Replies

Science is far from infallible ...

No one claims that science is infallible. Science is constantly looking for new evidence, and revising old theories. If you're arguing against infallability, you're arguing against something that isn't there.
They treat each statement as if it is a statement of truth. They treat their presuppositions as if they are infallible, and then belittle those who show that they aren't. If I picked up a book 40 years ago, it would say the earth is 3.5 billion years old. It wouldn't say "scientists believe that it is 3.5 billion years old." It would claim it as incontrovertable truth, just as it does the 4.6 billion years today. It assumes uniformity and excludes both the suggestion that maybe conditions were not always the same as they are today and we can't even consider a supernatural explanation for things.

... and Darwinistic science has no foundation for answers about life (not the biological mechanisms, the rest of life)because it has no foundation for such having thrown out the supernatural.

Darwin never set out to write a book of morality. He wanted to explain the way species develop over time. Nor did he throw out the supernatural. No more than other sciences do when they explain natural phenomena that had been previously believed to be divinely caused: disease, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, comets, lighting, the power of the sun, etc.
Darwin took two books with him on the Beagle. The Bible, and Charles' Lyell. His mother was a unitarian, a religious group that is arguably not Christian as they deny Christian essentials, and Darwin was a failed seminarian who admitted to having lost his faith at 40. No theory comes forward in a vacuum. People's experiences, presuppositions, and biases all shape how they look at things. Darwin sought to explain world without God then superficially added a few "The Creator" phrases to make it more palatable to an 19th century audience. He was not a Christian and the theory he proposed did not honor the creator of anything. Chance mutation is all we are, and that is diametrically opposed to the Word of God.

The TRUTH belongs to God, and all truth is His truth.

Yes, now we're back to my original question. If a scientific observation clearly conflicts with scripture, how do you decide what to believe? This is exactly the problem presented to the Christian world when Galileo discovered evidence for the solar system, which was believed to contradict several passages of scripture. The church forced Galileo to confess heresy, they banned his book, and they confined him to house arrest for the last seven years of his life.

Galileo taught things which contradicted not the Bible but church teaching. This is where he ran into trouble. There is no conflict between Scripture and true Science. The Bible was not meant to be a science book, and the Catholic church was dead wrong in what they did with Galileo. Castigating Christians (many of whom aren't even Catholics)today for something that happened to Galileo 400 years ago is the ultimate of a straw man tactic (which I have so often been accused of building).

Do you reject the solar system? If not, why not?
Hardly. I do reject the age placed on the Universe (which seems to vary between 12 and 20 billion years -a 40% difference if I'm dividing right, yet almost always is viewed in absolute terms "The universe is X billion years old).

As for believing in the solar system, I can see it and Scripture attests to it (including more stars than can be numbered).

It [allegedly "infallible" science] assumes uniformity and excludes both the suggestion that maybe conditions were not always the same as they are today and we can't even consider a supernatural explanation for things.

Perhaps you're not aware that science deals only with what can be seen, measured, and tested. If you can figure out a way to do scientific research into the supernatural, which by definition is beyond such methods, please reveal the technique.

No theory comes forward in a vacuum. People's experiences, presuppositions, and biases all shape how they look at things.

That is why scientific observations and tests are reviewed by other labs, to filter out the biases of some individual. Often, results are studied and confirmed by people halfway around the world. There is no reason why scientists in America, India, Japan, and Israel will all come out with the same results unless there's more to the story than the biased outlook of some flawed individual.

Darwin sought to explain world without God then superficially added a few "The Creator" phrases to make it more palatable to an 19th century audience. He was not a Christian and the theory he proposed did not honor the creator of anything.

I don't think you have any evidence that demonstrates such was his purpose. But even if it were, none of that affects the scientific value of the theory itself. It's either good science or it's not. Is Evolution Science?.

Chance mutation is all we are, and that is diametrically opposed to the Word of God.

The solar system is also opposed to the Word of God. There are probably more geocentric passages in scripture than there are which conflict with evolution. But that doesn't bother you. I still don't know why.

Galileo taught things which contradicted not the Bible but church teaching. This is where he ran into trouble. There is no conflict between Scripture and true Science.

Sorry. Actual scriptural passages were presented at Galileo's trial. There's no getting around it; the bible is a geocentric book. I can give you a list of several such passages, but I assume you're already familiar with them. The churchmen who prosecuted Galileo were quite well informed about their scripture.

The Bible was not meant to be a science book, and the Catholic church was dead wrong in what they did with Galileo.

I agree. The Bible was not meant to be a science book. And the Catholic church has recently admitted their error regarding Galileo. He was pardened. Alas, it was about 360 years after the event, but they faced up to the error.

Castigating Christians (many of whom aren't even Catholics)today for something that happened to Galileo 400 years ago is the ultimate of a straw man tactic (which I have so often been accused of building).

I'm definitely not castigating Christians because of Galileo. What I'm trying to suggest is that the struggle you are waging (for the literal interpretation of scripture) is a battle what was waged -- and lost -- nearly 400 years ago. If you can accept the solar system, you can also accept evolution. The Roman Catholic church has learned from its past errors, and now accepts both.

It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.
Pope John Paul II
MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION
22 October 1996

The source of the above is available for you to check for yourself: The Pope's 1996 Message on Evolution. I praise them for their enlightened attitude. That is not castigation.

As for believing in the solar system, I can see it and Scripture attests to it (including more stars than can be numbered).

Sorry. The solar system is nowhere to be found in scripture. As I said, the Bible is clearly a geocentric book. If you want some passages which illustrate this, just ask.