rmwilliamsjr said:

CovenantInBlood said:

This is a disingenuous argument. Does science allow for the possibility that Balaam's ass spoke, that Jesus was conceived of a virgin, that the Red Sea opened up so the Israelites could pass through it? Science doesn't say anything about the supernatural because as far as science is concerned, there is no supernature. It is not empirically observable. Now, if you want to redefine the philosophical paradigm of modern science, that's a whole other issue. But as it stands, resurrection is a scientific impossibility.

no, you are misunderstanding the philosophy of science. Certainly there are those who would propose this strong scientism, that science is atheistic. But it is not, recognizing the inaccessibility of the supernatural to natural sciences methods it doesn't dismiss the arena as non-existent but as inaccessible, not irrelevant but as outside of sciences universe of discourse. If you want, label science agnostic towards the supernatural, but to claim naturalism as a sufficiency statement is to fall prey to the arguments of Dennett and Dawkins and their ilk.

Is there sufficient scientific reason for me to accept evolution or a millions-years-old earth in contradistinction to the plain reading of Scripture? Properly speaking, are not both evolution and the age of the earth then outside the scope of scientific evaluation, since at any rate neither can be actually observed?


I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.