I'm not a scientist and I am not at all anti Science generally. I do reject the concept that there can only be materialistic understanding in order for it to be considered scientific. Surely the question is not, "Is this acceptable from a scientific point of view" but rather, "Is it true?"
Much science is verifiable by experimentation. Some amazing developments have been made. For example, Professor James Tour's team has developed a method to repair severed spinal cords. He has developed a nanotech "drill" that can be used to destroy cancer cells. Jim is a believer.
This is a problem for the science community as Jim is a passionate evangelist as well as a Professor of Organic Chemistry. Since his critics cannot fault his science, they criticise him personally.
Historical science is hard. No one can observe the events that shaped the past. There is conjecture about the speed of light, for example. Has it been constant? No one can be sure. Much cosmology reads more like fantasy imagination than science.
Darwin offered a way to conduct research in historical sciences. He came up with the principle of "Inference to the best explanation." For example, if someone sees a deer painted on a cave wall, it implies that there was a painter. It is highly unlikely that a water stain would produce such a painting. If only one picture was found, there may be some doubt. If many more were found, it would be safe to assume that they were deliberately put there. And since only humans are known to be artists, then the pictures are most likely to be of human origin.
Oddly, when it comes to the theory of evolution, the "Inference to best explanation" principle is ignored. Instead, an assumption is made, that there is no God, therefore only a materialistic explanation is acceptable. And anyone who argues otherwise is dismissed as a non-scientist.
Bill Gates said, " DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Almost every cell in the body has DNA. It is the code of life that determines all our physical characteristics. Now if we follow the inference principle, a program implies a programmer. And if the program is vastly more advanced than anything man has written, then the mind that created the program must also be far more advanced.
Materialistic science cannot handle this obvious explanation. The intellectual gymnastics that some scientists(?) engage is would be laughable if not so pathetic.
Brethren, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." Don't get caught up in the false "scientism" of those who reject God as Creator. God has revealed to us how He created the universe and why. It's fine to study and so to marvel at God's creation. But to doubt God's word because deluded materialists reject it is foolish.
This is a problem for the science community as Jim is a passionate evangelist as well as a Professor of Organic Chemistry. Since his critics cannot fault his science, they criticise him personally.
Historical science is hard. No one can observe the events that shaped the past. There is conjecture about the speed of light, for example. Has it been constant? No one can be sure. Much cosmology reads more like fantasy imagination than science.
Darwin offered a way to conduct research in historical sciences. He came up with the principle of "Inference to the best explanation." For example, if someone sees a deer painted on a cave wall, it implies that there was a painter. It is highly unlikely that a water stain would produce such a painting. If only one picture was found, there may be some doubt. If many more were found, it would be safe to assume that they were deliberately put there. And since only humans are known to be artists, then the pictures are most likely to be of human origin.
Oddly, when it comes to the theory of evolution, the "Inference to best explanation" principle is ignored. Instead, an assumption is made, that there is no God, therefore only a materialistic explanation is acceptable. And anyone who argues otherwise is dismissed as a non-scientist.
Bill Gates said, " DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Almost every cell in the body has DNA. It is the code of life that determines all our physical characteristics. Now if we follow the inference principle, a program implies a programmer. And if the program is vastly more advanced than anything man has written, then the mind that created the program must also be far more advanced.
Materialistic science cannot handle this obvious explanation. The intellectual gymnastics that some scientists(?) engage is would be laughable if not so pathetic.
Brethren, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." Don't get caught up in the false "scientism" of those who reject God as Creator. God has revealed to us how He created the universe and why. It's fine to study and so to marvel at God's creation. But to doubt God's word because deluded materialists reject it is foolish.
Newton was a devout believer, and also a quite perceptive scientist. 