Against All Evidence

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Dr. James Tour is an accomplished scientist and a Christian. This video (https://youtu.be/-Gsa58Rm8Sk) is a talk that he gave to Syracuse University. He wanted to show what science can prove—what humanity can know from science. He could show, through science, that no one has yet proved abiogenesis and molecules-to-humanity evolutionism. He wasn’t able to show, through science, the impossibility of either of these, although they both are implausible He goes through the research that scientists have done on abiogenesis. None of the research had the purpose of showing that abiogenesis happened. None of the research tried to discover the odds of abiogenesis happening. We could say the same of the research on molecules-to-humanity evolutionism. And yet, those who control the message distort the research to claim that both of these stories, abiogenesis and molecules-to-humanity evolutionism, are probable even though they’re unlikely. From there, they imply that these stories happened.

Notice the limit of science. Science can show that scientists haven’t proved these stories. It can calculate the probability, which is low to the point of saying, “Given what we now know, it’s impossible.” It can only tell us what we can observe and test. It can’t give us a way to know everything. We might someday discover a way that would make these stories possible, but it doesn’t appear that anyone will ever be able to show that evolutionism is possible. But if there is any chance at all, and there’s always a chance for everything, science can’t prove that these stories are impossible. Notice that they aren’t even trying to prove that they happened. They just go from saying that no one can prove the stories impossible; therefore, they happened. How insane is that?

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

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.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

All Scientific “Knowledge” is Tentative

Posted on by

Ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Truth is absolute by nature. All Truth is hidden in Christ Jesus. Jesus is the Truth.
 
<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
Tentative Knowledge versus True Knowledge
 
“Science thrives on the conviction that man does not have final knowledge about anything, and that any doctrine, no matter what its credentials, should be subject to inquiry and correction.” ~ L. W. Beck, Philosophic Inquiry
 
“One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. . . . In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proved knowledge in science.” ~ Satoshi Kanazawa, Psychology Today, Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
 
“In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved.” ~ Berkely.edu, Understanding Science
 
“You may be reluctant to think that the bungling process of trial and error is tantamount to the scientific method, if only because science is so often shrouded in sophistication and jargon. Yet there is no fundamental difference.” ~ University of Texas at Austin, How Non-scientists use the Scientific Method
 
“The notion that we can find absolute and final truths is naive. If there are any underlying “truths” of nature, our models are just close approximations to them—useful descriptions which “work” by correctly predicting nature’s behavior.” ~ Donald E. Simanek, Lockhaven.edu, The Scientific Method
 
“It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” ~ Karl Popper, Conjectures & Refutations
 
There seems to be in all this a thoroughgoing epistemological relativism that makes the obtaining of truth impossible; and if scientific procedure cannot obtain truth, it can offer no absolute arguments against theism nor can it say truthfully that ‘the scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge.’ There is no science to which final appeal can be made; there are only scientists and their various theories. … No scientific or observational proof can be given for the uniformity of nature, and much less can experience demonstrate that ‘the scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge.’ On the contrary, a plausible analysis showed that science was incapable of arriving at any truth whatever. ~ Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things
 
Ungodly thinkers say they know about the tentative nature of current scientific opinion based on assumptions and dogmatically argue about it at the same time. They can even try to censor anyone who dares to question or test the sacred cows of current scientific opinion. They use irrational terms like “settled science.” Mechanisms of the establishment protect the sacred cows from any challenge. They coerce, persecute, and ridicule anyone who objectively examines the sacred cows of current scientific opinion. That’s protectionism. The system has serious problems. We’ll explore these problems as we continue our journey.
<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
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.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

False Gods: Science & Intellect

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
To sum it up, evidence isn’t proof, inference isn’t sound deductive reasoning, support isn’t proof, and an inferred conclusion isn’t a known truth. We aren’t interested in an opinion confidently stated with false bravado. We prefer the truth since the truth will set us free.
 
The point is that there’s confusion about the word “proof.” On this journey, we recall that we’re defining both “proof” and “evidence” as “that which produces precise and accurate knowledge of truth with absolute certainty.” So when we say we know something, we mean that we have proof that gives us precise and accurate knowledge of truth with absolute certainty. However, when we discuss truth and evidence with others, we need to remember they’re probably defining these words as something much less conclusive.
<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
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.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Science Has Limits

Posted on by

Pseudo-science is often used in attempts to discredit the Bible. However, science doesn’t even have the capacity for truth or proof.

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Scientists imply that what they’re calling “evidence” is observation, but they include interpretations as part of the evidence. And they also include presuppositions, assumptions, and the biases of groupthink in those interpretations. They even talk about evidence supporting or countering conclusions rather than proving or disproving conclusions. Support isn’t the same as proof. It’s a much softer word with a vague meaning. As a result, the word “infer” can give the illusion of proving that a conclusion is true or false, but inferring does no such thing.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

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.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Pseudo-science & Scientism

Posted on by

A problem arises with science if we start to think science leads to knowledge or truth. Science is pragmatic and only points to what seems to work. It’s never definitive. In addition, the word “science” has become a way for evil people to manipulate the gullible, which often may include the majority of the population. They say the word, but there is no real science. Not realizing the nature of science and censoring free thought in science is a way to destroy scientific value. It started with the age of the earth. Silly ideas about the age of the earth were well-promoted and began to be falsely called “science.” The age-of-the-earth pseudo-science served an important function for the ungodly thinkers. It cast doubt on Scripture, which was an important objective. It wasn’t a scientific goal. It was a goal of the religion of ungodliness. Then, evolutionism came along. It’s a religious idea that’s scientifically impossible, but ungodly people called it “science.” And much of Christianity said, “We must follow the science.” Much of Christianity blindly believed the liars who promoted billions of years of molecules-to-humanity evolution–a complete cult of evolutionism. They called it “science,” but it wasn’t and isn’t science. Next, came global cooling, then global warming, then man-made climate change. It was all pseudo-science. Now, they ignore science and censor anyone who actually follows science regarding pandemics in general and Covid 19 in particular.
<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
Scientists often speak and write using the vague terms “inference” or “infer.” Inferring is concluding, but something’s not right about that. The word “inference” says that someone is reasoning to an inference, whatever “inference” means. Someone is reasoning, but is this person reasoning inductively and abductively? Neither inductive nor abductive reasoning can prove anything. Scientists infer using induction and abduction. Inferring is different from proving since the word “infer” means something closer to the word “conclude.” It’s a broader term than “deduce,” which implies sound deductive reasoning.
 
Is there a difference between concluding and inferring? Concluding must be conclusive, right? The word implies an end. It implies finality. The word “infer” doesn’t seem to have that finality. We can infer what’s untrue. It’s still irrational to do so, but when scientists say that they infer, they aren’t saying the same thing as when we say that we conclude. Notice how Dictionary.com defines “infer.”
 
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
to hint; imply; suggest.
 
Those four definitions provide a wide range for interpretation with the first two definitions being vague and the third and fourth being guessing and hinting. The first definition is the strongest, yet Dictionary.com didn’t specify the kind of reasoning. It could be irrational reasoning. The reasoning could be guessing, speculating, hinting, implying, or suggesting. Other dictionaries use the word “deduce,” but they don’t indicate whether that deductive reasoning is sound. Persuaders and speakers often use the words “conclude” and “infer” interchangeably. “Conclude” can mean simply to decide. It can mean using sound reasoning that starts with true premises and ends with a proved conclusion. Scientists, teachers, and politicians use this fuzzy language, which allows them to go off the track of truth without realizing it.
<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
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.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Proofs

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
“Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.” ~ Psychology Today (https://goo.gl/sRkGyS)
 
So these thinkers say it’s all about evidence and not about proof at all.
 
If we search for the definition of “scientific proof,” we’ll usually get definitions of “scientific evidence” like the following:
 
“Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with the scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.” ~ Wikipedia (https://goo.gl/VVXeMd)
 
Other people say scientific theories can be proved and remain theories. But if we prove a theory, is it still theoretical? Theories aren’t proved facts.
 
When someone claims that scientific theories are proved, their definition of “proved” must be different from the way we’ve been defining “proof” on this journey. “Proof,” in the way we’re defining the word, results in absolute certainty. Just consider what’s written about germ theory (the theory that germs cause certain diseases) and notice the conflict:
 
“But it was the laboratory research of Louis Pasteur in the 1860s and then Robert Koch in the following decades that provided the scientific proof for germ theory.” ~ Science Museum Org (https://goo.gl/6k9UCu)
 
We can readily see the conflict between this quote about proving a theory and the previous quote that said proofs don’t exist in science. However, quotes about proving theories are all over the Internet. Here are a few more examples:
 
“The Italian Agostino Bassi was the first person to prove that a disease was caused by a microorganism” ~ Wikipedia (https://goo.gl/4YTp4p)
 
“Germ theory states that specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases. The theory was developed, proved, and popularized in Europe and North America between about 1850 and 1920.” ~ Harvard (https://goo.gl/ewipKu)
 
“Although the germ theory has long been considered proved” ~ Britannica (https://goo.gl/gLbvBU)
 
The way these writers use the word “proof” confuses the issue.
<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
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.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Christ Reveals Truth through Science Too

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
At this point of our journey, we want to review the way the words “proof” and “proved” are used differently by different people. Some scientists feel that science never proves anything. Scientists say that they infer based on evidence rather than saying that they prove based on proof. The first speaks of what may be mere opinion, but the second speaks in concrete terms of knowledge and certainty. Evidence isn’t necessarily proof. Inference isn’t necessarily sound reasoning. Support isn’t necessarily proof. An inferred conclusion isn’t necessarily known truth.
<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
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.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

All Knowledge is Hidden in Christ

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
Those who refuse to acknowledge God miss most of the blessings of science, but God still blesses them and gives them some of His knowledge through science. They can find many things that work because of God’s divine revelation even though they refuse to acknowledge God or thank Him for the blessing of this knowledge. However, as mentioned previously, they’re limited because they can’t tell the difference between revelation and made-up stuff. Therefore, they can’t have certainty about anything. And yet, they accept that and reason as though their uncertainty were certainty. They may also be able to infer from the observations alone. If they don’t go beyond what they observe in the present, they can infer from that. However, when they try to guess beyond what they observe, they run into a problem. When ungodly thinkers try to reason about causes for what they observe, they don’t have a way to discern between truth and error or reality and make-believe. As a result, some of what’s called “science” comes from made-up stuff, while some of it comes from divine revelation. However, ungodly thinkers have no way to tell the difference between made-up stuff and divine revelation.
<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
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.
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Brute Beast

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

We already know that the apostle, Jude, mentioned pragmatism. We don’t have to be scientists to experience this pragmatism either. We use sense data to do common tasks, and we don’t have to acknowledge God to do that. So what? Bacteria and bugs do the same. Dogs, cats, and raccoons learn in this way. However, as Jude points out, they’re incapable of rational thought just like we are in those times when we fail to acknowledge God. If we want to reduce ourselves to the level of beasts, incapable of rational thought, we can proceed without God.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

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.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Can Science Yield Knowledge?

Posted on by

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
It’s not that science can’t lead to knowledge. Naturalistic science works from observation and reacting to sense data. That’s the nature of the brute-beast mind that God provides for humans in the same way God provides for animals. In addition to this brute-beast pseudo-knowledge, observation is one of the ways God speaks to us. He speaks to us through His creation and reveals reality to us through the things He has made. He speaks to all people this way as stated in The Letter to the Romans. He even speaks to those who refuse to acknowledge Him. True scientific method receives this revelation from God as we observe. Therefore, science can lead to knowledge whenever we listen to and yield to the Holy Spirit.<end quote>
 
#RealFaith&Reason
 
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.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail