Creation Muesum

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.  

---

Which is exactly what "Christian Science" is. Any "reputable" (and by reputable I mean accepted by Christians) Christian source has a statement of faith like the one from AiG I posted above. They literally state that any evidence which contradicts scripture must, by definition, be wrongly interpreted. Science can never start with an unassailable position. That is the antithesis of science.

This is a generalization. I would also point out that many naturalist make a similar claim (and with much less reason). I also take into consideration, that either the info gathered from science or scripture, may be wrongfully interpreted by myself.

---

Science is the collection of data through physical observance and testing.  Then from all the data, a conclusion or inference is made, and if possible further testing can be done to verify conclusions (not all science can be tested).  

I don't believe that a different interpretation of the evidence, means that the opposing view is not scientific (only that at least one view contains an error).  Ideally science is objective, and the data is analyzed without a priori assumptions or bias.  In reality this, is never the case.  However this doesn't mean that we are unable to produce good science.   What I look for is what the conclusion is based on, and if it is reasonable.  Do they include all the evidence, or only the evidence which supports their case?  Do they attempt an explanation for evidence which may oppose or cause difficulties in their conclusion?  Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is it based on something else.   I would note, that the motivation for the study being based on a view outside of science, does not mean that the work is not scientific.  This would be the genetic fallacy.

---

If they start with the conclusion, then it is not scientific. By definition. If you start with the conclusion that the world must be 6,000 years old, and then go and search for corroborating evidence, even if said evidence is collected in a "scientific" manner, you are still only collecting evidence in a scientific manner. The interpretation of the evidence with the conclusion already in mind is not science. It is arm waving at its basest.

So then... if I am told by my teacher, that evolution is true, and then proceed to demonstrate in a scientific manner that it is true, then it is not science? It would seem that under this definition much of science, is not science!

---

There are some Christian's who try to force their views from outside sources into science when the conclusion is not primarily based on science.  I also see some materialist doing the same thing.  Science isn't the only basis for truth.  And we need to reconcile all the sources of truth, to get a true view of reality.

---

Empirical observation is the only method for arriving at a realistic conclusion. Getting your "truth" from a 2000 year old book and co-opting modern knowledge into that, I'm sorry, is not a reconciliation of truth. It's wish granting, and I'll not be a part of it.

Are you saying, that unless something is observed, it is not science? Can science make an inference based on what is observed, to come to a conclusion about what was likely the cause (which was not empirically observed)?