I would define a first-order science as an ancient and limited form of each science that is valid within its limits and simplifications. Each first-order science is a limiting case of a higher-order science known today (the correspondence principles). These are sciences of unaided observation and common sense. In particular: First-order physics is the science of […]
It sounds outrageous to attempt a model of the Creator but consider this: there have been models in the past and evolutionists continue to argue against them. Even atheists have a model of the Creator they reject. Creationists are at a disadvantage without a better model of the Creator. It does no good to say
Charles Darwin should be accepted as a colleague of scientists who disagree with him, and one who made significant contributions to the progress of science. Whatever disagreements there are with what he wrote should not blind people to what he was: a scientist among scientists. As Newton’s name was used by the so-called Enlightenment to
What is a real explanation? We are so used to dumbed-down “explanations” we hardly know what a real explanation is anymore. A real explanation describes all the causes of something. These were divided by Aristotle into four kinds of causes: the material, efficient, formal, and final causes. The early scientific movement of Galileo, Bacon, etc.
There’s a common idea that science shows appearances are often wrong. It is said science shows that earth is not flat, the sun doesn’t go around the earth, and that life is not designed, all despite appearances to the contrary. I think this is a mistaken view of what science has done. Surveyors work with
In the late 18th and early 19th century several proposals were made such as Lamarck’s that species were transformed into new species. This culminated in Darwin’s theory that all species were transformed from other species (hence there is common descent). In the 19th century creationists continued to hold to a non-transformist view that all species
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).
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
There are different sources of knowledge: historical, scientific, engineering, business, philosophical, theological, etc. They work best when they work together. For example, even the best business could not construct a very good bridge if they ignored engineering knowledge. This also applies to the sciences. The natural sciences need to consider knowledge from history and engineering
