by Bret Capranica | Jul 1, 2010 | Culture, Science, The Gospel
I was privileged to meet Dr. Andy Davis this past April. Aside from his obvious brilliance, he has memorized vast portions of Scripture and is so amazingly and encouragingly insightful in his understanding of God’s Word. Here is Dr. Davis, an MIT grad, discussing the question, has science buried God? [You Tube Video] HT: Thabiti...
by Bret Capranica | Apr 9, 2008 | Science
Scientists (especially theistic evolutionists) like to provide naturalistic explanations for most everything. In their quest to debunk “God” it seems they are now trying to find the missing link in their research: the God Particle. Scientists On Verge Of Finding The “God Particle” :...
by Bret Capranica | Jul 13, 2005 | Culture, Science
The authority of objective scientific studies is often touted and used as an oft played trump card over many moral and biblical convictions. Even some sincere Christians will dump the Bible because the studies show. . . . Linked above is a rarely published discussion of the obvious. Scientific claims of conclusive information more often than not turn out to be not so conclusive after all. This report serves as another drop in the bucket of my chagrin regarding the indefinite results of very definitive claims from the scientific community. The article notes: “New research highlights a frustrating fact about science: What was good for you yesterday frequently will turn out to be not so great tomorrow.” “The sobering conclusion came in a review of major studies published in three influential medical journals between 1990 and 2003, including 45 highly publicized studies that initially claimed a drug or other treatment worked.” “Subsequent research contradicted results of seven studies – 16 percent – and reported weaker results for seven others, an additional 16 percent. That means nearly one-third of the original results did not hold up, according to the report in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Medical Association.” Amazingly, one researcher concluded, “The general public should not panic” about refuted studies, he said. “We all need to start thinking more critically.” Really? More critical thinking by rational people might actually lead to a more moral, perhaps biblical mindset. I’m not sure our Adamic nature will allow that to...
by Bret Capranica | May 15, 2005 | Science
Remove a secular and purely naturalistic philosophical bent to observing the world and some scientists believe you are redefining the English language. So suggests this article regarding the Kansas Board of Education’s desire to define Science as “‘a systematic method of continuing investigation’ using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.” What could be wrong with such a definition? The definition does not even hint at a religious view of seeing the world. The problem is that it does not make a god out of naturalistic science. The definition does not demand that the world bow to a non-neutral philosophy of seeing the world through atheistic eyes. The objections to the new definition tend to demonstrate the anti-religious bias of some scientists who don’t seem to be pushing for objectivity of evidence, but rather supression of any conclusion that might demand the involvement of (or existence of) deity. Here is yet another evidence of the tolerance crowd showing a lack of tolerance toward a world-view that has the possibility of lending credibility to Christianity. It is fallacious to think that secular scientists (i.e., those quoted in the article) are neutral in their observations of the earth and its functions. Their opinion seems to be, “if you have religious convictions, it impossible to be scientific”, or at least, “religious convictions cannot have any scientific conclusions” and vice versa. Pure naturalism is a philosophical ideaology, not a result of unbiased, neutral observation. Why is it that science MUST be secular? My guess is that any scientific evaluation of this...
