(2) science does not depend on historical written accounts because such accounts can be unreliable for several reasons. And besides that, its a moot point because there are no eyewitnesses to testify about the issues of cosmology or evolution.>

<Apr 8, 2010

whatthefat: This shows a colossal misunderstanding of what science is about. The purpose of any scientific theory is to confer some explanatory value. The concept of God yields no additional insight into the laws of nature.>

<Apr 8, 2010

YouRang: Beyond this, you think it is reasonable that scientists should not reject it even though it describes miracles, and science does not accept miracles.>

<Apr 8, 2010

whatthefat: Science is a matter of building theories that explain the phenomena observed in nature. Miracles provide no additional explanatory value, hence they cannot even be considered a subject of scientific interest. <YouRang> has already explained this in painstaking detail.>

<Apr 9, 2010

YouRang: My point is -- and please grasp the distiction -- that the *Field of Science* rejects miraculous explanations. They reject miraculous explanations because they are seeking only natural explanations. In some cases, YOU don't want them to find natural explanations, and you get offended when they do!

As I've explained over and over, science by necessity rejects miracles because accepting them is to admit that there is no natural way to understand it. When science makes that admission, then it stops making progress.>

<Apr 11, 2010

YouRang: Science does not assume a miracle, it assumes only that there must be some *natural* explanation for it. YOU are the one who has a problem with this assumption by science.

And I don't think you lack the ability to understand any of this. You only lack the will.>

<Apr 13, 2010

YouRang: But if you are a scientist, then you are *by profession* searching for a natural explanation for life. This search presupposes that a natural explanation exists.>

<BTW, I realize that technically, the idea of "inerrancy" states that the *original* writings of scripture were inerrant. Of course, we don't have those originals, we only have what copyists gave us, which makes inerrancy a moot point. However, many Christians today ignore the "mootness".>

Does this answer some of the questions that you directed to me?

I don't see where it offers any fresh perspective from which we haven't already beaten the daylights out, but it did have some amusement value.

My favorite part was this:

<Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation science’s lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, <<but false>>, definition that true science entails only “natural explanations.”>

Q: To what great authority does the author appeal in order support this claim, which strikes at the very definition of science?

A: Evidently himself. And who is he?

<Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament.>

I suppose I might be called an "elitist" for not being impressed with his credentials as an authority on any matter of science. But if you're going to appeal to authority, credentials are important.

The series is called <Out With Doubt>.

I'm not going to discuss his videos, but his title raises what is IMO an important general difference in the way scientists and religionists think regarding <doubt>.

~~ TO SCIENTISTS, doubt is a Good Thing. In their way of thinking, doubt is the engine that drives inquiry. It is an acknowledgment that we do not have perfect understanding. Yes, scientists seek to remove doubt, but not with the idea of eradicating doubt. Rather, they progress from one set of doubts to the next as a consequence of pursuing a better understanding of nature.

For scientists, seeking truth is hard work. They are swimming forward in a sea of doubt, and there is no finish line.

But the reward for their efforts is an advancement toward the truth about nature, and this advancement is evidenced by the astonishing success by which science has benefited mankind.

~~ TO RELIGIONISTS, doubt is a Bad Thing. In their way of thinking, doubt is removed by faith, and faith is giving full acceptance to their doctrine as Truth, despite the fact that much of it is unconfirmable. Faith like the bumper sticker, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it", is strong faith. If one has doubt, it is a sign of weak faith, a serious problem for which one should seek counsel.

For religionists, seeking truth is easy. It is achieved by declaring their doctrine to be true, and thus doubt to be gone. When it comes to knowing truth, they're already at the finish line.

It amounts to a deliberate resistance to understand, but it's interesting to consider why the resistance is there.

I think that it's much like denial.

<True, science doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God.>

Strawman. I never hinted as much.

<My point is -- and please grasp the distiction -- that the *Field of Science* rejects miraculous explanations. >

Strawman. I never hinted as much.

<Science does not assume a miracle, it assumes only that there must be some *natural* explanation for it. YOU are the one who has a problem with this assumption by science. >

Let's put that claim to the test. Here's what Michael Majerus said at the 2004 Darwin Day Lecture: "Darwinian evolution is fact. And as the great Russian/American geneticist, Theodore Dobzhansky famously said, ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’"

Again, to the test. Richard Dawkins:
"Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science."

Now, that is a far cry from claiming science should not/can not etc consider the existence of miracles. In fact, it's an outrageous claim. It's a claim of fact, eyewitness testimony to the contrary. How has the world of science reacted to Dawkins? Here's a list of those oh so unbiased Scientists who'd never take sides and would always have a bit of doubt who have showered Dawkins with various awards:

He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University,[143] the University of Hull, and the University of Antwerp, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen,[144] Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel[15], and the University of Valencia. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society. In 1987, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode The Blind Watchmaker.[15]

<...suggesting "some Christians" ... were wrong to believe in the infallibility of the Bible because (And I lose the logic at this point) even though they admit there are some discovered errors (which renders the Bible not infallible in your eyes)>

The fact that the Bible has errors makes it not infallible in my eyes. I'm sorry that you lost the logic of this. Perhaps you think that the Bible becomes infallible by virtue of *admitting* that it has errors. I don't.

<there might also be undiscovered errors (which is moot in your eyes since the discovereds already take care of it).>

No, I said it was a moot point to argue that the *original* documents were infallible -- because the originals are gone.

It (descent with modification) is an observed phenomenon. Thus, it is a fact.

< And as the great Russian/American geneticist, Theodore Dobzhansky famously said, ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’">

He is satisfied that the theory of evolution explains observed facts of biology in a way that makes sense, and that no other natural explanation seems that work as well.

<Does that sound like "doubt" to you?>

Not really, but did you actually read my post, or just grab this one line?

I didn't claim that every theory must perpetually remain in such a state of doubt that scientists are obliged to speak of that doubt whenever they refer to that theory. As scientists make progress, the degree of doubt is reduced.

I did say: <...they [scientists] progress from one set of doubts to the next as a consequence of pursuing a better understanding of nature.>

That is, a once-uncertain hypothesis may become the dominant theory. After that theory is confirmed again and again over time (i.e. making successful predictions and surviving falsification opportunities), any remaining doubt will shrink to the point where they can feel justified in moving forward. There is always *some* room for doubt because one can never rule out the possibility that a new observations will one day contradict the theory.

Zimansky points out that Genesis identifies the mountains of Urartu (a.k.a. Ararat) as the landing zone for the ark, but not a specific peak. Over the centuries, 16,946-foot Mount Ararat and the nearby boat-shaped Durupinar rock formation have emerged as the favored locales for ark-hunters. (Others, meanwhile, have looked for evidence of an ancient flood in Turkey's Black Sea region or Iran.)

It seems as if evidence of the ark pops up at least every couple of years - and not always in the same place. The latest report appears to follow up on a 2007 expedition that came upon a wooden structure "in the interiors of an unusual cave" at the 14,700-foot level of Ararat's slopes,.

That expedition was organized by Hong Kong-based Noah's Ark Ministries International, the group that is also behind the fresh reports appearing this week. Leaders of the Chinese-Turkish expedition said wooden specimens recovered from the structure on Ararat had been carbon-dated to yield an age of 4,800 years.

They said several compartments had been found, some with wooden beams, and suggested that the compartments were used to house animals. Because the evidence of habitation in that area is scant, Noah's Ark Ministries International said the best explanation for the artifacts' existence was ... you guessed it.

What, you didn't believe me when I answered you earlier regarding severity? That copyist errors result in non-infallibility is one matter; the severity of those errors is another matter.

Shall we look at a couple posts where I discussed undetected errors?

I first brought it up here, OhioChessFan chessforum in a response to <playground player>. Please read it...

I think my point was pretty clear: The issue of undetected copyist errors means that one cannot simply ignore the known errors and say what remains in inerrant. Thus, undetected errors make the problem of copyist errors more severe.

I discussed it again here (again to <playground player>): OhioChessFan chessforum. Please read it...

I think my point was pretty clear again: One can't rightfully claim that 'most' copyist errors have been detected when we don't know how many are undetected. Thus, undetected errors again make the problem of copyist errors more severe.