The Warfare of Science with Theology by A. D. White

[_LittleNipper]

The problem I have with todays label "SCIENCE" is that it excludes men of science who believe in God and the Bible. I know, I know ---- such investigate with a preconceived notion. I've heard that one before. The problem is that this is also true of the student, scholar, professor, scientist who has listened to associates and the teachings of those who have gone before. No one researches with a clean slate. Everyone has a preconceived notion of what they are studying/researching and "likely" to find and why...

[_Maksutov]

The problem I have with todays label "SCIENCE" is that it excludes men of science who believe in God and the Bible. I know, I know ---- such investigate with a preconceived notion. I've heard that one before. The problem is that this is also true of the student, scholar, professor, scientist who has listened to associates and the teachings of those who have gone before. No one researches with a clean slate. Everyone has a preconceived notion of what they are studying/researching and "likely" to find and why...

There is no problem with science, Nipper, because science is self-correcting. Religion, such as the absurd notion of Noah's Ark, is not. That is why ignorance is perpetuated through religion and corrected through science. Which is why science is superior in understanding the world and ourselves while religion continues to defend ignorance and absurdity. It does not have to be that way. I have no problem with someone saying that a creator started it in some way, but that is where I would drop it. The tribal fantasies of a small Middle Eastern people are of interest when they inform us of history, but we should be quite merciless in deconstructing, challenging, and yes, dismissing them where they lead us into error, and they often do. There are Christians like Kenneth Miller who accept evolution and the idea of God. It requires, however, that the Christian show an unusual humility in their claims and a willingness to be educated in science. That is rare and seems something you're unwilling and unable to do. Your choice. Just know how hypocritical you are in posting on a network designed by godless physicists.

[_Maksutov]

That's why I'm an LDS. I'm open to new revelations from God and scientists.

Be sure to test them both. That's how we grow and learn.

[_huckelberry]

The problem I have with todays label "SCIENCE" is that it excludes men of science who believe in God and the Bible. I know, I know ---- such investigate with a preconceived notion. I've heard that one before. The problem is that this is also true of the student, scholar, professor, scientist who has listened to associates and the teachings of those who have gone before. No one researches with a clean slate. Everyone has a preconceived notion of what they are studying/researching and "likely" to find and why...

People who believe in God and the Bible are not excluded from science. There are scientists who do science and are people of faith. However the theory that God made everything look real old by a miracle falls completely outside of science. It falls outside of science not because of believing in miracles. I believe in both science and miracles. It falls outside of science because if everything looks like what it is not than we have no way of knowing what is real.

It has long been part of faith that God made a world that we can grow to understand. Christianity and science are married at that point.

[_Maksutov]

In the middle of the thirteenth century we have a tri-
umph of this theological method in the great work of the
English Franciscan Bartholomew on The Properties of Things.
The theological method as applied to science consists largely
in accepting tradition and in spinning arguments to fit it.
In this field Bartholomew was a master. Having begun
with the intent mainly to explain the allusions in Scripture
to natural objects, he soon rises logically into a survey of
all Nature. Discussing the ''cockatrice" of Scripture, he
tells us : " He drieth and burneth leaves with his touch, and
he is of so great venom and perilous that he slayeth and
wasteth him that nigheth him without tarrying ; and yet the
weasel overcometh him, for the biting of the weasel is death
to the cockatrice. Nevertheless the biting of the cockatrice
is death to the weasel if the weasel eat not rue before. And
though the cockatrice be venomous without remedy while
he is alive, yet he looseth all the malice when he is burnt to
ashes. His ashes be accounted profitable in working of
alchemy, and namely in turning and changing of metals."

Bartholomew also enlightens us on the animals of Egypt,
and says, '' If the crocodile findeth a man by the water's
brim he slayeth him, and then he weepeth over him and
swalloweth him."

Naturally this good Franciscan naturalist devotes much
thought to the '' dragons " mentioned in Scripture. He
says: "The dragon is most greatest of all serpents, and oft
he is drawn out of his den and riseth up into the air, and
the air is moved by him, and also the sea swelleth against
his venom, and he hath a crest, and reareth his tongue, and
hath teeth like a saw, and hath strength, and not only in
teeth but in tail, and grieveth with biting and with stinging.
Whom he findeth he slayeth. Oft four or five of them
fasten their tails together and rear up their heads, and sail
over the sea to get good meat. Between elephants and
dragons is everlasting fighting ; for the dragon with his tail
spanneth the elephant, and the elephant with his nose
throweth down the dragon. . . . The cause why the dragon
desireth his blood is the coldness thereof, by the which the
dragon desireth to cool himself. Jerome saith that the
dragon is a full thirsty beast, insomuch that he openeth his
mouth against the wind to quench the burning of his thirst
in that wise. Therefore, when he seeth ships in great wind
he flieth against the sail to take the cold wind, and over-
throweth the ship."

These ideas of Friar Bartholomew spread far and struck
deep into the popular mind. His book was translated into the
principal languages of Europe, and was one of those most
generally read during the Ages of Faith. It maintained its
position nearly three hundred years ; even after the inven-
tion of printing it held its own, and in the fifteenth century
there were issued no less than ten editions of it in Latin,
four in French, and various versions of it in Dutch, Spanish,
and English. Preachers found it especially useful in illus-
trating the ways of God to man. It was only when the great
voyages of discovery substituted ascertained fact for the-
ological reasoning in this province that its authority was
broken.

[_The CCC]

Be sure to test them both. That's how we grow and learn.

I have, but used different tests. IE: If I'm taking a non-biological chemistry test, but all my answers are to a test about the American Revolutionary War. I can't expect a satisfactory score.

[_The CCC]

The problem I have with todays label "SCIENCE" is that it excludes men of science who believe in God and the Bible. I know, I know ---- such investigate with a preconceived notion. I've heard that one before. The problem is that this is also true of the student, scholar, professor, scientist who has listened to associates and the teachings of those who have gone before. No one researches with a clean slate. Everyone has a preconceived notion of what they are studying/researching and "likely" to find and why...

Not really. Science by definition can not posit any God or God life force onto science and still be considered science. Individual scientists can believe anything they want.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMXHKixqOM8

[_Maksutov]

Be sure to test them both. That's how we grow and learn.

I have, but used different tests. IE: If I'm taking a non-biological chemistry test, but all my answers are to a test about the American Revolutionary War. I can't expect a satisfactory score.

Yep, we have to ask the right questions. But that requires some knowledge in itself. So as we learn more, we should still review our questions to see if they're the right ones. We're learning about ourselves as we're learning about what's outside us. Learning about ourselves is *really* hard.

[_Themis]

Be sure to test them both. That's how we grow and learn.

I have, but used different tests. IE: If I'm taking a non-biological chemistry test, but all my answers are to a test about the American Revolutionary War. I can't expect a satisfactory score.

You can get more then just the answers from science. You can get all the data on how they came up with the answers, and even do many of the experiments as well. This can show you if they are getting it right or accurate. How do you know some revelation, you think is from God, is from God and that the meaning you attach to it is accurate?

[_The CCC]

Ask the source.