Observation or Storytelling

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

The Package Deal Fallacy in Science

During the Nye-Ham debate, Bill and Ken disagreed about whether there’s a difference between observational science and historical science. Rather than focusing on definitions, it’s often more helpful to focus on what’s happening. What’s happening is simple. On the one hand, we observe. On the other hand, we speculate about what we can’t test or observe. A better term would be “historical storytelling” rather than “historical science.” Science applied to the present physical realm depends on observation, testing, and experimentation. There’s a difference between observation and making up stuff. There’s a difference between observation and interpretation of observations. There’s a difference between divine revelation and interpretation of divine revelation. We can’t test made-up stuff.

We’re assuming that both creation scientists and evolution scientists begin with scientific observation. An evolutionist may say, “So you do agree that we base the stories of evolution on science, then.” Of course, evolution scientists base their stories on the stories themselves. Since the stories go beyond what scientists observe, they extend beyond the borders of the foundation, the foundation being observation. Therefore, evolution scientists don’t base their stories on observation.

<end quote>


Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

Amazon sells it, but you can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.


Posted in Uncategorized.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *