>There is a lot of discussion of "Science vs Religion", as though people had
>to choose one or the other. I think this is a mistake.
>The way I see it, two main kinds of data we have are Scripture and Nature
>data, both of which represent truth, and are clear to us if we have eyes to
>see them clearly. When we interpret these, we come up with our Theology
>and Science, both of which are human and erring. There is Biblical
>theology and varying grades to totally non-biblical theology, and there is
>Scriptural science, and varying degrees to non-scriptural science. We see
>according to the "glasses" we have on -- i.e. our assumptions, whether they
>are Scriptural precepts, or other ideas. Two people can look at the same
>thing and see very different data, and come up with very different
>interpretations. So it is very important to be aware of one's assumptions,
>and to compare them with Scripture.
The totality of the human experience is much larger and important than all
the existing scientific data. Scripture gives us the answers to many of the
question which arise in our lives as humans regardless of our professions. I
do not think science will ever answer such questions--regarding values,
purpose, meaning, etc. In that sense science is not very important. We can
live without science, albeit in primitive societies. But men cannot live
without knowledge of God.
> Make it clear that evolution theory and
>>cosmology are purely deductive and not experimental sciences. Remember the
>>word science conjures its prototype physics which is an experimental science.
>Yes. There is a major distinction between experimental and historical
>science. The former is subject to repeated trials and verification. The
>latter is not -- only evidences of its results are available for
>investigation; the actual events cannot be repeated. We can study fossils
>and geological layers and modern analogies of fossilization and
>sedimentation, and modern volcanic eruptions, etc., but we can't really
>"prove" whether the fossils and layers actually formed gradually or rapidly
>(long ages or the Flood). And we can find evidence of design (more every
>day!) but not "prove" that it originated by creation or molecules-to-man
>evolution. So again our perceptions, interpretations, conclustions,
>depend on our precepts or assumptions, and whether or not these are
We are embedded in a world replete with evidence of design. It is so
overwhelming that some scientists miss its existence. Sort of the fish not
being aware of the water. But such is the nature of pride.