Changes

    

    

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.  

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.  

In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god  –however  larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased  system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god  –however  larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased  system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large)  never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree

 

a) scientists (at large)  never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree

b) scientists  in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t  understand what’s in front of them

b) scientists  in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t  understand what’s in front of them

c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true

c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true

- I doubt  A,B and C.  

- I doubt  A,B and C.  

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3:  by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).  

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3:  by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).