Tuesday, April 10, 2007

FURIOUSnads...Good points. Would you mind checking this out?

Furiousnads said:
Irrelevant. Let's try this one more time: Science isn't merely about competing "points of view" -- it's about the best current theories, arrived at scientifically, to explain the world around us.

Interesting, your understanding of science. You say that you don't know whether or not the information that was presented was accurate, yet you do make a claim about what science is. Ideally, science would just be about the best current theories. However, there are many theories that are a matter of "point of view." For example, did birds evolve from the trees down, or the ground up? Truly, they work with the same evidence. What about the origin of man, as far as location? Is there no disagreement about where, exactly, man originated? Or the hominid predecessors of man? Are all scientists in agreement as to which order to place the various specimens? Yet, all of those are considered scientific theories. Indeed, many scientific theories DO have to do with a person's presuppositions, pride, or "point of view."

Also, science is founded on scientific inquiry: observations/gather data, hypothesis, test hypothesis, record data, draw conclusions. Where is it stated that science must only come from a naturalistic worldview? If I understand what you are suggesting, that science done by creationists may be valid, but it should not be taught in public schools because of the presuppositions of creationists...why does it seem you invalidate the introducing of science done by creationists simply because of their worldview? If their worldview is not taught (which, if you examine Helphinstine's material, you will see that creationism was NOT taught...or perhaps there is a misunderstanding as to what creationism is on your part???) why is their science not valid to teach? I agree that it may be available from other sources, but that is beside the point. If Helphinstine had referenced material by Richard Dawkins, the students may have looked him up and discovered that he is an agnostic, at most. They might have been influenced to explore agnosticism. Or John Dewey (Dewey decimal system, used in our school libraries). He helped pen on of the Humanist Manifestos. Secular Humanism is categorized as a religion by the Supreme Court. To what extent should we go to sterilize our school from anything but atheism, because that seems what you are suggesting? Should we remove teaching from our schools by minds such as Pascal, Pasteur, Newton, Boyle...and other scientists who had a creationist/Christian worldview?

Also, I asked if you had read the letter from the students at Sisters...not all the rest. But in their letter, they emphasized what Helphinstine had also said...creationism was not taught. That was the point. Your other points were interesting, though!

The point about Helphinstine's history paper was that it could be possible, just maybe, that he actually had done some hard research and knew what he was talking about. Has it occurred to the cyber-sleuths that did the PowerPoint research (which I tip my hat to their passion!) that Helphinstine might have actually gone to a library and cited an actual book? Do you think that may be why only a few slides can be "traced" back to creationist websites? But again, that wasn't your point, was it? The fact that he may have acquired information from....CREATIONISTS...just proves he was trying to proselytize. Or, maybe, he is open minded enough to utilize a variety of sources without prejudice, as people of many different worldviews can present accurate information. Anyhow, I am not trying to be a punk, so if I come off punk-ish, that is not my intention. I just think there are a lot of questions to ask, and the bottom line is, unless you know Helphinstine, his character, and were actively involved in the issue, you can speculate all we want and believe what you want about the issue. As for me, I have the first two (I know him and his character), and because of my close relationship with him, I actually saw all the information he presented, as well as his lesson plans. Sooo...
Thanks for reading. I'm enjoying our (different blog) dialogue!
Emalman

7 comments:

Brian Moon said...

Where is it stated that science must only come from a naturalistic worldview?

A non-naturalistic, or supernaturalistic, worldview is not scientific because it would be grounded in the assumption that the universe is not comprehensible to us.

Kris and Catherine said...

Brian Moon:

If I understand correctly, you assume that God in incomprehensible, and because He created the universe, then it must
be incomprehensible. On this point I would completely disagree. If you read the first chapter of the book of Romans in the Bible, it speaks to this:

Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Some great scientists (Boyle, Galileo, Pasteur) in history were creationists. Some great scientists now are creationists:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
In fact, being a creationist myself, I assume that the universe was created so that it can be understood by a rational man, because it was created by a just, loving, creative, sovereign, and certainly rational, God.

The other thing I can think you might have meant was the universe would be incomprehensible because of miracles...? But a good definition of a miracle would be supernatural intervention into the natural world. Now, why would a miracle be abnormal if the universe were incomprehensible (in the sense that it can't be understood)? A miracle wouldn't be a "miracle" if the entire universe was incomprehensible...it would be full of miracles, or incomprehensibilities. For example, resurrection from the dead. If people were randomly resurrected from the dead, then it wouldn't be a miracle. We wouldn't comprehend it, though, as it would be random and incomprehensible to us. Why would some be resurrected and some not? But rather, the miracle of Christ's resurrection has a reason:

Rom 1:4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord

The purpose for the miracle of Christ's resurrection was to demonstrate that He was the Son of God.

Another point about comprehending God: The Bible. Here God reveals what he sovereignly chose to reveal about his nature and attributes. Of course, the presupposition I am making is that the Bible is accurate and inspired by God. If you have questions about that, I would be happy to answer them.

Anyhow, please clarify if I misunderstood your statement.

The only other thing you might be

Brian Moon said...

Yes, you misunderstood.

Any or all of these things would render the universe (by which I mean everything that exists) to be beyond human comprehension:

Miracles, God, the supernatural, dualism, etc.

They are all examples of belief in violations of cause-and-effect, or belief in events or things that are, not just "not yet measured" but beyond the ability to be measured or observed.

Kris and Catherine said...

Brian,
You said: They are all examples of belief in violations of cause-and-effect, or belief in events or things that are, not just "not yet measured" but beyond the ability to be measured or observed.

Please explain why supernatural events would make the universe unexplainable. Why would one miracle, or many miracles, make the entire universe unexplainable? I understand how a miracle may be unexplainable, but how does that transfer to the entire universe?

Also, miracles are certainly observable and explainable. The miracles documented in the Bible were observed. The prophecies concerning Christ (which included miracles such as a virgin birth, resurrection) were explained (the why was given...the how was also given, in that they were performed by the power of God). In fact, prophecy itself is a miracle (knowing happenings before they occur). Please explain how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God would cause the entire universe to be unexplainable. I understand your statement, but please elaborate on your explanation. I am looking forward to your response.
Emalman

Kris and Catherine said...

Brian,
One other thing. Cause and effect. God caused something to happen for His sovereign purpose (and His Why? is recorded in the Bible). The effect is that thing took place (or will take place). How does this violate the "Cause and effect" law?
Thanks,
Emalman

Brian Moon said...

No, thank you.

I am done.

Kris and Catherine said...

Thanks for the comments.

Future commentators: please be prepared to give reasonable justification for your claims. I am excited to have open, honest, and reasonable dialogue. Please be ready to give a defense of statements or assertions of "fact" that you make, as my intent is to make this a "thinkers" blog.

Thanks,
Emalman