That we come to a scientifically ‘complete understanding’ in studying ‘our ability to add, think logically’ seems doubtful. I like C.S. Lewis’s argument that reason is supernatural. It is what we use to study and analyze nature – it is above and super- to nature. We presume the validity of logic – challenge anyone to prove it. 
Maybe we are deceived and only think it valid because it gives us an adaptive advantage.
2 Likes
I think he is asking for a reconciliation between creation and evolution.
I would recommend providence. 
1 Like
That’s kinda like asking for a reconciliation between a flat geocentric Earth and astronomy. 
2 Likes
This would be the “scientific explanation”… Though there is no real evidence for this either… it’s an assumption based on materialism.
I don’t think so. Scientists aren’t going to be in a hurry to say reason is not valid!
3 Likes
Even if they go beyond science, the scientific method incorporates a materialistic bias. This is why some scientists who study consciousness theorise that everything in the universe has varying degrees of consciousness while others lean towards the understanding that consciousness is just an illusion created by the brain.
Both the above are actually beyond the scientofoc method, but they are more respectable conclusions because they are closer to materialism as a philosophy.
The minute someone mentions God, its somehow no longer science…
I would agree with the above comment and replace the word “easily” with “inevitably”.
This is why the scientific method is biased towards materialism in practice.
Haven’t they already said it? There is no scientific reason for human reasoning to be valid.
That is an oxymoron. If they go beyond science, they are not using the scientific method.
2 Likes
Perhaps… but do you agree that theories based on the scientific method have a bias towards materialism?
Take my example for studies on consciousness as a reference.
Isn’t that what I just said?
1 Like
No, only the materialistic scientists do, Christians not. If they’re doing good science, there would be the same results no matter who did it, atheist or Christian.
2 Likes
I don’t think the question is phrased right, either. You don’t have theories based on the scientific method. The scientific method is what is used on them to demonstrate them true or false or to support or detract from them. On the other hand, theories posed by materialists may have a materialistic bias. Panspermia might be a good example.
1 Like
And theories posed by Christian scientists don’t have a materialistic bias?
It looks like only theories acceptable to materialism as a philosophy are allowed/proposed.
Current theories on consciousness are a good example.
I don’t know. Are Christians posing any theories on consciousness? And any theory on consciousness can only be tested using methodological naturalism.
1 Like
Do you know of any other way?
1 Like
Hence the inherent bias towards materialism. Methodological naturalism is a very useful tool to accumulate knowledge. However like all tools, it has its limitations and scope. Beyond its scope, it leads to wrong/biased knowledge.
Lack of a better tool doesn’t mean one ignores the limitations of the current tool being used.
I take this factor into account when reading science. Everyone should.
How else do you test theories?
1 Like
Christians know that God is the creator. Science can’t displace that fact, frustrating though it may be to non- and anti-thiests.
1 Like
Nahuatlans know that Quetzalcoatl is the creator. Science can’t displace that fact, frustrating though it may be to non- and ant-theists.
Repeat for each of the 100+ other creator gods.
Your ‘fact’ is not a fact, it’s an opinion, and the only frustration involved is in dealing with people who aren’t capable of working out how utterly unconvincing their claims are.
1 Like