Science Defined

[Celt]

Academia has hi-jacked the word 'science' and tried to place it into a locked vault joined with materialistic empiricism. The true meaning of the word 'science' is that it applies to a much wider category of learning, knowledge, and experience than they care to admit.

Per The American Heritage Dictionary:

Science - 1. The observation, identification, description, experimenatal investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.

Natural phenomena is understood to be natural events one might experience often in the physical world. We must not forget that evidence also exists for natural phenomena we don't see everyday, like Wooly Mammoth found buried in ice near the Arctic still with plant vegetation in their mouths and undigested in their stomach, suggesting they were caught grazing when a sudden freeze occurred. Plant and animal fossil remains have been found at the Arctic also revealing it was once like the climate of Florida. We've never seen that, nor has it been recorded as happenning in man's history. Yet the evidence exists.

If one of us had lived back when the Israelites trekked through the wilderness, and saw manna come down from heaven, that would be an observable event to us. After 40 years of seeing that, would it have become a natural observable event to us? Possibly. Science today still does not have concrete explanations for all natural phenoma; it's still in the act of discovering, growing, learning, as it always will be.

2. Such activity restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

Flight would be one such activity restricted to a certain class of natural phenomena. If someone living in 500 B.C. saw a jet airplane flying across the sky it would be a miraculous event to them. Man's discovery and application of the laws of flight is not that old today. So why do some have such a difficult time realizing that the science of flight always pre-existed within the natural phenomena of birds in flight? And how long have birds been flying? If the laws of flight existed before the word 'science', then what would it be called back then?

3. Such activity applied to any class of phenomena.

Per God's law in Leviticus 15, one with a spot was to wash their flesh with "running water". It was much later that man discovered using running water in medicinal practice cut down on the transfer of disease, and also helped alleviate disease. Wasn't that science always pre-existing in the activity of washing with running water? Yes.

4. Any methodological activity, discipline, or study.

When primordial hunters experimented with different materials to construct weapons such as the spear or bow and arrow, that was the application of methodological activity, discipline, or study. When we study our Bible we are even applying discipline and methodological activity, which involves the use of science. Thus science is not just the so-called 'Scientific Method' given by Sir Francis Bacon.

5. Any activity that appears to require study and method. 6. Knowledge; especially, knowledge gained through experience. [Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from sciens, present participle of scire, to know].

The ultimate definition of the word science is the one that comes from the old French and hence Latin sciens, "to know". The word science ultimately means 'to know'.

And a believer on The Almighty God can 'know' Faith and have experience of that Faith.

So the debate is not really about "Faith vs. Science", since science cannot be separated from the existence of this natural world, whether one believes this world was created or not. The real debate is about 'Actuality vs. Reality'. Does what one realizes to be true actually exist, that's what the real debate is about between those of Faith vs. those who rely on science only.

Even Faith comes by a methodology, the one which the apostle Paul explained in Romans 10:17, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by The Word of God. And per Acts 28:26-28, the Biblical act of hearing involves one's heart and mind being opened to understanding in The Word of God.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Celt

[Poindexter]

Academia has hi-jacked the word 'science' and tried to place it into a locked vault joined with materialistic empiricism. The true meaning of the word 'science' is that it applies to a much wider category of learning, knowledge, and experience than they care to admit.

One could grapple with any number of hypotheses in this post but I will limit myself to a couple. A 747 could have flown in the days of ancient Rome as easily as today. It probably would have if God had not intervened at the tower of Babel. And faith has substance and evidence. (Heb 11:1) I think science can be described as the natural evidence of what God has done.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Poindexter

[Wayfarer122]

I tend to agree that pop academia has hijacked good scientific methods in connection with the Theory of evolution. Unfortunately, we see a lot of pop academia being practiced today. I think I know why:

When I was in the 4th grade my teacher taught a chapter on the theory of evolution. She didn't teach evolution as a theory, but as a fact, with no supporting evidence other than her "Scientists have discovered..." rhetoric. I shook my head and was told not to disagree. When I continued to shake my head in disagreement, she told me to leave the room. I asked if I should go to the principal's office and she shrieked, "No! Just get out of here!" This was my first experience with pop academia, and it turned out to be a blessing in disguise. ("All things work together for good..." ) I spent most of the 4th grade in the library and became an avid reader. I also learned how people who are supposed to love science (such as my teacher) can be so enamored with their favorite theory, that they lose all sense of reason.

This is always a danger for scientists. My DH, who is a good scientist, has caused himself endless troubles in the past when he has fallen in love with some flawed theory that he has worked out. Out of complete frustration he would ask me to look over his numbers to see if he wasn't missing something, but before he handed me the papers he would point to a certain section and add, now this part is "bulletproof." Invariably, the "bulletproof" section of his work would be the source of the flaw. This went on for a few years before he was able to train himself to keep from falling in love with a theory or premise. Who says scientists aren't emotional!

We need to keep in mind that they're just people.

[Guest]

.... she shrieked, "No! Just get out of here!....

Won't Find Shrieker Folks Posting "Scientific" Shut Ups On These Threads......

Why So Blind?

God Shows Himself In Creation But Some Choose Imaginations

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;

so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;

but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:19-22

God Calls Out From His Holy Bible

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

But Most Will Choose Hate

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death Proverbs 8:36

And Blindness

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Over Jesus

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

And Joy

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

So Sad

They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him. Psalms 126:5-6

[Celt]

"Pop academia", interesting. Where by the way do we see this pop academia being practiced today? Got a specific example of a working scientist studying evolutionary theory (you can leave Dawkins out, yes perhaps he can be defined as a pop academician, but I don't know that he does any real work anymore). How about the people working on Tiktaalik? Are they pop academia types?

There's an example of what I'm talking about. The meaning of the word science involves a lot of knowledge and experience that has nothing to do with scientists. We need not assume nor believe that scientists are the only ones who can know or prove something. Like someone said, scientists aren't infallible either.

[Celt]

Exactly. Secular humanism and Darwinism can become one's religion at the expense of true science.

Anyone ever heard of Diffusionism? I guess that's what the mainstream Harvard archaeological school types label me as, since I definitely believe the pre-Columbian evidence in the Americas of ancient world travelers here. There was a stone found in Louden, Tenn. many years ago, in association with so-called Indian burial mounds. Problem for the Smithsonians though, because the stone was directly under the head of one of nine skeletons, and it had Paleo-Hebrew inscriptions on it. It's called the Bat Creek Stone. The Harvard types denied it was Paleo-Hebrew because there was one inscription they couldn't translate. And that was because it was a Massorah inscription. Only someone trained in the Massorah notes made by the Hebrew scribes would understand how to translate it. That actually made the identity of the remains more specificly as Hebrew priests or scribes that had training in the Massorah notes that surround the borders of the oldest copies of Old Testament manuscripts.

And what did the Smithsonian elites do with that Bat Creek Stone? Did they put it out on public display? No, they put it in the back room, with the rest of the artifacts that go against their mainstream theory of evolution of species. The other so-called Indian burial mounds that were in that same area were later bull-dozed over.

Same type of thing happened on a farm near where a friend lives. The farmer found a so-called Indian burial mound, and called the Smithsonian folks. My friend was allowed by the farmer to go inside it. She said one of the decayed bodies still had strands of 'red' hair on its skull. Of course, the Smithsonian elites destroyed that one too.

Burial mounds were not just common to American woodland Indian culture, but also among the Halstadt culture in Austria, where they're also found. It was not uncommon for the early Celtic and Scythian tribes to bury their nobles and kings in such mounds, along with their horses, armour, etc., similar to an Egyptian burial.

Then there's the Kennsington Rhunestone, the Ohio Decalogue stone, not to mention many megolith structures in the areas of New England. Per David Deal's Discovery of Ancient America, the Toltecs of Mexico had Canaanite-Hebrew words in their language. (Also see Dr. Barry Fell's America B.C..

In my college history text, it said the American Indians got to the Americas via a lang bridge in the Bering Straights. That would jive with Old Testament history in Genesis about the scattering of the peoples to the four corners of the earth after the tower of Babel event. I was told that's what the Harvard school deems as Diffusionism. Guess I'm a Diffusionist then, because the alternative of believing that each peoples sprang up independently on each continent like tadpoles in separate ponds is ludicrous.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Celt