Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate Upcoming!

[Afterthought]

What I am wondering, though, is whether it is ever legitimate for a Christian scientist to take knowledge from Scripture into account.

He may take it into account; but he should not use it to prove a theory which he cannot properly account for in an evidentiary way.

I've sometimes thought about the matter in this way: that science is in the end a man made discipline, and theories/hypotheses have an irreducible element of imagination to them. Provided that such hypotheses and theories do not get in the way of the usual scientific method, then there should be no problem with using such ideas to explain the data. It would seem that part of the not getting in the way of the usual scientific method would be to make sure the theory can account for things in an evidentiary way. I hadn't considered it like that before, but I like its conciseness!

Van Til taught all facts are interpreted by God. He did not teach everything which calls itself science is God-given.

From what I've seen of the presuppositional approach to Creation science, the goal is to interpret the facts as God does, i.e., to interpret the scientific evidence by what the Scriptures say. Hence, the evidence will always be interpreted in that way. Is there something problematic about this? The worst I've seen is that it seems to give rise to speculation, but I don't know if the same charge you have made would hold against those sorts of Creation scientists?

But given that we might use Scriptural considerations in making a theory, I guess there would be nothing wrong with positing Creation as an hypothesis, so long as it was tested by usual scientific means? Of course, such a model would not match the Scriptures' model in the end because Creation ex nihilo is known by faith, but the cosmological argument seems to allow for understanding a Creator to exist, so I would think that Creation by a Creator could be turned into a scientific hypothesis?

Did not natural general revelation help change the mind toward a proper view of what scripture teaches on the evil of American slavery?

General revelation does not reveal scientific facts.

 

[MW]

But given that we might use Scriptural considerations in making a theory, I guess there would be nothing wrong with positing Creation as an hypothesis, so long as it was tested by usual scientific means?

A scientific hypothesis is one that can be proved or disproved by experimentation.

 

[au5t1n]

Could we, who hold to scripture as the primary authority, be corected in a incorrect belief on what scripture teaches by science or natural theology? I think slavery could be an example in that there were Christians who were wrong on this issue who changed their mind on what scripture taught on that issue because of natural instinct and revisited scripture to see where they went wrong.

To my mind, your example only serves to show the danger of such an approach to Scriptural interpretation.

In Romans it says we know what is right by The Lord revealing such in our conscience. So if a person who at one time practiced some type of sin and was conscience free because of a cultural norm (let's say slavery) and believed it was allowed in scripture. Now after some time the cultural norm changed along with the proper description of what the true nature of early American slavery entailed? Did not natural general revelation help change the mind toward a proper view of what scripture teaches on the evil of American slavery?

As far as I know, the question was decided by force - by the bloodiest war in American history - not by a modification of Scriptural interpretation from general revelation. We're still suffering from the fruit of this disaster, and now most Christians believe that slavery is intrinsically evil and pay no attention whatsoever to what Scripture teaches on the subject. So how has general revelation helped Scriptural interpretation?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[earl40]

General revelation does not reveal scientific facts.

What? All truth is God's truth whether it be a fact revealed on His will revealed in the bible, or that gravity will kill you if you jump from a tall building (general revelation).

 

[earl40]

As far as I know, the question was decided by force - by the bloodiest war in American history - not by a modification of Scriptural interpretation from general revelation. We're still suffering from the fruit of this disaster, and now most Christians believe that slavery is intrinsically evil and pay no attention whatsoever to what Scripture teaches on the subject. So how has general revelation helped Scriptural interpretation?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

God changed many or at least some (one would be enough BTW) Christians minds on the issue of slavery by the ordinary means of war....In my most humble opinion The Lord used this war to help many, or some, revisit the stance of scripture on this issue which was held in error by many Christians.

 

[au5t1n]

Honestly, I find that view of the events a bit terrifying. In any case we are not likely to reach agreement on this.

 

[earl40]

Honestly, I find that view of the events a bit terrifying. In any case we are not likely to reach agreement on this.

Having lived for 53 years and having a father who had a sign "blacks in back" at his work I see where The Lord worked through the ordinary means to have people revisit their cultural racist beliefs and see that scripture NEVER taught such. So don't be "terrified".

 

[Mushroom]

Here I was ready with my hammer and awl, looking for a doorpost...

 

[Afterthought]

A scientific hypothesis is one that can be proved or disproved by experimentation.

Ah, I see what is going on now. Thanks for the clarification!

What? All truth is God's truth whether it be a fact revealed on His will revealed in the bible, or that gravity will kill you if you jump from a tall building (general revelation).

For the most recent time this was discussed, see the thread I started here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/dual-revelation-81729/

"All truth is God's truth" is a different statement from saying general revelation reveals scientific facts. But besides, applying the category of "truth" to science is a philosophical perspective that needs both clarification and argumentation. Part of that clarification will distinguish between sensory data/observation and theory/hypothesis/systematization of sensory data. Anyway, I don't want to throw this thread off topic with those considerations. I was merely aiming for precision so that a fuzzy thinking on this matter doesn't allow something incorrect to slip by unnoticed as seems to frequently happen with this particular idea.