I appreciate that sentiment. Thank you.
However, I am not interpreting the Bible in light of evolution…most everything I proposed was considered by other long before evolution was proposed. 
4 Likes
When people say they love science, do they mean they like the idea of liking science, or the actual science itself?
How much science study have you done?
How much biology have you studied?
It’s kinda like Christianity - lots of people say they love Christianity, but when push comes to shove on doing what Christianity says, it’s a different story.
2 Likes
That is objectively false. The YEC view routinely requires rejecting most of the findings themselves, which are not subject to interpretation.
I see big differences between saying you believe something and truly believing, yes. Truly believing entails acting on those beliefs.
Those who write the pseudoscientific propaganda, however, do.
Learn to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. There are some pretty blatant markers for the latter that you are trying very hard to ignore.
3 Likes
Natural phenomena can be observed by humans on a day-to-day basis to a certain extent whether using tools or not.
A miracle is something that is difficult for human observation to understand due to limited knowledge or technology at any given moment, so the only possible explanation is to label the event with a trick of hallucinations, illusions, or magic.
Will the ability to understand this be acquired in the future? (After studying it), it may or may not be possible, because there are many things that human knowledge cannot yet reach
… that relies on reason rather than faith as a fount of morality.
Here, he said:
The science of psychiatrists, even though I am not brilliant in thinking, is still could be believed. Contrary to the science of psychologists (in this case special for the psychologist who wrote the above article, and similar ones), how can they be trusted, they can only label people from the surface, give pathological characteristics and can only offer alternative solutions that are never clear just like a shaman.
I don’t know what war is meant, but followers of religion from ancient times also practiced science, not just atheists, apart from the disputes of the two parties.
Bonus:
Good question.
So “loving science”. Perhaps this will help: My father was a science teacher when I was young. It was my favorite subject in school. It’s great to see what we can discover through science. For example I recall reading about us knowing which stars are made up of which molecules. I thought “How can we know that?” It turns out by examining the frequency of light. Pretty cool. So…basically stuff like that.
Formal education in biology: One college course; back when I was young and didn’t pay attention much.
Information education: Lots of self-study since then (and still do).
1 Like
How much of this self-study was in creationist literature?
1 Like
It seems that YEC forces people in one of two directions: deny facts or leave Christianity. In effect, YEC is telling us that if the consensus of scientists is right then the Bible is false. Making people choose between reason and Christianity seems like a losing strategy.
4 Likes
How do you know all this? Personal experience or did somebody tell you this?
1 Like
Miracles are possible even if God doesn’t exist, in the sense that we can’t rule them out. No one – not scientists, not Christians, not blowhard bloggers – know why the universe is the way it is or why things behave the way they do, which means we can’t know that they’ll always behave that way.
9 Likes
That is very much an interpretation. Yet you say that you reject interpretations.
4 Likes
If a miracle happened, then this event isn’t a miracle at all. It is just an event that we don’t understand how it happened. (the universe, life on Earth). With the central miracles of Christianity, we don’t really know if they actually happened. So these so-called miracles are outside the pursuit of science to investigate scientifically.
2 Likes
Sometimes all that these arguments are about is what we mean when we ask the question. Does religion conflict with science? If we mean “always and everywhere,” the answer is obviously no; if we mean “in some particular cases,” the answer is obviously yes. I do meet a lot of people for whose religious views the answer is “obviously yes,” but I also know a lot of people for whom the answer is “obviously no.”
But “religion” is an awfully big category of ideas. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a definition of that category that I thought was wholly satisfactory.
5 Likes
Depends on how you choose to define ‘miracle’, which doesn’t strike me as an interesting question.
5 Likes
It could be described as the age-old conflict between those who defend dogma and those who dare to question it. In many ways, this spills over the borders of science and religion.
3 Likes
Sadly in these discussions it is entirely conceivable that you are being serious. Poe’s Law.
6 Likes
If science and religion isn’t in conflict because there are people who manage to be both religious and scientists, or who are able to somehow resolve apparent conflicts by picking among numerous possible interpretations of religious texts, then I have to say it’s difficult to see how anything could be thought of as really being in conflict.
I can scarcely think of a subject that include works of writing, or methods, or conclusions to different forms of investigation, that could not be put into some sort of allegorical rendering that would resolve apparent conflicts between them.
Sam Harris famously gave an allegorical religious interpretation to a cooking recipe. His take on the word salt itself was hilarious. If you are in a sufficiently bendy and accommodating mindset you can square anything, including circles.
3 Likes
If that was a joke, it was non-responsive. If it wasn’t a joke, it was scary. And it’s impossible to tell which, because many real creationists do get all their science that way.
3 Likes
Let’s not scare him away. If he sticks around he may learn some science that’s not from creationists. I have a morbid curiosity as to what they are teaching in those groups nowadays, or if it’s just a rehash of the stuff from decades ago.