DrW wrote:Franktalk,
Why would you think that I see science as unchanging?
Perhaps you are conflating science with the laws of nature. The former evolves every day. The latter do not.
With regard to the issue of the conflict between science and religion: the two are diametrically opposed, by definition. Science is the enterprise of seeking useful knowledge and an understanding of foundational truths (laws of nature). Science seeks answers through observation, experimentation and hypothesis generation and testing.
Religion is the enterprise of trying to convince others that one group or another already has the answers (eternal truths), which answers were obtained by magic from some imaginary supernatural being. The problem with this claim is that no useful new information has, in fact, ever been gained purely from religion. None.
About the best that religion can do to align itself with science is to adopt the name of science into the name of the Church. Thus we have Christian Science and Scientology.
There is no need to wait to see which one of us is right.
If you hold current scientific thought as truth then it is fair for me to assume that you hold the current scientific vanguard as truth and unchanging. Your statement asking a question is not an answer but a delay while you ponder a better answer.
Your statement about the laws of nature contains many assumptions of science which I reject and you embrace. I reject them on grounds they are still unknowns and you accept them as truth. Which of course is solid and unchanging in your mind. Sadly your mind and reality may part company in the not to distant future. Of course you feel as a feeling that I am wrong and it is already concluded that I am wrong based on your current understanding of the natural laws. But your understanding of the natural laws is based on what your have been taught. You are a product of your environment which is classic idea of evolution. What you fail to consider is that your environment has misled you to conclusions in error. But your ego will not allow you to even consider the possibility that you are wrong. Such is the way of the scientific indoctrination which exist today. You happen to be a product of the system which you have embraced. It will require a come to Jesus moment for you to even examine your ideas. Sadly you may never experience one of those.
I can not believe you are so stuck on the current understanding of the laws of nature that you actually believe that religion must swing to the current understanding of science or perish. Your feet are in concrete yet you have the nerve to tell me to change. I expected nothing less.
You who professes to believe in evolution sees no evolution is science. You who has studied the history of science sees no change in the current truth yet history paints a completely different picture. Open your eyes DrW then stop to smell the roses. No matter what you and I think the future will unfold as it unfolds. I do not know the future yet it seems to me that you feel you do. How nice it must be to stand on such solid ground. The same ground that said that the speed of light was infinite. The same ground that that thought the universe was deterministic and obeyed Newtons equations. And the list goes on and on.
The laws of nature have changed. You yourself believe in the big bang. Do you not believe that the physics two microseconds after the big bang represent the same physics we experience today? Or do you say that they are different? Oh come now DrW do you not subdivide history and laws to fit your own agendas? Just for historical purposes I will quote a person who also had an axe to grind.
The following letter is one of thousands from this time frame that shows the agenda of the naturalist to subvert the Word of God. The letter was written by Charles Lyell to George Poulett Scrope 14 June, 1830.
“I am sure you may get into Q.R. (Quarterly Review) what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the (church) party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [John] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by the mosaic systems.”
Lyell 1830
This letter shows that the publications at that time were happy to print the naturalistic view point. We also see that a bishop was running interference for them as well and this lead to Mr. Ure (who disagreed with them) being ridiculed in another publication. Charles Lyell who was an atheist was supported by the clergy in his efforts to knock down the historical foundation of the Bible. So strong was this wave of thought that only recently is it being challenged at the academic level.
And in time the truth will be known. I have patience DrW, I suspect the truth will not be revealed in my lifetime. I am Ok with that. I mean what a sad sack I would be if I latched on to every new idea that sounded good. I am sure that you would never accept the ideas of men without first checking them out. Or am I thinking of someone else?