Replies

“The bottom actually is that science consists of many interrelated theories accounting for millions and millions of observations.”

“For one observation to switch from “protein can’t last millions of years” to “protein can last millions of years” is not sufficient to overturn all of the theories and observations leading to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.”

My friend the actual “bottom line” is that “scientists” are people too, and subject to the same prejudices and biases as the rest of the human race. Of course, I wouldn’t expect the so called “millions and millions” of obeservations you mention to be tossed because of one conflicting piece of evidence. My point is that it wouldn’t ever be even remotely considered because it doesn’t fit the paradigm - not because of the “millions and millions” of observations you mention - which like most observations are interpreted in light of what the person wants to see. That is true of both sides of the evolution/creation debate.

I’m certainly not adverse to admitting my falibility and bias, why are not those holding to strictly naturalistic explainations of origens, etc. not so willing? That is a rhetorical question, and I really don’t expect an answer.

I’m not seeking an arguement or to insult. I just want there to be a little “intellectual honesty” to be shown - by ALL parties.

Individual scientists do have biases. But there are tens of thousands of hungry individuals in almost every field all wanting to make a name for themselves. One way to do that is to show one of the leaders in their field to be wrong. Its not easy to do, but it happens. Scientists are not sheep -- they will go where the evidence leads. (The global warming extremists seem to be politicians more than scientists.)

However, the willingness to look at new evidence is much more a characteristic of science than religion. The field of apologetics (defense of religion) was not founded to explore new revelation or dogma, but to defend the status quo. Science modifies theories when the evidence requires it. That happens all the time. (Those who hold to unchanging religious belief seem to be muchly bothered when science modifies a theory to be more accurate.)

Scientists are willing to admit their assumptions -- but you need to look in the technical journals, as the popular literature produced by "science" journalists will not often convey that part of the publication. It is not interesting, and is among the first things to be left out. But if you go to the original sources, you will find a lot of effort to identify and separate assumptions, conjecture, and guesses from what is more conclusively demonstrated.

But from the tone of your post, you are probably looking for scientists ("those holding to strictly naturalistic explainations of origens") to accept non-naturalistic evidence. But that approach would be violating the entire approach of science, which is concerned only with the natural world and the physical evidence that allows us to study that world.

If scientists were to try to address the non-naturalistic evidence, how would they do that? They would be dealing with revelation, dogma, belief, superstition, magic, and other fuzzy subjects for which there are no possible measurements. There is no god meter.

When you cross the threshold from natural to non-natural, from the measurable to the unmeasurable, you leave science and enter the realm of philosophy or theology.

You should not try to discredit scientists for adhering to the methods of science. If there are new fields that come to light with new methods, science will move into them. It may be that some day science will be able to measure and describe, and theorize about, fields that today are considered magic or superstition. In fact, it would be amazing if this were not the case.

But don't expect scientists to accept religious belief, with no supporting or measurable evidence, as a valid field of study.