<quote>

Scientists disagree about interpretations of observations. Based on their interpretation of observations, some scientists assume there was no Creation event or worldwide catastrophic Flood event. However, other scientists interpret the same observations and decide the Creation and worldwide catastrophic Flood events took place. So scientists with the same training, using the same observations, propose different theories of origins. Horrors!

Those who worship scientists get upset that some scientists disagree with the majority. They think those who disagree with the majority have lost touch with reality and aren’t “real scientists.” On the other side are those who are just as amazed that anyone could disagree with the scientific interpretation that agrees with Scripture. Those on each side stand amazed that the others are so thickheaded. This divide illustrates the great debate between scientists, a debate that’s caused by different methods of reasoning rather than different observations.

The difference is in the interpretation of evidence. We interpret, but groupthink, worldviews, peer pressure, assumptions, presuppositions, and divine revelation influence our judgment. Often, we listen to the loudest voice or the one that agrees with what we’ve always thought. Our brute-beast minds find something that seems to work and settle on this pragmatic solution even when our choice isn’t the best.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

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_1_-_Scientia.pdf