Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?
Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?
Yes, but Josh you know these things because they have been revealed to you. To the person who denies all forms of knowledge save empirical you cannot ever know this. (actually you could never know anything but thats a side point) You are trying to be rational by taking truth that is revealed and applying reason (part of the definition of rationalism) and that is outside the allowed presuppositions by the challenger.
Yes, but Josh you know these things because they have been revealed to you. To the person who denies all forms of knowledge save empirical you cannot ever know this. (actually you could never know anything but thats a side point) You are trying to be rational by taking truth that is revealed and applying reason (part of the definition of rationalism) and that is outside the allowed presuppositions by the challenger.
Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?
Quote from Romans 9:16
not of empirical observation
Would you say that there is some empirical observation of artifacts like fossils etc, but the interpretation put on them is too highly coloured by prior faith commitments to be really useful? How would you see the "science" - such as it is - of evolutionism and creationism relating to the philosophy and theology/antitheology.
The critic is correct, creation is not scientific. Creation is a truth communicated by revelation and received by faith (Heb 11:3). Perspectives on the origins of the world, teleology, etc. are the domain of philosophy/world-views, not of empirical observation. The critic of Christianity knows this about creation, but has conveniently forgot that same is true of evolution also. The best way to deal with the critic is ask him which philosophical framework best establishes and explains science. In an evolutionary system there would be no science. In fact there would be no knowledge of anything. As all thoughts would be electro-chemical accidents, there would be no objective basis for validating any affirmation of anything. We are all stupid beasts dogmatically affirming things for no reason at all. The equation is quite simply this: evolution in = epistemology out.
Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?
Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?
The critic is correct, creation is not scientific. Creation is a truth communicated by revelation and received by faith (Heb 11:3). Perspectives on the origins of the world, teleology, etc. are the domain of philosophy/world-views, not of empirical observation. The critic of Christianity knows this about creation, but has conveniently forgot that same is true of evolution also. The best way to deal with the critic is ask him which philosophical framework best establishes and explains science. In an evolutionary system there would be no science. In fact there would be no knowledge of anything. As all thoughts would be electro-chemical accidents, there would be no objective basis for validating any affirmation of anything. We are all stupid beasts dogmatically affirming things for no reason at all. The equation is quite simply this: evolution in = epistemology out.
If creationism is not scientific, how would you respond to the claim of critics that creationism is pseudoscience?
"Creationism" is (all too often) "pseudoscience". in my opinion
Granted, but it's not all like that. Some creationists are doing great science and getting it published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Their work tends to get overlooked, partly because of all the less edifying stuff.