Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Oh, Bob, you are just sweet

Bob Ellis sounds off this week in the RCJ with warm fuzzies for the Black Hills Institute for Creation Science. Bob sez:
Creationists aren’t anti-science as some claim, but they do reject the doctrine of naturalism which contends that all things in the universe came about solely by the “natural” laws we are able to observe, denying the possibility of any supernatural influence.
Thank you for printing this siliness, RCJ. Way to get us points with all those high-level physicists that are thinking about moving to the Black Hills to work on our nifty science lab. What a great place to raise your kids so they will learn from their neighbors how wrong science is about everything.

Bob, you're showing your extreme ignorance again. A scientist that doesn't start his inquiry from Biblical "facts" isn't a "naturalist." A scientist that DOES start his hypotheses from the Bible, is simply a very bad scientist, in that he doesn't understand what the basis and goals of science is. "Naturalism" is a philosophical idea. Science is about making *repeatable* observations, and thinking up new ideas and testing them with inquiry until they fail so you can think up better ideas.

Naturalism is a philosophical idea, not science. Science does not study the supernatural world or even concerns it self with ideas like naturalism, or any other isms.
If these Christians are as I was until about 10 years ago, they may not have considered these contradictions.
I guess I'm one of these Christians. I'm flattered.

We wonder, what happened to you in 1997, Bob? A crisis of faith? A chemical imbalance caused by Clintonism? A bad bike accident? Inquiring minds want to know!

2 comments:

  1. In 1997, I woke up to the fact that I'd been seriously ignorant about the contradictions between the Bible and naturalist theory that is passed off as "science." That meant that I could believe the Bible,or what is being passed off as science, but not both. Might have been a "crisis of faith," except for the fact that there are a multitude of theories that are scientifically plausible that still harmonize with the biblical account of creation. If you believe in God at all, it's not a stretch to believe the things He says about Himself and His acts in the Bible.

    I encourage you to check them out. It could be quite a revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...there are a multitude of theories that are scientifically plausible that still harmonize with the biblical account of creation.

    Depends on what you mean by "harmonize." A lot.

    True, science presents a big challenge to ancient and medieval ideas about philosophy and spirituality.

    I'm pretty sure the reason you and others choose to reject the wonderful things we've learned about the universe is because of an elephant in the room: the Copernican theory's logical conclusion that our planet and our species aren't the most important thing in the universe, merely an extremely wonderful example and lesson of God's creative imagination.

    As I'm sure my dear Mom would have said, if the universe seems indifferent maybe it's because, just perhaps, it's not all about you.

    That's the crux of all this, really. The facts require a huge paradigm shift when reading the Bible and still accept it as the Word of God, (not the Words of God) which I do.

    Galileo was immediately bludgeoned with Scriptural literalists in the 17th century, and even today many people of faith on the defensive, 500 years later.

    Truly, it's really unfortunate you and other friends of "creation science" are missing out on the wonder and excitement of it all, both from a scientific *and* spiritual point of view.

    I can accept that the Enlightenment is a long process and will not happen overnight -- or even in 500 years. It continues to bear wonderful fruit however. I am pretty thrilled to live in the age of antibiotics and vaccines, among other things. The benefits will continue to fuel its progress.

    Just don't cross the line of trying to teach children to reject out-of-hand, or, worse, attempting to hide the facts from them. That's where I draw the line.

    ReplyDelete