Archives
A defense of science, Part 2
Continued from A defense of science
I think it important to take science back to the invariable root question of cosmology, especially since this root question is at the heart of what makes science possible. Science is the process of finding out “what is the cause of the effect I am studying?” The Laws of Causation are the very foundation of our scientific methodology. If we throw away the ideal that every cause needs a sufficient effect, then we have thrown away the ability to apply the scientific discipline.
A defense of science
I've been musing on my blog posts of late, and it's fairly obvious through interaction and comments (thanks to e-dogg for his interaction) that I've been on a tangent that misrepresents my original intent in many of my posts. My posts on scientific matters pretty much began here. It was a comparison of the faith inherent in both science and apologetics/Christianity. Those that followed were interested in pointing out the faith involved with science.
I have rocks in my head...
Space rocks...
I'm often asked if I'm a creationist. And I'm always surprized by the question. I'll clarify. If you are talking to a Christian, you are talking to a creationist. Every Christian should believe that God created everything.
But the term "creationist" seems to have been exclusively attached to "recent-creationists", or "young-Earth-creationists". There is the possibility that God created the Universe eons ago, and then created Adam intact as a mature human. It's not just a question of evolution vs. a young Earth.