
Many scientists believe that science can only be carried out if you begin with nothing and then try to discover (interestingly, this is not a scientific position, but a philosophical one and not verifiable by science). If you begin with nothing, how then can you determine that anything within the cosmos is knowable or discernible? Again, their naturalistic position founders at the beginning because it is based largely upon philosophical positions and not "scientific" ones.
Another starting point for many scientists is that all of the natural universe must behave

What's wrong with that position? If at the outset of a problem you dismiss a possible solution, and if that possible solution turns out to be the actual solution, then the scientist can never come to the correct solution. He will continue to construct fables and cartoons to explain the results while ignoring the elephant in the test tube. It's as though he rips out his eyes and then attempts to discern the nature of a sunset.
So, should science and God coexist? It's a laughable, "OF COURSE!" As Ben Stein notes in the film, "If the evidence of science points us toward God, how exciting is that!" He states it not as a question but as an enthusiastic statement, much like, "Skydiving, how exciting is that!" I would contend that only the Christian or the one who makes room the possibility for an Intelligent Designer is free to follow where the evidence leads.
The Darwinian scientist must always be checking his results to make sure that nothing smacks of the supernatural, for if it did, he might discover the God who is there which would mean, too, that the scientist is a creature responsible to that creator. Hence the panicked pains to distort the evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment