mdmathis6:
"I’ve been aware all my sentient life of the implicit anti-mosaic bias of many of the so called media savvy “scientists and the science writer pundit wannabe types”.
Their whole modus operandi is exposed and derided in Psalms 2." I read Psalm 2 as talking about politicians we might call secessionists, nothing to do with science.
Clearly both mdmathis6 and Kalamata are terribly confused about the definitions and methods of science.
You want scientists to begin their work by reading the Bible or some theological tome to see how nature operates, when neither the Bible nor theology requires that.
What science requires is that its workers begin with the evidence and follow it to whatever natural explanations work best, regardless of theology.
For over 150 years now the best natural explanations of geological & biological origins begin with Darwin & Lyell.
Now Kalamata regales us with quotes from Newton praising God for His handiwork among stars & planets, by stark contrast to 19th century thinkers like Charles Lyell quoted as saying he wants to "free the science from Moses".
But what Kalamata pretends to forget is that scientists like Galileo, Copernicus & Kepler were also opposed by the Church precisely because they too ignored the Bible's view of astronomy, as expressed in 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.
"In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be: "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement 'receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.[80] Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true.
On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered:
... to abandon completely ... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.[82]"
Still a hundred years later, Newton's ideas were no less heretical, but he at least had enough good sense to use them to praise God and His creations, and Newton was also lucky enough to live in a more tolerant Protestant land.
But 19th century thinkers like Darwin and Lyell had a far more difficult task, since natural history was not just a matter of a handful of scattered Biblical verses, easily ignored even by alleged literalists like Kalamata & mdmathis6, but natural history is built into the Bible's basic creation narrative.
God's creation and flood are just too big a part of the Bible to be hand-waved away and no scientist of the time, even someone who studied traditional theology like Darwin, could find a way to reconcile them.
So they never tried, instead, as Kalamata frequently quotes, they worked to "free the science from Moses".
However, soon enough many church theologians did find ways to reconcile Old Earth geology & evolutionary biology with Biblical Creation, through "theistic evolutionism" which essentially does for that science what Newton himself did for astronomy -- praises God for His creations, regardless of what methods God used.
“I read Psalm 2 as talking about politicians we might call secessionists, nothing to do with science.”
Your personal biases cause you to see it that way. Psalm 2 speaks of entire nations rebelling against the dictates of the living God. What part of “The Kings of the Earth rise up...” did you not understand?
I am not confused as to how the scientific method is supposed to work; I understand what my internal pre-biased states are so if I were to model experiments, I would model them with those pre-biases set aside or perhaps even included as a means of developing falsifiable controls.
The problem in today’s science world is that most antireligious types of scientists, who seem to be at the top of everything, are inherently pre-biased against the unfalsifiable, believing in their very center beings that what can’t be proven true or false must always be considered AS FALSE. They react, almost in a hyper MORALIST inquisitional manner against anyone that holds to a more religious viewpoint. “Such people must be quashed!”, the Hyper anti-moralist scientists rage, we must take counsel against them and against their fake God and his Anointed, and their fake science,...we must break the bonds of “old timey rationalist Cartesian deductive reasoning” and cast away their yokes from us”. After all, there is no truth in the tautologous, there is no unfalsifiable God person who will hold us in derision and who will dash us to pieces like a potter’s vessel!”
The worst sorts aren’t some of the atheist scientists but the science writer wannabe types who mix a vague minor in environmental and ecology science with a journalist degree and are steeped in socialist Marxist theory. They add to the confusion of what science is supposed to be and what it’s methods are. They are always seizing upon work being done by scientist “A” or Physicist “B” and have spun up all the permutations as to how “A”’s work, if it pans out and is verified by others, will change the world, will lead to needed social changes, and of course further prove how all the world’s religions are full of bunk.
Oh I understand your understanding of what science is supposed to be...do you?
As a young child my first bit of science training started like this...”If there is smoke, there is a fire some where and if the universe is in existence it has origin and a cause!” Thus the origin of all my pre-biases when I consider reason and science!
>>BroJoeK to mdmathis6; Kalamata
>>mdmathis6: “I’ve been aware all my sentient life of the implicit anti-mosaic bias of many of the so called media savvy “scientists and the science writer pundit wannabe types”. Their whole modus operandi is exposed and derided in Psalms 2.”
>>Joey: “I read Psalm 2 as talking about politicians we might call secessionists, nothing to do with science.<<
No, Joey. God is talking about the heathen trusting in their own understanding, and rejecting the words of Christ.
*****************
>>Joey: “Clearly both mdmathis6 and Kalamata are terribly confused about the definitions and methods of science.’
There is no doubt that Joey is confused about what science is, and is not.
*****************
>>Joey: “You want scientists to begin their work by reading the Bible or some theological tome to see how nature operates, when neither the Bible nor theology requires that.”
I haven’t said that. I am a scientist. I do find it beyond coincidental that everything new I have learned about science over the past 8 years was in the Bible all along.
If you are going to throw out atheist talking points, Joey, you should learn when to apply them.
*****************
>>Joey: “What science requires is that its workers begin with the evidence and follow it to whatever natural explanations work best, regardless of theology. For over 150 years now the best natural explanations of geological & biological origins begin with Darwin & Lyell.”
Not even in your dreams, Joey. Neither Darwin’s theory of evolution, nor the Hutton/Lyell uniformitarian model, have a scientific leg to stand on.
*****************
>>Joey: “Now Kalamata regales us with quotes from Newton praising God for His handiwork among stars & planets, by stark contrast to 19th century thinkers like Charles Lyell quoted as saying he wants to ‘free the science from Moses’.”
Yep, that is what Lyell schemed to do, not because science needed to be free from Moses, but Lyell’s promiscuity.
*****************
>>Joey: “But what Kalamata pretends to forget is that scientists like Galileo, Copernicus & Kepler were also opposed by the Church precisely because they too ignored the Bible’s view of astronomy, as expressed in 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.”
Joey is so naive. That was the accusation against Galileo; but the historical record speaks of a conspiracy by the Jesuits and the scientific orthodoxy against a scientist they didn’t like, named Galileo. It has nothing to do with the Word of God.
*****************
>>Joey: “In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be: “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture”.
The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth’s movement ‘receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.[80] Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine’s residence and ordered: ... to abandon completely ... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.[82]”
As usual, Joey resorts to the left-leaning Wikipedia for his “history”:
*****************
>>Joey: “Still a hundred years later, Newton’s ideas were no less heretical, but he at least had enough good sense to use them to praise God and His creations, and Newton was also lucky enough to live in a more tolerant Protestant land.”
That is irrevelant nonsense. Newton was an almost monkishly devout Christian who wrote more Christian works than science.
*****************
>>Joey: “But 19th century thinkers like Darwin and Lyell had a far more difficult task, since natural history was not just a matter of a handful of scattered Biblical verses, easily ignored even by alleged literalists like Kalamata & mdmathis6, but natural history is built into the Bible’s basic creation narrative.”
Joey and his ever-handy straw men.
*****************
>>Joey: “God’s creation and flood are just too big a part of the Bible to be hand-waved away and no scientist of the time, even someone who studied traditional theology like Darwin, could find a way to reconcile them. So they never tried, instead, as Kalamata frequently quotes, they worked to “free the science from Moses”.’
If there was any science in the works of either Charlie, there might be some semblance of truth in what you wrote. But the truth is, Darwin and Lyell worked not to free science from God, but themselves; and western civilization has been going downhill, since.
*****************
>>Joey: “However, soon enough many church theologians did find ways to reconcile Old Earth geology & evolutionary biology with Biblical Creation, through “theistic evolutionism” which essentially does for that science what Newton himself did for astronomy — praises God for His creations, regardless of what methods God used.”
Now Joey stinks up the place with a red herring. Theologians have a sordid history of kissing up to the scientific establishment; so only a scientific/theological dunce would trot them out as an authority to appeal to.
Child.
Mr. Kalamata