nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Secular Science: Interpretation and worldviews
::::If you take into context that there are two ways to interpret the Bible, specifically Genesis, you don't have to reject the Bible to study the Big Bang. In addition, I would certainly hope that creation scientists also reject the Biblical information when they do their research/science before they conclude that the world was created (literally) as it says in the Bible. If they do not reject this assumption than how can any of their science be valid? I just think that the word secular in this case is unfair and it does not say to the general reader what you think it says.
::::If you take into context that there are two ways to interpret the Bible, specifically Genesis, you don't have to reject the Bible to study the Big Bang. In addition, I would certainly hope that creation scientists also reject the Biblical information when they do their research/science before they conclude that the world was created (literally) as it says in the Bible. If they do not reject this assumption than how can any of their science be valid? I just think that the word secular in this case is unfair and it does not say to the general reader what you think it says.
::::As for creation "science" I was specifically referencing calculating the date of the creation, as in this article. There are creation scientists, but they support the calculation of the age of the earth made by creation researchers. If this is not a correct interpretation of the date of creation then we need to fix the article to include this (I'm only as good as my data!)[[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::As for creation "science" I was specifically referencing calculating the date of the creation, as in this article. There are creation scientists, but they support the calculation of the age of the earth made by creation researchers. If this is not a correct interpretation of the date of creation then we need to fix the article to include this (I'm only as good as my data!)[[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: There are multiple ways to interpret any document, hypothetically, but a straightforward reading of the Bible (creation from the formation of the universe to the appearance of man took six days, plus the order of creation, including the Earth before the stars) in totally incompatible with the Big Bang scenario.
::::: Why should creation scientists reject what they and I would argue is the most reliable source of information? The Biblical worldview is what gave rise to science, so rejecting that amounts to rejecting the basis for science. But remember (I think I said it in on this page) that we are talking ''history'' here, not science, and although science can be a useful tool in studying history, it cannot prove the history for us. Therefore we all start with assumptions; the creationary assumption is that the Bible is an accurate history, and it's in that framework that creationary scientists do their science. Atheistic scientists start with the assumption of naturalism, and do their science within that framework.
::::: I find your explanation for putting quotes around "science" hard to accept. If you were using it just for "science" in this context, I'd understand, but that doesn't explain why you also put them around "scientists".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
== Failure to include information ==
== Failure to include information ==