₦airaland Forum

.

Popular science advocates often throw around the phrase “science deniers” and refer to a supposed epidemic of science denial sweeping America and other Western nations. Earlier this year thousands of people gathered in Washington, DC, for the March for Science to take action against these supposed deniers and support science and evidence-based policy in the White House. They claim,

We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but seek to eliminate it entirely.

Is the future of science really headed in such an extreme direction? Is the collective body of knowledge and the methodology we call “science” really teetering on the precipice of extinction or, worse, about to be pushed off?

What Does “Science” Mean?

Science, in its most basic definition, means “knowledge.” Science is usually defined as knowledge gained by using the scientific method or perhaps knowledge derived from observations made by our five senses. Is there really a “war on science,” a war on knowledge?

Those who claim America is brimming with science deniers usually point to the “denial” of two things—evolution and man-made climate change. Denying, or even questioning, these is considered a denial of science, as if somehow denying these models is equivalent to denying all of the scientific knowledge from a wide variety of scientific fields from particle physics to immunology to chemistry to forestry to obstetrics to space exploration to computer programming. This is a ludicrous claim.

Testable, Observable, and Repeatable

Those who cry foul at creationists or those who deny (or are skeptical of) man-made climate change display their own ignorance of the nature of science. There are two kinds of science: observational and historical.

Observational science deals with the present. It is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s this kind of science that develops medical innovations, put man on the moon, and invented WiFi. A chemist in Canada can mix two chemicals together and record a result, and, under the same conditions and using the same methods, a chemist in Chile can repeat the experiment and get the exact same results.

Observational science is usually not contentious with the public or, in many cases, even among scientific circles (though, of course, how the observation should be applied or what it means is often the subject of debate). There are exceptions of course, most notably observational science that involves cloning, editing genes (particularly human germlines), or embryonic stem cell research. Your worldview regarding the nature and uniqueness of human life influences your view on the morality of these issues. But even here the question is not on the methods—it’s the morality of those methods.

Looking at the Past

The second kind of science is historical science. This science deals with the past and is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. Fields like paleontology, paleoanthropology, or paleoclimatology fall into this category. You can’t directly test or observe past organisms or climates. So what you believe about the past determines how you interpret the evidence. Scientists will often use the same methods of study and the same evidence, but come to completely different conclusions about the evidence’s age, origin, or relationship to living things because of their different starting points.

An Assumption of Naturalism

Many scientists today start from the assumption of naturalism—the belief that nature is all there is. This is not a scientific statement—it cannot be tested using the scientific method or our five senses. It is a philosophical assumption that underlies the worldview of many scientists. Creationists and others reject this assumption and start with a different set of beliefs about the past. In the case of biblical creationists, the starting point is God and his Word. Therefore, the battle is not over the evidence; it’s over two different interpretations of the exact same evidence because of two different starting points.

Equating a denial of biological evolution or man-made climate change with a denial of (or ignorance of) science is simply inaccurate. You can question certain scientific models or philosophical presuppositions (which aren’t even science) without a wholesale dismissal of science. Many scientists, or even lay people, who reject evolution are very educated about evolution yet chose to reject it on scientific, philosophical, or biblical grounds (or a combination of these rationales).

Study: Those Who Reject Evolution Still Interested in Science

A recent study from Newman University, in partnership with marketing research firm YouGov, found that in Canada and the UK

of those who did say it was difficult to accept aspects of evolutionary science, a significant majority still expressed an interest in science based subjects, including new ideas and discoveries in genetics and genomics (59% in the UK and 57% in Canada). And curiously, whilst only a minority in this group said experts in evolutionary science were reliable (28% in the UK and 38% in Canada) many in this group also felt that experts in all other areas of scientific research were reliable. Even more unexpectedly, 70% in the UK and 69% in Canada who expressed some personal difficulty with evolution also said they felt experts in genetics were reliable.

What the authors of this study were surprised to find was that a rejection or questioning of evolution did not mean an all-inclusive rejection of “science” or even a disinterest in or distrust of science and scientists. Of course, those who understand the worldview nature of the evolution question aren’t surprised by this. Many creationists love science and get excited about new discoveries and innovations. We simply stand opposed to a worldview-based, naturalistic interpretation of historical science.

Dr. Fern Elsdon-Baker, the principal investigator of the study, writes,

We clearly need to be careful not to assume that when people say they are rejecting “evolutionary science,” they are rejecting all scientific research or indeed all of what we might think of as evolutionary science.

Here she is tying in an earlier statement about genetics: “Genetics is a fundamental part of evolutionary scientific research.” She was surprised that those who reject evolution are still interested in genetics, which she sees as a part of evolutionary research. Why are creationists and others still interested in genetics? Because genetics is a fascinating field that magnificently shows the handiwork of God through a complex language system. Genetics is only part of evolutionary science when an evolutionary interpretation is imposed on the evidence. Indeed, evolution can’t even explain how a complex language system could arise through random, chance processes. Information can only come from an information giver!

Dr. Elsdon-Baker finds these survey results curious because she fails to acknowledge the worldview issue. The battle isn’t science vs. religion; it’s a battle of one interpretation of the evidence versus another, which is based on different starting points concerning who has told us the truth about the past—God’s infallible Word or man’s fallible ideas?

Even Atheists Question Evolution

Interestingly, when people were asked “about evolutionary explanations for the existence of human consciousness,” the researchers found

Just over half of religious or spiritual people in both countries thought human consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes. Astonishingly . . . over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists felt the same.

Even atheists question some aspects of evolutionary ideas! Dr. Elsdon-Baker writes,

It seems rejection of, or doubts about, aspects of evolution are not necessarily just an issue of religious belief versus evolutionary science. People across all faiths and none seem to have universal questions about what it means to be human, what human consciousness even is, or indeed the ability of science as a whole to answer these kinds of questions. In many cases, a rejection of aspects of evolutionary science does not mean a rejection of the whole of science.

We Love Science!

This whole idea of a “science denial” epidemic is really just a disingenuous way of trying to make those who reject evolution and catastrophic man-made climate change look foolish, backward, and opposed to new ideas and progress. Creationists don’t deny science. We love science! But we seek to study and research to honor God and uphold the authority of his Word. This difference in starting philosophies results in a difference of interpretation.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/there-really-war-science/

.

Great thread, butterflyl1on. Apparently Dr. Lumsden realized that it takes much more faith to believe in molecules-to-Man evolution than to believe in the eyewitness account of the Creator Himself.

A growing number of honest-hearted truth seekers are stumbling over a startling allegation: the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for providing the world with the Bible as we now know it. It is stated that the Roman Catholic Church, at the Council of Nicæa, selected which writings to include, deciding what books were inspired while rejecting others as uninspired.

If this assertion is true, the problem is immediately apparent: considering how many unscriptural beliefs are taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, how can one be assured that the modern Bible is the word of Yahuwah? What if the Roman Catholic Church rejected some books that should have been included? If Catholicism is responsible for our modern Bible, how can we be sure it is correct?

The idea that the Roman Catholic Church is solely responsible for providing the world with the Holy Bible comes from, not surprisingly, the Roman Catholics themselves. The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion clearly spells out the reasoning used for this incredible claim:

It was the Catholic Church which gathered up all these books [of the New Testament], placed them within the covers of a single volume, and thus gave to the world what is known today as the Bible...



1. The New Testament was written in its entirety by Catholics.
2. St. Peter, the first pope of the Catholic Church, is the author of two of its epistles.
3. The Catholic Church determined the canon or list of books to constitute the New Testament.
4. The declaration of the Catholic Church that the books of the New Testament are all inspired by God constitutes the sole authority for the universal belief of both Catholics and Protestants in their inspired character.
5. The Catholic Church existed before the New Testament.
6. The Catholic Church is the mother of the New Testament

If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.

If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be the inspired word of God, we would not know it.

The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church. If the latter be rejected, there remain no logical grounds for retention of the cardinal tenet of all Protestants – the inspired character of Scripture.1

The author of this incredible statement is being intentionally misleading. He is deliberately twisting words in a crafty, cunning manner. By using the term “Catholic Church” throughout, one is led to assume that the church being referred to is the Roman Catholic Church. However, this is deceptive. The facts of history prove that the Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church could not, in point of fact, be “the mother of the New Testament” nor could it have “existed before the New Testament.” Therefore, the writers of the New Testament could not have been Roman Catholics!

And here is where the deliberate deception enters. The claim is made about the “Catholic Church” not the “Roman Catholic Church” as most readers would assume. The word “catholic” simply means “universal.” So in that sense, it could be argued that the writers of the New Testament were of the “universal” body of believers which did, in fact, exist, before New Testament times. However, the implication that it is only the declaration of the Roman Catholic Church “that the books of the New Testament are all inspired by God constitutes the sole authority for the universal belief of both Catholics and Protestants in their inspired character” is both incorrect and blasphemous.

Such a statement weakens the authority of the Bible and places the Roman Catholic Church in a position superior to Scripture. If the Word of YAH is holy only because the pope declares it to be so, that places the pope in a more important position than Yahuwah Himself, the divine Author.

When viewed in the light of the documented facts of history, such bold claims are revealed to be nothing more than audacious, deceptive boasts.

The Council of Nicæa (AD 325) was convened by Constantine I for ecumenical purposes only. He wanted to unify Christianity for his own, secular purposes. It is from this Council that we get the Nicene Creed. No records exist of any discussion at that time pertaining to which books should comprise the sacred canon and which should be left out.

The New Testament as it exists today was in circulation and recognized as inspired long before the Council of Nicæa. All of the books that comprise the New Testament were written by AD 95. Even during Paul’s lifetime, his letters were already in circulation among the early believers. Paul instructed the members in Colossæ: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Colossians 4:16, NKJV. See also, 1 Thessalonians 5:27.)

By the middle of the second century, the four gospels were being circulated together. Justin Martyr (AD 100-160) did not cite by name any New Testament writing, but did refer to them with “it is recorded” or as “the memoirs of the apostles.” He also refers in the plural to the Gospels: “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me . . . ."2
Around 170-175 AD Tatian, a disciple of Justin, created a harmony of the four orthodox gospels known as the Diatessaron. This text was accepted in some circles, even being used to replace the four gospels, but this success was short lived. What this harmony reveals, however, is that the church was beginning to recognize only four gospels.3

This is an important point because it clearly rejects all of the Gnostic Gospels, which were written between the second and fourth centuries after Christ. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all quote from, mention or name all of the books of the New Testament with the exceptions of Philemon, Jude James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. Years before the Council of Nicæa, Origen (AD 185-254) mentioned all of the books of both the Old and the New Testaments! Eusebius, who has been called the “Father of Ecclesiastical History,” gave an account of the persecution that occurred under the Emperor Diocletian. He listed all the books of the New Testament. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, likewise listed all of the New Testament books. These are all pre-Roman Catholic writers, yet all refer in some way to the books that comprise the New Testament canon.

The Muratorian Canon provides still further conclusive and unique evidence that the New Testament was compiled before and apart from any action of the Roman Catholic Church. This document is a manuscript fragment that contains the oldest known listing of New Testament books. Most scholars believe it was written sometime between AD 170 and AD 200. The only books missing from the listing are Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter and 3 John. It is not a Roman Catholic document.

The Roman Catholic Church as it is today was not in existence during the first three centuries after Christ. It only rose to prominence after the ecumenical efforts of Constantine I legalized Christianity. And even then, it was a process that spanned several centuries.

The very first historical reference to the exact 27 books that make up the New Testament did not appear until well after the Council of Nicæa. In the letter penned by Athanasius, “Easter Letter” of AD 367, all 27 books were listed. The Synod of Hippo (AD 393) apparently referred to a list of writings that could be read in church. Nothing from this synod is still in existence today. It is only known because it was referenced in the Synod of Carthage (AD 397). “Even this historical reference from Carthage, Canon 24, does not ‘list’ every single document. For example, it reads, ‘the gospels, four books…’ The only reason for this list is to confirm which writings are ‘sacred’ and should be read in a church service. There is no comment as to why and how this list was agreed upon.”4

In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The [Roman] Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church.

Four criteria were broadly used to determine whether the various writings were inspired by the Spirit of YAH and should be included in the sacred canon:

The author was either an apostle, closely connected with an apostle or first-hand witness to the events described.
The book was widely accepted by the body of early believers as being true.
The doctrines taught were consistent with that taught in other inspired works.
The writing bore evidence of moral superiority and spiritual values as demonstrated by the work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart in response to what was taught in the book.
It is important to understand that no church and no action of men are responsible for Holy Scripture. No council somehow made a book “inspired.” The various statements of the councils merely recognized what the body of believers had already established as inspired writ. Michael J. Kruger, author of The Question of Canon, observes:

When people discover that Nicea did not decide the canon, the follow up question is usually, “Which council did decide the canon?” Surely we could not have a canon without some sort of authoritative, official act of the church by which it was decided. Surely we have a canon because some group of men somewhere voted on it. Right?

This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be.

Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that was already there.

Source: https://www.worldslastchance.com/winds-of-doctrine/did-the-roman-catholic-church-really-give-us-the-bible.html

Ubenedictus:
the Catholic Church... who else?

That's a big lie! Before the Roman Catholic Church began to exist, people of God read and were guided by the books in the Bible now.

Ubenedictus:
please can you name the Christians before
Constantine who used your exact current bible
and weren't Catholics.


learn to answer the question you were asked... Read and answer .

and I am telling you that Roman Catholics did not exist before Constantine. How hard is it to understand?

analice107:
I'm not an apologist nah.

Hehe...

.......

,.,.

Embryology is not evolution

..

,.

!

.....

#

.

analice107:
I couldn't read all of it.

A good apologist is never tired of reading, you know, especially when it comes to apologetics.

analice107:
The Post is too long.

Lol. It's not, to me.

Discover.

See.

!

--

,.,.

,,

No, again!

...

Yup

..