(1) <Science did backtrack on the importance of handwashing and quarantine, and I will insist they did that to exactly the manner described in the Bible. >

2) <OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Could you provide some documentation showing when science argued against handwashing and quarantine, but religion argued in favor of it, until science was forced to relent and accept the religious view?>

I don't like to, but I'm going to drop a link. I don't think there's anything there the average person can't follow. http://www.apologeticspress.org/art...;

Okay, I read your link. I saw no sign of a battle between religion and science. However, it is a very good example of the fallacious technique I described on March 10:

<
(1) Take a scientific theory developed by scientists.

(2) Hunt around in the holy book (Bible or Quran) looking for a passage that by coincidence can be contrived (with the help of specious interpretation and commentary) to *appear* supportive of that scientific theory.

(3) Write about how amazing it is that holy book 'predicted' the scientific theory. >

<<YouRang: Or maybe you think creationists are to be thanked for correcting the mistakes (to the chagrin of scientists)?>

No, but the Creationists were quick to predict the inevitable backtracking.>

But you ignore the fact that creationists *always* predict that scientists will backtrack regarding evolution. :-)

<OhioChessFan> In our little debate regarding religion vs. science, you have frequently brought up this analogy involving foolish scientists who refuse to listen to the testimony of 100 eyewitnesses. So I asked:

<You are still bringing up the issues of history and eyewitness testimony. In what way do these issues support the idea of "young universe"? Or how does these issues disprove evolution?> and <If you have 100 eyewitnesses who shed light on cosmology or evolution, please present them.>

You had so far managed to avoid "bizarro logic" until you uncorked this reply:

<OhioChessFan: ...The same group of witnesses who testify to the young earth testify to the resurrection of Jesus.>

I think you have enough acumen in matters of logic to know that this argument is fallacious on several counts.

First of all, I doubt that you can present a witness who testified to the resurrection who also clearly testifies to the young universe hypothesis.

Secondly, even if you could present such a witness, it wouldn't matter, unless you're seriously going to argue that being an eyewitness to the resurrection somehow makes one an eyewitness to the creation!

Thirdly, even if you insist that an eyewitness to the resurrection is a credible witness to creation, it wouldn't matter because science does not rely on human testimony. Human testimony can be unreliable for many reasons. In fact, science is valuable because the testimony it provides is *independent* of human testimony.

I can't tell you what to do, but I think you could preserve credibility by simply admitting the obvious truth that there are NO eyewitnesses to speak about cosmology or evolution, and that this contrived analogy has nothing to do with the realities of the religion vs. science debate.

"Why are you reading that book, he asked, It's not going to do you any good"

"Maybe", the native replied, "but it's doing you some good."

"How is it doing me any good"?, the man asked, bewildered.

Quoting OCF <<Science did backtrack on the importance of handwashing and quarantine, and I will insist they did that to exactly the manner described in the Bible. >

<YouRang: But there was no debate between religion and science regarding handwashing or quarantine. You inserted the words "science did backtrack", but there was no "backtracking" at all, let alone backtracking due to religious persuasion. Science simply made a discovery and moved forward, which is business as usual.>

First of all, I doubt that you can present a witness who testified to the resurrection who also clearly testifies to the young universe hypothesis. >

John 1:1-3, speaking of Jesus at the Creation:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Luke 24:45-46 Jesus speaking:
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

The witness Jesus seems to satisfy your challenge.

<Secondly, even if you could present such a witness, it wouldn't matter, unless you're seriously going to argue that being an eyewitness to the resurrection somehow makes one an eyewitness to the creation!>

Right, that would fall in the realm of history and such. So you agree with the CSI team who reject 100 eyewitnesses for the sake of the Science that posits a 51% chance of guilt for one suspect, while ignoring 100 eyewitnesses who affirm it was the 49% suspect?

<Human testimony can be unreliable for many reasons. In fact, science is valuable because the testimony it provides is *independent* of human testimony. >

And it is limited for the very same reason. It is fine that historical truth is outside the realm of science. It is not fine to suggest that historical truth must always bow down at the altar of science.

<I can't tell you what to do, but I think you could preserve credibility by simply admitting the obvious truth that there are NO eyewitnesses to speak about cosmology or evolution, and that this contrived analogy has nothing to do with the realities of the religion vs. science debate.>

<OhioChessFan: ...The same group of witnesses who testify to the young earth testify to the resurrection of Jesus.>

But somehow we in the "West" seems so occcupied about trying to prove something.Simular to chessenthusiasts who dont play very much,but like to spend the time about wondering who is/was the strongest player of all times.

There are many beautifull exercises out there,easy to acces and grasp and practize were one can come in contact with something which easily could be called divine.

The proof lies in the experience(practize) and not in a lot of words. Actually it is the other way round.

<-- <I think most [scientists] would rather parade around naked on Times Square than admit the possibility of [miraculous]<<<Historical>>> Creation as recorded in the Bible.>>

You added the word "historical", but that doesn't remove the miraculous aspect, which alone gives science proper cause to remove it from consideration.

But even in terms of historical value, it is an unconformable and ambiguous account given by someone who wasn't there. It's believability is a matter of religious faith, not science, and not history.

~~~~~

Past track record of Religion vs. science

<I did not say they did backtracked because of what the Bible said. I did not say they backtracked because of religious persuasion. I did not say the matter was debated. I did say they backtracked to exactly what the Bible does say.>

You are welcome to make that case.

<Right, that would fall in the realm of history and such. So you agree with the CSI team who reject 100 eyewitnesses for the sake of the Science that posits a 51% chance of guilt for one suspect, while ignoring 100 eyewitnesses who affirm it was the 49% suspect? >

There he goes again! ;-)

By repeatedly bringing up this analogy, you ignore that we are in the context of natural science, not a legal proceeding. You ignore that there are no eyewitnesses in reality.

<Jesus is a witness to cosmology. I have no reason to back down an inch.>

Again, this is a matter of religious faith, totally outside the bounds of natural science (and natural history for that matter). But even if we put that aside, does Jesus really testify to the young earth idea? You offered this:

<John 1:1-3, speaking of Jesus at the Creation: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. >

And lets also put aside the fact that this is John (not Jesus) speaking. This verse speaks of creation, but not "young earth". There are lots of people who believe God created, but reject the young earth idea. This verse says nothing to dissuade their view.

<<YouRang: Human testimony can be unreliable for many reasons. In fact, science is valuable because the testimony it provides is *independent* of human testimony. >

OCF: And it is limited for the very same reason. It is fine that historical truth is outside the realm of science. It is not fine to suggest that historical truth must always bow down at the altar of science.>

Okay, let's dissect your comment:

<And it is limited for the very same reason>

No. I'm sure you understand that there are at times multiple *independent* methods of seeking the same truth -- for example, scientific evidence and eyewitness evidence. If these two independent methods agree, it makes for a very strong case. But if one of the methods (say science) was made dependent on the other (i.e. history), it would actually weaken the case.

<It is fine that historical truth is outside the realm of science. It is not fine to suggest that historical truth must always bow down at the altar of science.>

First of all, you throw around the term "historical truth" as if it's something that we already possess. You believe we possess it because your standard for determining "historical truth" is quite easy: "If the Bible says it, the simple interpretation of it must be true."

But this standard by which you accept historical truth, is not the standard used in either the field of science or the field of history. The fields of science and history are both honorable efforts to seek truth through hard work and research.

You frequently try to frame the discussion as if science is in conflict with history. There is no conflict -- there are cases where both fields do address the same issue, and in such cases, one field might make use of the information that the other field has to offer.

You see conflict only because you make these errors:

(1) You assume that the field of history has fully accepted your preferred religious text (the Bible) as a matter of historical record. Experts in the field of history would strongly disagree with your assumption.

Alleluia.
See, the eyes of the LORD are upon those who fear him, upon those who hope for his kindness,
To deliver them from death
and preserve them in spite of famine.
The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.

I am certain the majority of professional historians wouldn't accept the Bible as a totally accurate history book. I am somewhat limited by terminology though, so I am using "history" as the best/closest discipline. I could try "hermeneutics" but that's not quite what is under discussion.

<(2) You ignore the distinction between the accuracy of written historical accounts and the *truthfulness* of those written accounts. The field of history make a strong distinction there, and it recognizes many accurate written accounts for which the truthfulness is in doubt. Historians are under no compulsion to accept the truthfulness of the Bible, even if they were to accept its accuracy. >