Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:50pm PT
|
Newton sounded "ridiculous" in his day, it didn't mean he was wrong.
Actually, he WAS wrong. If Einstein was correct (still an open question, btw), then Newton was WRONG! The fact the Newtonian Mechanics can still be USED (again that pesky pragmatism vs. truth thingy) in a more or less crude fashion does not mean that he was CORRECT! On every substantive point, the Einsteinian universe does not resemble the Newtonian universe.
The problem with scientists is that they continually conflate "it works so far" with "it is true."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:50pm PT
|
He is on point to ask for a defintion of "to understand."
Not so, as I argued. Red herring.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:51pm PT
|
"Perfect" is a theory. One that has yet to be seen.
NOT TRUE
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:52pm PT
|
The appropriate audience of Madbolter1: go-b and company.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:53pm PT
|
Science really does not make any “claims”.
False. Science makes a litany of claims. Because these claims are implications of theories makes them no less claims.
Here's a claim: "The universe is really ten-dimensional."
Here's a claim: "The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old."
The list of claims goes on and on. When we ask why we should believe ANY of them, people like you point back to the theories and the "predictive" method.
HOW you derive your claims is another question. But don't deny that there are claims!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 03:02pm PT
|
So far at least, the predictive power has been nil.
The fact that Bible believers have often been idiotic, making claims and predictions far beyond what the Bible itself entitles them to, does not mean that the Bible is garbage. Just as scientist often cringe at the "popular accounts" of their work appearing in magazines and on TV, I often cringe at the sorts of "accounts" of the Bible I hear from well-meaning but superficial Christians. Because the Discovery Channel portrays things incorrectly, does that mean that the underlying science is bogus?
And the "predictive power" you're asking from the Bible was never its intent. You ask the Bible to play like science, and I don't agree that it can/should be evaluated this way.
Now let me hasten to say that I am appalled by the current mainstream Christian thinking that is touting "creation science" to be taught in schools, etc. I guess I'm not a "mainstream Christian" (well, I knew that, since I'm a Sabbath-keeper), but here is just another point at which I diverge wildly from the mainstream thinking. I think that Christians trying to make the Bible do science are hugely mistaken for many reasons (beyond the scope of what can properly be discussed on a forum thread)!
So, perhaps the problem is that, understandably, anti-Christians are reacting to the mainstream Christian efforts to teach the Bible in science classrooms, as though the Bible was also acting like some kind of meta-theory that can make scientific predictions.
Regarding other sorts of "predictive power" it has, to that I can attest, although you would understandably call the "hits" subjective and unverifiable. No problem. As I said, it's not science. But that fact does not make the Bible false. Scientism (with its associated empiricism/materialism) is but one world view, and it is arguably an incorrect one. But that's another huge topic.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!