"...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..." [Deuteronomy 5:8-10]

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Darrick Dean Has A Statement Of Faith

Darrick Dean said (before closing his thread to further comments)...

"The Bible is... supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses." is based on the fact that the Bible is verifiable as a factual document. As the statment continues: "An honest study of nature -- its physical, biological, and social aspects -- can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other."

You are probably unaware that the modern scientific method was derived from biblical pinciples of study and "testing all things."

I'm in a habit of deleteing posts of people who aren't willing to engage in rational and/or adult conversation. Or people who like to play games.


According to Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Method, its beginnings can be dated back to at least 1,600 BCE. (The article does not mention the Bible once ;>). I can't find any reference to the Bible being the source of the Scientific Method. Perhaps Darrick can provide me with one. No? I thought not.

1,600 BCE is several hundred years before the Bible is generally regarded to have been written down.

There's the problem. Those scholars who insist that the Bible was written before that time tend to insist that it is inerrant. That is circular reasoning, is it not?

In any event, it strikes me as rather disingenuous of Darrick to quote Philip Johnson as an inspiration for his blog saying "Science should never fear honest intellectual tools such as precise use of terms, unbiased investigation of evidence..." and in particular a "refusal to accept unjustified extrapolations" when he does just that by insisting that the Bible is "supreme and final authority".

But hey, Darrick's comments on Intelligent Design have shown, he doesn't seem to care much about "facts".

But then why should he? His "properly understood" interpretation of the Bible trumps all other evidence.

I despair.


(Since Darrick closed the thread on his blog that I had originally posted in to further comments, I've copied my response to a different thread).

UPDATE 31-MAY-05: See here for Darrick's response

No comments: