No, Child. The creation is our universe, which will exist forever. Don't you recall this passage by Paul?
"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." -- Rom 8:20-22 KJV
**********
>>Joey said, "Of course it makes perfect sense to me that God could start with "dust" at the beginning and end with mankind on Day Six, but I would not insist on that theologically.
The dust of the earth was not created until day 3. The firmanent was created on day 2:
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." -- Gen 1:6-8 KJV
On day 3 God exposed part of the firmamnt above the water, which became the dry land:
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day." -- Gen 1:9-13 KJV
**********
>>Kalamata: "Yet, you deny the words of Jesus, rather claiming he +was the descendant of an ape, which evolved from the world of bacteria, or pond scum, or whatever."
>>Joey said, "Rubbish, I'm happy to accept that Jesus was descendent from Adam and Adam was the first true man with God's "breath of life" and the first "living soul". I also notice that the Bible does not tell us exactly how God got "from mud to man", so I'm willing to let science fill in whatever blanks it can.
So am I; but currently there is no science nor scripture that contradicts the special creation of man and other organisms.
**********
>>Joey said, "Finally, unlike the Bible, science never claims to be Divine Truth, only the latest tentative explanations, always subject to revisions or falsification in light on new data & better explanations."
Science does not claim anything, but scientists and evolutionists do; and evolutionists routinely claim the religion of evolutionism is a fact.
**********
>>Kalamata: "If you deny the words of Jesus, is that the same as denying Jesus?"
>>Joey said, "I've denied nothing, but it seems to me, oh Danny boy, that you are the one denying the Bible's words in, for example, trying to stretch its use of "nature" and "natural" to mean Jesus was no more than a "natural man"."
You have a severe reading comprehension problem, Joey. I never said Jesus was "no more than a natural man." I said he was A natural man -- the natural seed of Abraham -- during his ministry. Those are the words of Paul:
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV
"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." -- 1Cor 15:44-45 KJV
If you are curious about that last part, recall this passage:
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." -- John 16:7-11 KJV
After Jesus was resurrected and ascended to the Father, he became that quickening spirit, known as the Comforter:
"I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." -- John 14:18 KJV
So, there was a natural Jesus, and there is a spiritual Jesus.
**********
>>Kalamata: "So tell us, Joey, is the seed of Abraham natural, or unnatural?"
>>Baby Joey said, "First baby Danny, I repeat, who is "us"?
Don't get all paranoid on us, Joey. That is a generic statement to represent "me," and whoever is reading this thread.
**********
>>Baby Joey said, "Second, little boy, Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit was never just "natural"."
No, Joey:
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV
God became fully man in the form of his image, Jesus Christ; and your hair-splitting is not going to change that fact:
"[Christ, in] whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" -- Col 1:14-16 KJV
**********
>>Joey said: "From the beginning He was also "truly God" meaning both free from sin and capable of performing supernatural miracles. So, "natural" yes, but not only natural.
I agree, sorta. I don't recall Jesus having the power to perform miracles until he was baptized by John and received the Holy Spirit:
"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him." -- John 1:32 KJV
**********
>>Kalamata: "Paul implied in verse 2:16 that angels were natural;"
>>Joey said: "Liar!
The scripture states the angels were natural and spiritual. Recall this verse:
"For verily [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV
And this one:
"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." -- Heb 1:7 KJV
We know that angels can appear as men and do all the things men do, even have children with earthly women:
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." -- Gen 6:1-4 KJV
The Sons of God in the Old Testament were also identified as angels in the LXX.
[For the record, that is one part of the scripture that Augustine completely misinterpreted by claiming the Sons of God were children of Seth. It really doesn't make sense that he would, considering all but maybe one of the Church fathers before him interpreted the traditional way in the manner of Peter, Jude, and the intertestamental book of 1 Enoch.]
We also know the angels at Sodom were at risk of being assaulted by the men of Sodom:
"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men [the two angels] which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." -- Gen 19:4-5 KJV
Therefore, angels can be fully men and fully angels: natural and spiritual. Jesus took on the nature of angels, not the spirit of angels, in that he looked like a man, acted like a man, and was a man, until his death.
**********
>>Kalamata: "he said Jesus became a seed of Abraham, who is also natural. In fact, Jesus became just as natural as any other man, except without sin. His ability to perform miracles set him apart until his death and resurrection; but later Peter and Paul also performed miracles after receiving the Comforter."
>>Joey said: "Acts 19:11 says of Paul: "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:"
>>Joey said: "But John 12:37 says of Jesus: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:"
>>Joey said: "Do you see the difference?
No. Show me the difference.
**********
>>Joey said: "It's because (according to doctrine), Jesus was always also true God, never only "natural man".
I agree, with reservations. During his ministry, Jesus told his disciples that he did not have all the answers, and that he was being taught by the Father:
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mar 13:32 KJV
"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." -- John 5:19-20 KJV
However, Jesus and the Father are one, and the scripture points that out in many places. Add the Holy Spirit that was sent forth from the Father and Son, and as the Son, and you have explained the Godhead, also known as the Trinity.
It is a little complicated.
**********
>>Joey said: "Examples of his divine nature included conquest of natural sin and performance of supernatural miracles. Many others like Peter & Paul also instrumented miracles, but not by themselves, only through God's actions. At least, that's my understanding."
As mentioned above in John 5:19-20, Jesus also received his supernatural abilities from the Father, as needed. I forget to mention that angels also ministered unto Jesus:
"Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him." -- Mat 4:11 KJV
Immediately after their ministry, Jesus began his ministry.
**********
>>Kalamata: "So, were Peter and Paul natural, or supernatural? According to Paul, they were "natural" until they were resurrected, as was Jesus: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." -- 1Cor 15:44 KJV"
>>Joey said: "Many Christians, including Peter & Paul, performed supernatural miracles after receiving the Holy Spirit. All died natural or martyred deaths, all will be raised again with incorruptible spiritual bodies, if I understand correctly.
The scripture is unclear on that; or at least on the timing. But, yes, they all have been resurrected, or will be.
**********
>>Kalamata: "So, there is a natural God, and a supernatural God, who are one:"
>>Joey said: "In Christ only! While God's "divine nature" is mentioned, God the Father is never called "natural" in the human sense, and from the beginning Jesus was never only "natural"
>>Joey: "I [Jesus] and my Father are one." -- John 10:30 KJV"
This hair-splitting could go on forever.
**********
>>Kalamata: "Jesus made that statement while he was still a natural man, before his resurrection and ascension to the throne of the Father."
>>Joey: "But Jesus was never only "natural", was always also God, according to Trinitarian doctrine, if I understand correctly."
More hair-splitting.
**********
>>Kalamata: "It seems that Joey doesn't believe God was a seed of Abraham, born of a woman, and raised as a Jewish child, who began his ministry at about age 30, and died a horrible death roughly 3.5 years later, at which time he gave up his natural body and became a spiritual body."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Baby Danny boy, you are such a bald-faced shameless liar, it's breathtaking."
Shameless Child.
**********
>>Kalamata: "Science has never been in the conflict with the Bible, Joey. Perhaps you are thinking of inventions of men promoted under the pretense of science, as it was in the days of Galileo, and is today."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And your lies just never stop, do they?"
Shameless Child.
**********
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Galileo was not tried by some Greek philosophical guild, but by an Inquisition of the Roman Church. Galileo was not charged with crimes against Aristotle, but rather of heresy against the Bible. Galileo was not accused by some philosophical or academic professors, but by Church officials like Dominican friars Niccolò Lorini and Tommaso Caccini, Jesuits like Melchior Inchofer. The Inquisition judge in 1615 was neither secular nor philosophical, but rather Roman Catholic Cardinal Bellarmine. The Church's 1633 judgment against Galileo was "vehemently suspected of heresy" a more serious "crime" than mere "erroneous in faith"."
No, Joey. The Jesuits implied there was no heresy: they simply didn't like Galileo; and the scientific establishment was furious because Galileo didn't kiss the ring of Aristotle (e.g., Galileo was threatening their power.) Those are the ones who instigated the Inquisition upon trumped-up charges. Nothing has changed, except the mode of punishment.
**********
>>Drive-By Joey said: "I should also note again that it wasn't just Galileo but also Copernicus and Kepler whose works were condemned as heresy for their heliocentrism."
An analogous charge of heresy, today, is reserved for any scientist who doesn't kiss the ring of Charlie Darwin. The power of the scientific orthodoxy depends on perpetuating Darwinism.
**********
>>Drive-By Joey said: "For Danny boy here to continue pretending the Galileo affair was more about natural-philosophy than Church theology simply confirms your status as a serial bald-faced liar."
I showed you my references, and you ignored them.
**********
>>Kalamata: "You took Augustine's statement out of context, Joey. He is warning Christians not to stray from the positions of the ancient sacred writers."
>>Joey said: "No, that would be you, Danny boy. In full context Augustine is clearly warning against people like you who quote the Bible out of context, to make it look stupid in the eyes of non-believers."
That would be you and your atheist buddies, Joey, and I admit your misquotes have been effective. Generations of children have been brainwashed by the evolutionism cult into believing the Bible is bunch of fairy tales. I am no conspiracy theorist, but sometimes they really are out to get you. This is the sleazy lawyer Charles Lyell, one of Charles Darwin's most admired ape-critters:
"I am sure you may get into Q. R. what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the 'British Critic and Theological Review.' They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems. Eerussac has done nothing but believe in the universal ocean up to the chalk period till lately. Prevost has done a little, but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France." [Letter to Poulett Scrope, Esq., 9 Crown Office Row, Temple, June 14, 1830, in Charles Lyell, "Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol I." John Murray, 1881, Chap. XI, p.268]
**********
>>Kalamata: "[L]et those people now restrain themselves, who are so puffed up with their knowledge of secular literature, that they scornfully dismiss as something crude and unrefined these texts... "
>>Joey said: "Nobody I know of uses "secular literature" to criticize the Bible as "crude and unrefined".
You can't be serious. You do it all the time; and practically every high school and college text book mocks the Bible in one manner or another. In fact, the teaching of evolution mocks the Bible, no matter how it is taught.
**********
>>Kalamata: "Taken together, Augustine is pointing to those puffed-up with secular literature, who dismiss the interpretations of the biblical text by ancient sacred writers as being something crude and unrefined, like you do. How avante garde of you, Child."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And still more outrageous bald-faced lies from Danny boy, a very mischievous youngster."
Deceitful Child.
**********
>>Kalamata: "Joey still has this bizarre notion that the Bible was never scientific or historic, even though there is not a single scientific or historical error to be found in it."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And still more Danny-lies. The truth is, the Bible is very historical, but there is no sense in which it even tries to be scientific. Rather, the Bible is at great pains to show us that supernatural God created, rules over and can over-rule the natural realm.
Joey doesn't understand science. The Bible is loaded with scientific gems, which are there for the taking by those worthy to take them. The most famous of the gem-takers was Matthew Maury, who is known as the "Pathfinder of the sea," and the "Father of Modern Oceanography."
**********
>>Kalamata after quoting Hosea & Romans: "It's a little complicated."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Naw, it's all just basic and one more reason why Christians have always resisted attempts to divorce from the Old Testament."
I need a translator for that one.
**********
>>Kalamata: "When are you going to show us that you know the difference?"
>>Drive-By Joey said: "When are you going to stop posting bald-faced lies, little boy?
I will have to post a lie, before I can stop lying, Child. When are you going to answer my questions?
**********
>>Kalamata: "I don't recall the part about Christians, Child. I recall the following statement you made which was part of an ongoing diatribe in #341 in which you were attempting to marginalize the Word of God and traditional Christian theology:"
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Sorry, Danny boy, but you have worked hard to set God's word at war against the best of ancient Greeks & Romans as well as medieval theologians and modern science. I merely tried to restore their traditional positions as supporters, along with Jewish theology, of Western Civilization writ large."
That is gobbledygook. The ancient Greeks and Romans were mostly pagans. Christians gave us modern science. Pagans and atheists gave us the pseudoscience of evolutionism and big-bangism.
**********
>>Kalamata: "You really are delusional, Child."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "You really are a bald-faced liar, Danny boy."
Shameless Child.
**********
>>Kalamata: "That is what you claim, Alinsky Joe, that nature is godless."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And still more bald-faced lies -- you just can't stop it, can't control it, can't even slow it down a bit, you just have to lie & lie & lie? Truthfully, I think you need serious help for that, baby boy."
Shameless Child.
**********
>>Kalamata after quoting Lewontin on Sagan: "While you pretend to defend God, Joey, you in reality defending the anti-God's, like Lewontin and Shermer."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "It's not clear if the opinions you quoted are strictly Lewontin's (I think) or also Sagan's (I doubt seriously)."
Quit making deceitful insinuations, and show us how I misquoted.
**********
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Regardless they represent the term "philosophical naturalism" also known as "ontological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" which mean, in essence: atheism. The more traditional view is called "methodological naturalism" which defines the old "natural philosophy", today's natural-science. Methodological naturalism" never denied the existence or works of God, theology or supernatural events. It merely said supernatural miracles are outside the scope of science and so must be left to theologians & philosophers to investigate."
You have to wear mental blinders to believe in the bizarre atheistic concept of "methodological naturalism," as Lewontin revealed. Here he is again:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." [Lewontin, Richard C., "Billions and Billions of Demons: Review of Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'." New York Review of Books, 1997]
It was never about science. This is the link so you can read the original article yourself.
**********
>>Drive-By Joey said: "So, Danny boy, your insistence on equating all naturalism to atheism is yet another example of your serial bald-faced lying.
No, Joey. Methodological naturalism is just another fancy name for atheism. Even Newton's law of universal gravitation fails under the rules of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism was never about science, but getting our creator out of science, which is futile.
Real science seeks to know whether a theory is true or not. The premise that a good scientific theory must fit certain abstract criteria is a red-herring -- an anti-science power grab.
**********
>>Kalamata: "Are you defending God, or atheistic, secular materialism, Child? The great scientists, like Galileo, Newton and Faraday would hoot at your ridiculous notion that, 'natural-science, by definition, is forbidden from beginning its research by reading the Bible to see what it says on any particular subject.' "
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And still more bald-faced Danny-lies. In fact Galileo was convicted of heresy, as were the works of Copernicus and Kepler, not because they opposed Greek philosophers, but because they opposed clear Biblical texts."
Galileo's only "heresy" was against the scientific orthodoxy. It is no different today, except for the punishments. Oppose the dogma of the scientific orthodoxy these days and you will be shunned, refused the right to publish, fired, and even lose your career.
**********
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Isaac Newton, unlike Galileo, had the good fortune to be born in a Protestant country and the good sense to keep his religious views mostly private: [Liar Joey quoted the Leftist rag, Wikipedia]
Newton was a devout Christian who opposed the doctrine of the established church:
"It is interesting to observe the coincidence of the religious views of Sir Isaac Newton with those of John Locke, his illustrious contemporary and friend. Though, like Newton, he lived in communion with the Church of England, "yet it is obvious," as Lord King says, "from an unpublished reply to a work of Dr. Stillingfleet's, that he entertained a strong opinion that the exclusive doctrines of the Church of England were very objectionable—that he thought them much too narrow and confined, and that he wished for a much larger and easier comprehension of Protestants." In a paper dated 1688, and apparently drawn up for the guidance of a religious society when he was in Holland, we find the following noble article, which Newton would have countersigned, and which, without having adopted the peculiar opinions of these distinguished men, we regard as at once the essence and the bulwark of Protestant truth:
"If any one find any doctrinal parts of Scripture difficult to be understood, we recommend him, 1st, The study of the Scriptures in humility and singleness of heart. 2d, Prayer to the Father of lights to enlighten him. 3d, Obedience to what is already revealed to him, remembering that the practice of what we do know is the surest way to more knowledge; our infallible guide having told us, if any man will do the will of him that sent me [his will], he shall know of the doctrine, John vii. 17. 4th, We leave him to the advice and assistance of those whom he thinks best able to instruct him; no men, or society of men, having any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know and believe and give an account for himself."
[Brewster, David, "Memoirs of the life writings, and discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton Vol II." Edmonston and Douglas, 2nd Ed, 1860, pp.281-282]
Newton certainly had no use whatsoever for atheism and the notion of dumb luck:
"Opposite to godliness is Atheism in profession, and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind, that it never had many professors [until Charlie.] Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes, and no more, on either side of the face; and just two ears on either side the head, and a nose with two holes; and either two fore-legs, or two wings, or two arms on the shoulders, and two legs on the hips, and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom, and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin, and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle, and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light, and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures, after the most curious manner, to make use of it? These, and suchlike considerations, always have, and ever will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared." [Ibid. 1860, p.277]
And, finally, Newton was a true Father of the Enlightment (not the atheist "Darkening"):
"We have few examples, indeed, of truly great men pursuing simultaneously their own peculiar studies and the critical examination of the Scriptures. The most illustrious have been the ornaments of our own land, and England may well be proud of having had Napier, and Milton, and Locke, and Newton, for the champions both of its faith and its Protestantism. From the study of the material universe—the revelation of God's wisdom, to the study of his holy word—the revelation of his will, the transition is neither difficult nor startling. From the homes of planetary life to the homes of its future destiny the mind passes with a firm and joyous step, and it is only when scepticism or intellectual pride has obstructed the path, that the pilgrim falters in his journey, or faints by the way." [Ibid. pp.283-284]
**********
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Michael Faraday, so far as I know, never ran afoul of Christian orthodoxy and indeed, the institute founded in his name seems dedicated to bridging gaps between science & Christianity . . . "
I didn't find any science on that website, Joey. I did find a little history:
"The impact of Galileo's best-selling Sidereus Nuncius (1610) all across Europe was dramatic. Aristotle's cosmology had, for centuries, been standard fare in all the universities; it would take time to absorb this sudden reverse. Galileo was emboldened, however, to go one step further and to present his discoveries as validating the Copernican heliocentric world-system. This allowed his Aristotelian critics in Florence the opportunity to strike back: Aristotle's physics of motion still held good and it claimed to prove the immobility of the earth. More significantly, they could in addition invoke an already familiar theological argument: the Copernican theses were incompatible with Scripture. His Benedictine friend, Benedetto Castelli, reported a discussion at the table of Galileo's Medici patron, Cosimo II, where the dowager Duchess Christina seemed impressed by the theological case against the Copernican view." [Ernan McMullin, "The Galileo Affair." The Faraday Institute, April, 2009]
**********
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Of course, I have no idea if the Faraday Institute teaches beliefs consistent with Faraday's own or with traditional understandings, but I'd suspect their views are much closer to mine, properly understood, Danny boy, than to yours."
It appears that Michael Faraday's understanding of the scripture is consistent with mine, and the "modernizers" at the "Faraday" Institute are fairly consistent with yours (Deism.)
Robert
You wrote: You have to wear mental blinders to believe in the bizarre atheistic concept of “methodological naturalism,” as Lewontin revealed. Here he is again:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.” [Lewontin, Richard C., “Billions and Billions of Demons: Review of Sagan’s ‘The Demon Haunted World’.” New York Review of Books, 1997]”
Aha...I never read the above critiques but I can see I was on the right track in my critiques on the practice of modern science...that it is to be practiced by the “high falutin’s” with a certain “a priori bias” against the notion of any divine or nouminous influence or participation in the origin of the universe. All that is considered tautologous to the application of reason and logic must be deemed automatically false. Such assertions as the “High Falutin’s contend, using as example, a scientist expressing his faith in God, are to be scorned with various applications of mirthful, sarcastic hilarity, progressing thru to character assassinating sneers, and finally leading to angry and even nearly violent denunciations (followed by withdrawals of research grants and a general shunning by all major scientific organizations). Modern scientists in the main would view such a scientist as being tainted with tautological superstitions that must automatically be assumed to have colored his work making it invalid. I cry foul to such built in a-priori hypocrisy which has, in my view, tripped up modern science and left it like a cast sheep stuck in a depression on it’s back and unable to right itself.
Cheers brother!...Berean is Believin’!