Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[SteveII]

It can comment on the reasons why we think some cause was supernatural. It cannot say whether something is or is not. 

At every turn this gets more inconsistent.  When it;s done commenting, and the comment is "didn't happen this way", we rationalize.  We exempt.  We forget that we ever mentioned science as a metric or an authority and say "but we don't know for sure".  

No they are not god of the gaps beliefs. From Wikipedia: "God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." Christians believe that God created the universe because 1) he said he did and 2) it is foundational to theology that God created the universe for a specific purpose: for us. Same with life. God creating life endows is with purpose and value.

Your continued insistence upon this shady territory of what you feel cannot be disporoven by metrics which you do not accept as authoratative in the first place makes this yet another disingenuous comment.  You -do- support your belief with those gaps, you even go to the trouble of manufacturing them.  Repeatedly.   Perhaps that's because you realize that "he said so, and we need it to be true" is rationally insufficient, and ofc you do so in the face of good science regardless.   At no point do I see you discarding this contradictory narrative for the reasons you've offered.  

I have abandoned 'god of the gap' arguments (not beliefs). I would have previously argued life...therefore God, etc. A belief I have changed my mind on is the literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago.

Except that this is a true religious belief...it was done supernaturally.  As such the metrics you offered for discarding them are inapplicable, as per your comments on the matter.  I don't think that you've arranged the sets of what you do and don't believe in this way.  I think that this, amusingly, is yet another contradictory belief which you will not discard.  

You think YEC is silly, and it is...but it isn't any more or less silly than miracles, or supernatural causes, or the endless prattling on about disproving your religious beliefs.  This is why I asked for an example.  Don;t you think that a YEC can defend this belief by using exactly the same sort of waffling you've engaged in, in just this thread?  I;m not personally interested in the batshit things you believe.  I won't ask you what they are or to prove them.  I'm trying to put together a cogent description of how you manage your beliefs, whatever they may be.

To sum this up, I believe that where core theology is not on the line, we can listen to what science thinks is the best explanation and go forward to see where that leads. In my opinion, science has not produced contradictory proof of anything that would nullify core theology if true.  Sure, our understanding has shifted over the centuries, but looking closer, it really does not affect core theological issues. If science gets around to disproving any core theological concept, then we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

YEC is a good example. Why hang your hat on something that all indications are that it is not the best explanation for the observations? Time will tell so why fight about it like it is a core theological concept when it really isn't?

Regarding miracles, an event either is or is not. Again, case by case. 

What do you think that I 'exempt' from scientific scrutiny that I have no business exempting if I am to remain consistent?