Wednesday, August 24, 2005

All Done

My new phrase is All Done. I am All Done dealing with the incompetent hicks at places like Brown Lumber and Lark Lawn and Garden. All Done. They have wasted enough of my money and enough of my time. I will not even extend them the courtesy of a phone call because that would take time and I am All Done. I have a feeling that phrase will come up again and again over the next few weeks. I'm tired of dealing with the slackers and retards that make up what most days seems to be the bulk of the Northern Michigan population. I see now why so many people drive the hundred-plus miles downstate to make major purchases.

Anyway, it's 3:30AM so this will once again be short. Here is a good an explanation of the scientific method and what does and does not use it. Of course the people that need to read it won't, but, whatever.

I'm going to bed.


Lindsey said...

I know that I am beating the subject even more dry – but here I go again... So I could be wrong, but I am assuming you mean someone like me when you say “Here is a good an explanation of the scientific method and what does and does not use it. Of course the people that need to read it won't, but, whatever.”

So I wanted to tell you that I did read the article. And I disagree with it. The article reads: ”Science demands ID’s proposed “supernaturalistic explanations” be tested according to the scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be… There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone ELSE’s hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If they cannot put their “hypothesis” through the same scientific method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be “science”. Period.”

First of all, I am not calling God’s creation of the earth ‘science’. Never have, never will.
Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” I am not claiming creation to be science because it is truth. God is truth. His word is truth. John 14:6 – “Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

So when it comes to the argument above on Panda’s Thumb, the only problem is there is a special right to be exempted from testing. This is man holding God to man’s standards. It limits God’s authority and demeans his power as our creator and king. Jeremiah 10:12 & 13: “But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.”

In the simplest sense, science is man’s way of figuring out how God makes things work. Deuteronomy 29:29 says “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”

There are things I can not, nor ever will be able to explain – because those things belong to the Lord. Some of the things the Lord has done will never be explained to man, and in the end it won’t really matter. But I can not hold that against God.

And I do not feel Christians need to ‘prove’ God’s creation by applying the scientific method to it because God is way above science. He is way bigger and better than any scientist out there who thinks they have God’s ways figured out.

Allrighty, I think that’s all I have to say – Ta ta for now!

Tom said...

Obviously I agree with Lindsey. But I have beat that horse to death and will move on. I just wanted to tell you I have missed seeing you and Deb at church. I can appreciate how good it must feel to be able to have a lot of extra time to get things done at home. My house has been 2/3 painted for the last week and a half! I just would like to see you come back.

This is not a "look down my nose" thing or anything like that. I hope you know me better than that! I just feel that there are bigger things at work right now than the whole creation/science issue, and I don't think you're going to find the right answers in your garage or a catholic church. You need to be in a place where you are being fed the Word. I know that is also a matter that is "up in the air", but only by immersing yourself in the truth will you see things from God's perspective. That's enough, I don't want to be preachy. I hope to see you Sunday!

Ric said...

No, Lindsey, I wasn't referring to you. I am referring to people that insist that intelligent design is scientific and should be taught as science in high school science classes. People like William Dembski and Michael Behe, both of whom hang out on Panda's Thumb on occasion. Your argument is exactly what scientists have been trying to get across to people like the Kansas Board of Education who recently tried to slip ID into the high school biology curriculum. ID is creationism is religion. It is not science and can never be science because it exempts itself from the scientific method.

Science is a very limited enterprise because it deals with a) natural phenomenon that are b) testable and repeatable. One-time miracles are not science. That doesn't mean that science says such things don't exists, just that it is not capable of examining the event. That's not to say that some scientists haven't stated that they refuse to accept anything that cannot be tested with the scientific method. There definitely are those. But there are many more who do not think this way and accept at least the possibility of the supernatural. The difference is easily summed up in two terms: methodological naturalism says that something I observe happening around me in the natural world, in all probability, has a natural explanation. I may not know it right now, but I can find it using the scientific method. Philosophical naturalism states that the natural world is all that exists.

Evangelicals insist on labeling the entire field of biology as philosophical naturalism, while accepting all other areas of science (weather forecasting, for instance) as methodological naturalism. The reason for that escapes me.