Replies

"Does this mean Astrology is 'scientific'?"

The Babylonian astronomers were performing a type of science. Obviously, how we define science today had not been rigidly defined and systematically categorized at that time. But they performed essential elements of science which include observing, measuring, calculating, and drawing logical conclusions.

Yes, myth can contribute to the formation and selection of hypotheses. Same thing goes for generally creative imagination - such as picturing one's self riding a light beam (Einstein). Myth and imagination are not barred from the process of scientific inquiry, and neither are the true myths of the Bible.

A theory can be formulated based on stories in the Bible, such as Noah's flood. Hydroplate theory is an example of this. Whether it is correct or not is not my main point of contention. The key issue being debated is whether or not someone can introduce a scientific hypothesis based on Biblical beliefs. The answer is YES.

Of course, for a theory to be scientific it must be testable. Because something is supposedly based on the Bible, it should not be automatically exempted from scrutiny even by those who believe the Bible. (1 John 4:1 supports this contention: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.")

So the answer is, astrology is not science, but it is not arbitrarily singled out for exclusion. We do not ignore the sky charts just because the person who made them had silly beliefs. Likewise, those who have Biblical beliefs should not have their ideas excluded from scientific testing just because they are held by Bible believers. Ocean maps were based on the foundational work of Matthew Fontaine Maury, father of modern oceanography, who searched for the "paths in the sea" referred to in the scriptures.

The Bible is not science. It is claimed to be revelation - a message from God. A theory based on the Bible could be falsified. This does not falsify the Bible. It falsifies a persons ideas and explanations. So, in this sense, the Bible can be held to be true axiomatically while allowing any theories derived from its contents to remain testable.

This is exactly the same position that naturalism holds for those who subscribe to its tenets. Naturalism is not unscientific, but it is also not science. You can formulate hypotheses and have this view of the world. But naturalism cannot be tested scientifically.

Those who say naturalism is equivalent to science confuse the role of empirical evidence with the role of hypotheses formation and selection. All science must by definition be empirically testable. Forming and selecting hypotheses are not bound by such limits. Otherwise we must throw out a great deal of Einstein's contributions because his thought experiments were not compliant with the laws of nature.

It is fair for the naturalists to ignore creationism as uninteresting because they feel pursuing this line of reasoning will not produce meaningful results (even though they have historically). (Intuitive decisions like this play a big role in science.) But it is unfair for them to say a Biblical view is inherently unscientific on the basis that it does not conform to their philosophy of naturalism. Some naturalists criticize faith in the Bible as being unscientific because it is not testable (which is true to the extent I have described), but simultaneously assert that naturalism cannot be expected to be tested. I insist that to be considered part of science, it must be testable.

Hypotheses based on the Bible, naturalism, or even outlandish myth, have the potential to be testable and become scientific theories. This does not mean that the underlying philosophical views (Biblical, naturalistic, or mythical) are science.