse these two methods (science and belief) of explaining
one's universe! They are of two different methods, and not comparable, one
to the other, in the ability to reach the same kinds of "truth." The
"truth" of Biblical belief is the Bible. The truth of the scientific
method is the way in which its process can reveal adequate explanations of
physical phenomena, but the scientific evidence is in itself never "truth."
So, the Bible is not *scientific evidence* for a believer, rather for him,
it is the *theological truth*. Further, no kind of evidence, however
strong, consistent, and pervasive as the universe itself apparently can
sway a believer from his or her belief. A scientist gains nothing by
trying to mount evidence of any sort against the theological truth of the
Bible. Period. We are just pulling our own chain to try to do so.
Therefore: 1) You cannot scientifically refute someone's belief in a
Biblical creation account, because belief is not imbued with what
scientists call scientific evidence. 2) Likewise, you cannot critique
scientific evidence (physical as well as Biblical) with religious belief
(Biblical or other), because all evidence must be refutable to be dealt
with in a scientific method, and belief does not permit refutation of the
content of belief.
You are simply mixing apples with oranges, which does no good here. Since
this discussion group deals mainly with the scientific method, your comment
below seems to be not much more than a comment on the PCT topic. Also, no
person who does science "believes" in a Darwinian explanation, rather they
employ it or other explanations as a way of understanding the phenomena of
the world. Likewise, evolution (punctuated, gradual, or any other
variation of the standard explanation) is not "fact" in the ordinary sense,
but a scientific theory based on scientific evidence, just as you say. Ah,
but Creationism, since it bases its critique in "unquestioning belief," is
just not a theory!
Personally, I wonder why you contribute these kinds of statements when you
should (by now) realize that such things are sort of an irrelevant comment
given the main topic of this discussion group, really. You may use the PCT
explanation of living control systems in your work and research, but a
creationist-evolutionary debate is probably left-field to our main topic.
Cheers,
Bryan
(And yes, I regard Biblical evidence as scientific evidence that is
provisional, refutable, and therefore worthy of being questioned as any
other historical evidence. In terms of its ability to convey the Christian
Theology, it is *awesome*, even "striking" in its effect on a reader! On
that theology, and on people's latter day interpretations of it, however, I
reserve my comments further. So let's also leave theology, right or wrong,
for another site, eh?)
ยทยทยท
[From Kenny Kitzke (01.04.07)]
For such matters I trust the Biblical account believing it to be the word of
the Creator to mankind. The Creator was the only one there to know for sure.
It is His account, by faith, that I rely upon. As a holder of a bachelor of
science degree, I know of no evidence that scientifically refutes the
Biblical creation account.