Creation Muesum

[Esquilax]

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.  It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.  

I'll make this real simple: in the scientific method, there are a few necessary conditions, one of which being that the asserted cause or conclusion one reaches through the data they observe must be possible. For a thing to be probable- and all science ever does is measure probabilities- then it must be possible, and I don't think this is a controversial statement in the least. Impossible things cannot probably be the cause of other things.

Since every single core christian claim has not been demonstrated to be possible and is, in accordance with the available evidence, most likely impossible, then christian conclusions cannot be legitimate science. Many christians want to skip the foundational step of demonstrating that the things they believe in can even happen at all before they attempt to use science to conclude that they did- "Oh, X, Y, and Z findings are totally consistent with this thing I believe and presuppose could actually happen, therefore christianity!"- but that's not a step you can ever skip. But christians are happy to skip it, while they piggyback on other people's reports and experiments to do so, because they never actually conduct experiments to test their claims either, they just take experiments others have done for unrelated claims and say yes, all that is totally consistent with my religion!

That's another reason there's no such thing as christian science, I guess: christians never do science. They never test those claims. They just spin other people's work in favor of their claims, so their religion is never under direct scientific scrutiny. Mite suspicious, that.