237
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 70:
Line 70: + + + +
→Some claim that: new section
:: There is no ''Christians and Science'' article, but I'm happy for the first quote to be left out of this article, for now at least. The second quote did indeed state that the basis of science was an orderly universe. It did ''not'' say that this was proof of a Creator. You will note some discussion above about the multiplicity of science articles; I think that [[natural science]] should be merged back into this one. It has more on this issue of the basis of science. But the quote ''did'' talk about the basis of science: without the basis, derived from the Bible, of believing that the universe was orderly, science as we know it would not have come into existence.
:: There is no ''Christians and Science'' article, but I'm happy for the first quote to be left out of this article, for now at least. The second quote did indeed state that the basis of science was an orderly universe. It did ''not'' say that this was proof of a Creator. You will note some discussion above about the multiplicity of science articles; I think that [[natural science]] should be merged back into this one. It has more on this issue of the basis of science. But the quote ''did'' talk about the basis of science: without the basis, derived from the Bible, of believing that the universe was orderly, science as we know it would not have come into existence.
:: Also, although I agree that an article should not comprise only or primarily quotes, it is quite useful and appropriate to include quotes, and this one is worth including, I believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Also, although I agree that an article should not comprise only or primarily quotes, it is quite useful and appropriate to include quotes, and this one is worth including, I believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
== Some claim that ==
It is a claim that The methodological naturalism is based on God making laws that govern the universe and logic, this is not universal within Christian doctrine or unique to Christianity. The scientific method was practiced before and there aren't any documents by those individuals who started using the scientific method that lay out explicitly that they are doing so because they assume that God made the universe in a particular way. If you can provide some of these documents for verification my conditional edits will still be accurate, but unneeded, if not then it is still an unverified claim to "Some claim that this is because..." is far more accurate and trustworthy than "this is because...". 1 timothy 6:20 tells us to be weary of false knowledge, so far that claim is just a rumor, and we should treat it as such, rather than invest in it, because if it is wrong then it will lead us astray. If you have read Ecclesiastes then you should know that it is good in the eyes of the lord to be wise, and I think its clear that it is unwise to make a claim based on faith in a rumor and then claim that it is based on fact and evidence, as we claim that conservapedia is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)