I think the core issue of this debate is if man is fallible in his interpretation of the Bible, but not in his observations, assumptions, and interpretations of the universe around him.
Science assumes that any observation hypothesis or theory may be in error - that is why scientific models keep changing in the face of new information.
Being a creationist means never having to let a silly little thing like evidence change your opinion about something.
It is useful to meditate on these things because that brings you closer to God. If you are satisfied with your understanding you put the question on the shelf and go on to other things. Which would be unfortunate.
If you prayerfully struggle with the question of what is God’s nature He will over time reveal Himself.
Yep, that’s pretty much it -
the assumption that man is fallible in one area and not in another, depending on your preference (ie, on your Ultimate [extrabiblical] Authority).
“I think the core issue of this debate is if man is fallible in his interpretation of the Bible, but not in his observations, assumptions, and interpretations of the universe around him.”
Spirited: Agreed. The hypocrisy is there for all to see.
It's the hubris of the scientific community to demand that everything they state, which is true today and may or may not be true tomorrow depending on the incoming data, be taken as if written in stone, as if they are infallible interpreters of the data that the scientific method produces, and yet consider that man cannot apply the same kind of critical thinking skills to interpreting passages of Scripture.
It's the same double standard that is applied constantly. When it's materialistic naturalism, it's objective. When it's Scripture it's subjective.
When it's data derived from the scientific method, it's unquestioningly accurate. When it's the inerrant, unchanging, inspired Word of God, it was written by a bunch of bronze age goat herders.
The irony is that what comes form the scientific community is only as good as today's knowledge. At any time it can be disallowed as new data comes in. And yet, in spite of its unreliability, it's still held up as the standard by which everything else, including the Word of God is measured.
In what way is man "infallible" with respect to "his observations, assumptions, and interpretations of the universe around him" when he is effectively limiting himself to what can be known via sense perception?
IOW, the heart of the scientific method is direct observation. Does this mean that all non-observables do not exist? (You know, those pesky little non-observables such as God, scientific theories, mathematics, love, hate, justice, fear, mind, etc., etc.?)