Always helpful, Erv. The scientific way of knowing, as you describe, is unassailable, it seems to me. The problem arises when science, at times and in certain areas, seems to pick and choose the emphasis it places on certain data. We see it especially in "design" and in "global warming," etc.

In other words, do you see any place where presuppositions may at times influence hypotheses and then conclusions? Cheers, Herb

Protestant Christians historically acknowledge the bible as the only final authority of "faith and practice." Precisely because science and other sources of information are not completely reliable in all circumstances.

So we say, "In the beginning God......." (a confession of faith), while science will say, "In the beginning, we don't know......" (also a confession of faith).

We could suspect that many reject the bible because they hope it isn't true more than they know it isn't true.

Neither can we assume those who reject the bible simply do not know its gospel message. According to the bible, the lost have all had some knowledge of the gospel in some form or another. So they did not reject it simply because they did not know it or understand it.

In some cases at least, they have found it inconvenient and a bother to their earthly goals. After all, sin has a certain attraction including pleasure and at least some of Christanity is a total hassle.

Present fulfilment seem more desirable than a future tranquility. Not to mention, what if it isn't true anyway? So, they hope it is not true since they have chosen to reject it.

Bill Sorensen

Herb:

As is always the case, you pose an important and excellent question.

I am not aware of anyone who would dispute the statement that presuppositions influence both hypotheses and conclusions.  But I hope that we would agree that this is an issue that directly impacts not only scientific-based understandings but also theological-based assertions.

One major difference, of course, is that there is little to no agreement on presuppositions among those who engage in the theological enterprise whereas there is essentially unanimous agreement among contemporary research active scientists on almost a world wide basis with regard to the fundamental presuppositions involved in the conduct of scientific investigations.  As I already noted, even if we limit our focus to the Christian tradition in general or, even if go further and focus our considerations totally to theological discourse within the small Christian Protestant religious subculture of Adventism, there are fundamental differences of opinion over presuppositions among Adventist theologians and other scholars. 

But back to your specific point--You suggest that a problem arises when science, in some cases, seems to, as you say, “pick and choose the emphasis it places on certain data.”   Science is done by humans and humans are not objective and thus the tendency for advocates of some point of view to focus on some data and ignore other data.  The only thing that keeps the scientific enterprise as a whole honest is that there are other scientists who would be delighted to point out where some other scientist ignores data that tends to refute a particular point of view.  That happens all of time in the part of the scientific literature with which I am familiar.  This is why double-blind protocols are considered the gold standard in many fields.

I work with scientists who are very familiar with the literature on global warming and they concede that there are many problems with many of the generalizations made and the adequacy of most of the models used.  However, I’m told that seems to be a general sense that the world is indeed warming but the rates involved and the role of humans as opposed to natural cycles are still, to some degree, up in the air.

With regard to “intelligent design” (which I assume is what you mean by “design”)--typically this is rejected by the general scientific community as a whole for the simple reason that science was not and is not designed to work very well (or not at all) if you inject any non-naturalistic elements into any scientific argument.  Fundamentalists, including most (not all) of the current and former GRI people will naturally object that by eliminating God or supernatural explanations from consideration as causative elements in the natural world is arbitrary and reflects naturalist bias.  It certainly does reflect a bias that says that science has been successful precisely because it has eliminated any non-naturalist explanations from scientific discourse.  I have never heard any fundamentalist, including GRI proponents, dispute that statement. 

Speaking of “picking and choosing” arguments—it strikes me that the best illustration of this can be seen in Adventist apologetic theological discourse.  Reading the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (which I do) provides copious illustrations of how this works.  ATS writers know the end result they want, e.g., support some orthodox Adventist doctrine.  Now all they have to do is to collect the arguments that support their position and generally ignore the ones that do not.   It is great fun, but I wonder who they think they are kidding?

Unlike science, institutional Adventism—like most conservative/fundamentalist Christian groups--does not have a robust tradition where theologians inside of the corporate body are expected publically to identify and discuss errors of fact and interpretation of other, in this case, Adventist theologians.  Those who do are generally ostracized and worse.  I submit that the principal reason why this happens is mostly due to the practical need of the institutional church leadership to maintain control because it needs to maintain cash flow from the donations of church members who will certainly not contribute to a religious organization who is not 100% certain that its beliefs are absolutely true.  Would you agree?           

Erv: I race for time but your thoughts deserve a response. As you know, the history of historical theology is loaded with truckloads of presuppositions that have caused the sad divisions and wars in all churches through the years. We pity our Lord!  Much or it caused by quoting the same selected thought leader who has his own presuppositions.

I note your comment that scientists are humans, thus not objective. And that their objectivity is corrected up by other scientists,etc. Really? Well yes, but, it takes a long time to change a theory that has momentous consequences. Think of the Australian physicians in 1982  who were ridiculed by the medical "industry" for their "bizarre" assertion that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, etc. Finally, in 2005 they were awarded the Nobel Prize "for their tenacity and willingness to challenge pervading dogmas." 

 I like that .story because I can easily use it in theological circles!

I  am not convinced that pure science is so pure that it won't recognize (perhaps afraid of ridicule) the possibility that there may also be another explanation for the astonishing, ever increasing mountain of evidence for "design" in nature.

Your last few words make both of us smile? Of course, I would phrase the issue differently. Your suggestion is not the reason why I and Norma pay a double tithe for different purposes--it is our way of recognizing His Lordship and His daily goodness to us. Cheers, Herb

Ervin, in the paragraph in which you write that modern science "emerged within the context of a specific set of cultural and economic conditions in the 16th and 17th centuries in Western Europe", you are glossing over and minimizing the fact that modern science was born in a Christian culture, and largely founded and established by Christian men, many of whom were quite fervent believers.  The founders of modern science--Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Leeuwenhoek, Steno, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Owen, and Agassiz--were believing Christians. Modern science is almost totally a product of Christian civilization.  Were science in conflict with Christianity, it would have been stillborn, but it isn't and it wasn't.  It is in no sense a paradox that the United States is the most believing, church-going nation on earth, and also the most scientific.  Yes, modern science is distinct from religion, but its roots are so bound up with Christianity that it would be accurate to say that science is one of the subsets or subcategories of the Christian way of knowing, the Christian way of interacting with the universe.

Bill,

You say "Christian are aware of the value of science... science is often faulty with limited information and resources. Protestant Christians acknowledge the bible as the only final authority of "faith and practice.... because science and other sources of information are not completely reliable in all circumstances."

Well when it comes to knowledge about the natural world and physical healing, I will take "unreliable" science over the faith and the bible anytime of the weak. Statistically I am on terra firma. 

Erv,

From what you write, indeed, "knowing" in the mind of a Christian appears to be pretty flimsy. No wonder there is such a great diversity of views concerning the meaning of often cryptic biblical texts and what God is "really saying to us." I would think that any rational person would not make the strident claim that God is "speaking to him/her directly." 

I also wonder why people who claim to be in direct communion with God are generally more credible a few decades after their passing. I suspect in todays world if people like Joseph Smith or EG White were alive and made repeated and insistent claims that God was talking to them directly, we might redirect them to the nearest mental health care facility. 

My post needed some editing. Sorry!

Well when it comes to knowledge about the natural world and physical healing, I will take "unreliable" science over faith and the bible anytime of the week. Statistically I am on terra firma.