Replies

Which to me gives the lie to the idea of science as an independent "thing in itself." The reduction of science to doctrine -- as is evidently the case with, say, neo-Darwinism -- denies the irremedial contingency and indeterminacy that characterizes man's relation to nature. It seems to me "the observer problem" is alive and well here. Yet it seems to me there must be some Truth "beyond" nature that does not depend on man in order for the world to hold together, thus to make science possible in the first place.

Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe often points out that science is the interpretation of the facts of nature, not the facts themselves (analogous to how theology is the interpretation of the facts of God's word. Just as there can be good and bad theology, there can be good and bad science. But facts are facts, regardless of the interpretation).

I don't believe an interpretation is possible without being affected by some sort of bias of the worldview of the interpreter. An example might be whether or not a person holds to a dualistic view (body and soul) of human nature - the study of the mind, of ethics (is sociology a science?), etc., are all impacted by how the one doing the studying views the roots of human nature.

In such a view, it doesn't seem (as you point out) that science can be some sort of standalone endeavour, untainted or unaffected by human prejudices.

The unilateral discarding of metaphysics would seem, in a number of areas, to greatly impact how successful science can be at providing satisfactory and/or complete answers.

I don't believe an interpretation is possible without being affected by some sort of bias of the worldview of the interpreter. An example might be whether or not a person holds to a dualistic view (body and soul) of human nature - the study of the mind, of ethics (is sociology a science?), etc., are all impacted by how the one doing the studying views the roots of human nature.

Oh, I do agree with you, apologist! FWIW I doubt sociology is a science.

I also strongly agree with this:

The unilateral discarding of metaphysics would seem, in a number of areas, to greatly impact how successful science can be at providing satisfactory and/or complete answers.

Well said! Thank you so much for writing!

Great thread Ms Boop. 8-)

"In such a view, it doesn't seem (as you point out) that science can be some sort of standalone endeavour, untainted or unaffected by human prejudices."

It would also vary in degree depending on the subject matter.When the subject matter is origins it seems (at least to me) to be in full tilt mode.

I've followed most of the crevo threads for as long as there's been crevo threads.99% of the time in lurker mode.To be honest I'm not up to arguing the topic and I would hazard a guess and say that neither are 99.9% of people.

In the end it boils right down to 'trust me'.

Great article bb.

God bless