Unknowns, are better for science, than repetitions of what is assumed to be known (selah)

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Gottservant

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2022
1,815
519
113
45
Greensborough
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Hi there,

So there is a philosophical problem, with Scientism. That problem, is the value Scientism gives that which it starts out with. Science starts with unknowns. Scientism, takes those unknowns and equivocates that all unknowns have the same fundamental value. That value is antecedent. More specifically, to theory. Antecedent to theory. In other words, Scientism calls unknowns subjugant to theory.

The problem with subjugating all unknowns, to theory, is first that it encourages false positives. General theories, which discern little difference between one unknown and another, have the danger that one unknown be mistaken for another. Thus it appears that a theory can be made of something, when the precise unknown it is dealing with, is mistaken. Second, subjugating unknowns together suggests that one theory, about an unknown, is on equal footing with other theories, that take the same unknown as foundation. This leads to an idea of scientific progress, that all unknowns will one day be subject to an arch-theory, that is able to identify the value all unknowns are given, in the same given way.

What is needed, is imagination. Imagination, frees unknowns to be what they are for their own value. With imagination, unknowns are able to interact with each other, in ways that are far more creative, than they can ever be, held as subjugant to Scientism. This is a simple dynamic: the more freedom you give the imagination to deal with unknowns, the greater the overall creativity that those interactions achieve. It is not an assumption that science can not reckon with unknowns, but that science that prizes imagination before subjugating an unknown to a theory will arrive at the needed conclusion concerning that science, more quickly and more precisely than had it prized anything else.

What is intelligent about this, is that it allows utility to be found in the manner of approach, before foregone conclusions about what a given unknown can accomplish. "Design" is just one such kind of unknown. It is not that knowing what something is, tells you everything about what it can do, rather a designation of "design" suggests that a degree of what defines that design, is unknown even to the design. This amplifies its power, because it is in direct conjunction with what is unknown even to it: that is, what it is capable of. Thus you have the concept of intelligent design, which brings the unknown into relationship with the imagination.

I hope this has been of some education.

Thanks.
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There's no philosophical issue.

Science starts with what is known and progresses into the unknown.
 

Gottservant

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2022
1,815
519
113
45
Greensborough
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Scientifically speaking, we should prepare for evidence, by being in Awe of God.

One's readiness for a piece of evidence, if it is self-centered, achieves little.

On the other hand, great Awe can prepare the soul for an exceedingly great amount of evidence.
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's good if that's what it does, but I think the consensus is that we know and keep knowing.
Consensus is science keep learning, and we as well. Man has come along way since the horse and buggy. We can talk on computers that's science technology.
 

Gottservant

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2022
1,815
519
113
45
Greensborough
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
In summary: it is pointless to call everything that has "evolved" 'Evolution'.

You say "But how is that the truth?" to which I say "now you want one truth for Evolution? That's not Evolution either!"

The selection process on its own, does not qualify its subjects - above and beyond selecting something specific to be near to the standard, it upholds.

It's a bit like human teeth, the first ones fall out, but the words we choose to speak stay the same - does it make sense to say "these are the words before losing teeth and these are the words coming after losing teeth? No! But we learn to speak, despite our words! Thus our words develop maturity, which is not the same as needing teeth to fall out, for them to be right!

As Creationists, we do not call everything that is created "Creation", but "created by God" - this is a standard, it helps you negotiate Creation, because there is something that makes one part of Creation more relevant than another. Hence there is truth when you say "humans are particularly relevant to Creation, in a lot of cases". If Evolution understood this, we would really be getting somewhere!
 

Gottservant

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2022
1,815
519
113
45
Greensborough
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Indeed increasing the level of "unknown" selection pressure, that you need to adapt to, would probably lead to a more evolved state, of your current evolution.
 

Windmillcharge

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2017
2,934
1,823
113
68
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Scientism is the view/belief that science is the only objective means of determining truth.

Scientific method is using observation, records and experimentation to establish facts in support or rejection of theories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gottservant