Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

Science itself is a direct result of monotheistic religion (Whitehead's Hypothesis). This is a well known fact that even Richard Dawkins agrees with. The YEC guys I mentioned did their science because of their Biblical views. They believed (and rightly so) the universe was created by a rational being and therefore could be rationally understood. If our thoughts were just a result of chemical reactiions that are all a result of one cosmic accident, there would be no reason to believe that the chemicals in your brain could better understand their surroundings than someone else's chemicals. There would also be no reason to even trust your senses. So science itself is based upon purely religious and creationistic axioms whether you like to admit it or not.

You would not be saying that if the science developed by the Greeks stopped developing as soon as it emerged and instead develop into a sort of science we know today. The only reason science emerged as I can see it, is because in the west it was decided that if reason and revelation conflicted, reason overrode faith. It could have easily gone the other way and science would have never emerged.

Not correct. Modern Science arose directly from the monotheistic religions and in particular the Christian Reformation. Polytheism destroys scientific inquiry because there are multiple and often competing Gods so there is no rational basis for asking "why?". Rather, with Christianity, Christians are encouraged to seek the "why" and to give reasons for the hope within them. This and the belief that a rational Creator was responsible for the Universe and upheld it with predictible and measurable laws directly led to modern science and everything we know today. So can play these little "what if" games, but the facts speak for themselves. No monotheism = no modern science

---

In the case of Newton's religious beliefs, the analogue of the Statler's logic, let's call it static, would be because inventor of the first sea going ship believed the world to be flat, therefore the world must be flat and subsequent claims of circumnavigation impossible.

I think static is best turned off.

How do you know the inventor of the first sea going ship believed the World was flat? How do you know this belief is the reason why he built the ship? Besides, you are mixing apples and oranges again. We can demonstrate the Earth is not flat through operational Science, we cannot demonstrate the age of anything through operational science, so bad analogy. I will say it again, without a rational creator; there is no rational basis for doing anything, or learning anything, much less conducting science. This fact is just as true today as it was when modern science was birthed out of the reformation.