Science particularly as related to creation and the creation-evolution controversy
Ancient science was focused on truth, not utility. It was elitist and unconcerned with helping improve the life of ordinary people. Pure mathematics retains this attitude with its unconcern for applications, leaving that to others. Modern science grew out of the Renaissance and original humanist movement (not to be confused with the contemporary humanist movement). […]
The strangest thing about the creation-evolution debate is that it is a trichotomy, not a dichotomy. There are three basic views and the historical creationist position is hardly known today. The traditional (ancient, really) creation theory is that the world is the same as it was when first created. There has been no significant change
Scientific methodology makes extreme simplicity (or parsimony) a key quality of a hypothesis or theory. One flaw in this is that there are multiple kinds of simplicity. The cultural milieu then becomes the arbitrator of which kind of simplicity is preferred. Historically, one version of simplicity becomes dominant until another version overthrows it. Then it
Some sensible thoughts and observations from an evolutionary biologist: The Folly of Scientism by Austin L. Hughes, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism A few excerpts: All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some
Reference: Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, tr. by Stillman Drake, Anchor Books, 1957 Galileo wrote a letter in 1615 “to the most serene Grand Duchess Christina.” In his second sentence Galileo notes his opponents were “academic philosophers” who held “physical notions” he contradicted. They were not ecclesiastical authorities as is so often claimed today. He asserts
On Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina Read More »
Aristotle laid much of the foundation for modern science but failed to take the final steps. He articulated the logic, the four causes, sensory realism, and the importance of observation. But he didn’t have the Bible when he tried to start with final causes and used philosophical speculation instead. Bacon and the early modern scientists
While the early scientists expected God’s creation to be orderly and show God’s lawfulness, that is certainly not the case with conventional science today. While we can say that’s because of the Enlightenment, there’s more to it than that. There’s something called the ontological inversion. Basically, at first science is very empirical: what is real
The evolution paradigm begins by doubting ancient peoples and ancient history. They’re all seen as primitive peoples with worthless myths. Compared to modern societies and technologies, they don’t have anything to offer us. We should dismiss them, ignore their writings, and start from scratch. It’s no wonder we come up with evolutionary theories that place modern society
“Creation ex nihilo” means creation from nothing, which signifies that creation means bringing into being out of non-existence. Creation from nothing is beyond what humans can do no matter what degree of talent they possess. . But the usage of Hebrew (bara or asah) and English (create or make) include both creation from nothing and
We’ve heard of evidence-based medicine and science in which test data are the standard of comparison. But what about testimony-based science? This means testimony is the standard of comparison, as is done in courts of law. A prosecutor cannot just put objects or data in front of a jury. There must be a witness who introduces
