Paul,
You raise some good points but the Bible doesn't have as bad a track record as some insist with regard to naturalism. Once, for instance, naturalists strongly held that the universe was eternal. It was the Biblical literalists who said there was a beginning.
Why do we think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Because the data obtained from experimentation and observation indicates such.
But science by nature is conditional and it can be taken almost axiomatically that new data will be found so hence there will be new interpretations.
One who holds the Bible to be the Word of God is not being foolish if he believes the data will one day synch with his view.
Where the line is crossed comes with "Planet of the Apes" situations i.e. data is hidden or destroyed because it calls into question a religious-based worldview.
That I will stand shoulder-to-shoulder in fighting.tribune7
September 10, 2009
September
09
Sep
10
10
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
"tribune7" wrote (#4): "Scientism is to science as cultism is to the worship of God."
Scientism is to science as Bibolotry is to the study of the Bible. Those who worship the Bible without understanding it or even knowing what is in it are worshipping the Bible as an idol.
Concepts such as Biblical inerrancy, Biblical literalism, Biblical supremacy or Biblical infallibility are examples of Bibolotry. Some religious fundamentalists even see Bibolotry as a sacrament, and when science disagrees with the Bible, they automatically dismiss science rather than admit the Bible might be wrong.PaulBurnett
September 10, 2009
September
09
Sep
10
10
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
just the term ‘Scientism’ bothers me.
Scientism is to science as cultism is to the worship of God.
Science is good but can be perverted in ways such as using its name to shut down thought and command evil acts.
Worshiping God is good but can be perverted in ways such as using His name to shut down thought and command evil acts.tribune7
September 10, 2009
September
09
Sep
10
10
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
I know its meant to be amusing, but its a bit unsettling at the same time, the general anti-science tone. The achievements of Science are a credit to the entire race, just the term 'Scientism' bothers me.Graham
September 9, 2009
September
09
Sep
9
09
2009
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
Let'em accumulate. Giv'em time. And these suckers will snap together.
I love the "snap together" hypothesis -- no need for an assembly mechanism or assembly instructions, and no concern about the likelihood of the "pre-adapted" (whatever that nonsensical and self-refuting term means in defense of anti-teleological Darwinian philosophy) components being functionally compatible.* Just put'em in a bag, shake'em up, and (wave the magic wand of "deep" time)complex information-processing machinery emerges.
Please help me! Why does anyone schooled and experienced in the hard sciences take this transparent idiocy seriously?
* My apologies for the Proust-like sentence. It seemed appropriate at the time.GilDodgen
September 9, 2009
September
09
Sep
9
09
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Haha, I am especially tickled over the Wired Science article of Tim23 coming about by pre-adaptation and the fitting comparison of that to the pieces of a puzzle snapping together.Clive Hayden