Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
After years of stentorian demands that science follow the evidence wherever it leads, StephenB makes clear where he won't follow, regardless of the science:
| Quote | | This brings us back to the question about which Scriptural truths are non-negotiable and the contemporary TE problem (not the traditional TE, which is a totally different mindset). I submit, for example, that the teaching about original sin, singular first parents, and God as creator of the universe should be beyond the reach of science to refute. If you give those away to the Darwinist mentality, you may as well go all the way and become an agnostic. Without the first Adam and Eve (not necessarily by name) there is not need for the second Adam and Eve, [Christ and his mother]. Take away original sin, and there is no need for a redeemer. |
Stephen here clearly announces what we already knew: it is NOT science, nor logical reasoning over empirical evidence, that governs his worldview.
It is his a prior, non-negotiable commitment to the above theological tenets that governs his worldview.
Please, Stephen, no more petulant whining about the need to found science upon premodern "rules of right reason." You've no commitment to science.
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
