Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sloppy, lazy and dishonest: A review of Science and Faith: Friends or Foes by John Collins
Journal of Creation ^ | Andrew Kulikovsky

Posted on 04/24/2009 8:23:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Sloppy, lazy and dishonest

A review of Science and Faith: Friends or Foes by John Collins

Review by Andrew Kulikovsky

--snip--

Collins simply allows ‘science’ to trump faith in virtually all instances. The real conflict is between those—like Collins—who hold to, or unquestioningly accept—the truth claims of a naturalistic worldview and its attendant empiricism and logical positivism, and those who hold to a supernatural view with God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; intelligentdesign; science

1 posted on 04/24/2009 8:23:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 04/24/2009 8:23:55 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The two men most responsible for the new geology were James Hutton and Charles Lyell and both were deists

Ergo, they were not naturalistic. Ergo, the author's "point" (such as it is) it utterly irrelevant.

3 posted on 04/24/2009 8:26:05 AM PDT by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“The real conflict is between those—like Collins—who hold to, or unquestioningly accept—the truth claims of a naturalistic worldview and its attendant empiricism and logical positivism, and those who hold to a supernatural view with God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe...”

No, the real conflict is between those who create false dichotomies, and those who don’t.


4 posted on 04/24/2009 8:27:11 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Of course reason trumps faith in science...that’s why it works.


5 posted on 04/24/2009 8:34:02 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814 (One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word. -- R A Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


6 posted on 04/24/2009 8:39:30 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Collins simply allows ‘science’ to trump faith in virtually all instances. The real conflict is between those—like Collins—who hold to, or unquestioningly accept—the truth claims of a naturalistic worldview and its attendant empiricism and logical positivism, and those who hold to a supernatural view with God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe...

This is what's known as begging the question.

7 posted on 04/24/2009 8:41:26 AM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Be prepared for tough times. FReepmail me to learn about our survival thread!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The real conflict is between those—like Collins—who hold to, or unquestioningly accept—the truth claims of a naturalistic worldview and its attendant empiricism and logical positivism

How can something be called "empirical" if it can't be observed?

And how can it make "truth claims" if, by its own methodological claims, it cannot know for sure that the next piece of evidence won't upset the whole apple cart?

8 posted on 04/24/2009 9:16:22 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Third Parties are for the weak, fearful, and ineffectual among us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"... unquestioningly accept—the truth claims of a naturalistic worldview and its attendant empiricism ..."

Oops, philosophical naturalism is not empirical.

It rests on the fallacy of equivocation for equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism.

"Collins simply allows ‘science’ to trump faith in virtually all instances."

As an 'a priori' philosophical belief.

"Sloppy, lazy and dishonest"

Yes, they should know better...

9 posted on 04/24/2009 9:33:00 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Good point. It is a religious committment, there is nothing emprical about it!


10 posted on 04/24/2009 9:59:35 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Kind of interesting, isn't it? Philosophical/religious naturalism demands empiricism, except when it comes to a justification for philosophical/religious naturalism. How convenient!
11 posted on 04/24/2009 10:03:39 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson