They were looking at the same data: the same fossils, the same stratigraphy, the same biological principles, and so on. But from these data, creationists were concluding that all living things had appeared in their present form, at one time, a few thousand years ago. I was concluding that living things had branched off from common ancestors over scarcely imaginable stretches of time. They were concluding that the entire planet had been covered by water, and that all the present-day geological features of earth had been determined by this flood and its aftermath. I could not see any evidence for this at all, and much evidence against it. Why were we coming up with such different conclusions? The data were not all that different, but the philosophy of science and the approach to problem solving sure were.
It's not the evidence, but one's approach to the evidence that makes the difference. We've known this all along.
There are two basic principles of science that creationism violates. First, science is an attempt to explain the natural world in terms of natural processes, not supernatural ones. This principle is sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism.
This is incorrect. Whether intentional or not, I cannot determine for certain. "Methodological naturalism" only applies to the present. When "naturalism" is applied to the past, it is "philosophical naturalism", more commonly called 'atheism'.
Of course all "naturalism" is atheism, and anyone who says otherwise hasn't considered the issues strictly.
The second minimal principle of science is that explanations (which is what theories are) are tentative, and may change with new data or new theory.
That's just a hoot! She's already ruled out the truth, categorically. Who cares about a willingness to switch from one untrue story to another? So what? So stinkin' what?
Again, it's apples and oranges. The past is not subject to change; only our understandings are subject to revision, and only to the extent they may potentially be in error. Experiments are not a primary means of determining what has already taken place, as anyone who's ever investigated any past event knows.
The flaws here are pretty obvious. If one rules out "the supernatural" from having ever existed, what's left? How shall one have anything but absurdity for a conclusion?
This is all polywrong, and it's pretty in-your-face about it. The term 'supernatural' cannot even be defined in a way that permits it to be ruled out. 'Super' means above. That which is above nature can by no means be restricted from interacting with nature.
Scott talks about the philosophy of science, and how important it is. Well, it's important if you want the truth. It's also very important to screw it up if you want something else.
Why not go with what works?
A notable fact in relation to Christianity and science is that the birth of modern science occurred in Christianized Europe. Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D.
In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors, only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.
(Rodney Stark is an "agnostic", by the way.)
