Scientific activities can be classified in a number of ways, but the suggestion here is to compare science with a naturalistic presuppostion, science with a creationist presupposition, or "methodological science," meaning inquiry open to either naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanations. Published in Origins v. 22, n. 2.
Two ideas from philosophers of science are discussed: paradigm and falsification. A paradigm is a useful tool for research, but it would be good to test the paradigm occasionally by attempting to falsify seme aspect of its structure. This might be done by considering "the weight of evidence" relating to the paradigm. Published in Origins v. 22, n. 1.
A review of the book, Dreams of a Final Theory. Attempts to explain all of creation from a naturalistic perspective have limited success. Published in Origins v. 22, n. 1.
Coconino Sandstone research has demonstrated how catastrophists can use their theory to develop specific hypotheses about a geologic feature (the Coconino Sandstone), and successfully carry out scientific research to test that hypothesis. This is one criteria that science used to determine the scientific value of any theory.
Arguments that unexplained phenomena must be due to God's direct activity are called "god-of-the-gaps" arguments, and are regarded as bad arguments. However, if God is truly active in nature, we can expect to find some phenomena that truly point to God as a cause. Just because some appeals to God's direction action have been abandoned does not mean there are no such appeals that are valid. Published in Origins v. 21, n. 1.
A review of the book, Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution. The book presents a rather uninformed critical response to creationism. Published in Origins v. 20, n. 1.
Assumptions may eventually become so widely accepted they are no longer recognized as assumptions but take the status of truth. Two examples that relate to origins are assumptions of abiogeneis and long ages. These points should not be assumed but tested if one wants to discover truth. Published in Origins v. 18, n. 1.
A review of the book, Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World's Formation. This is a sophisticated criticism of creation science, and some of the points should be taken to heart by creationists. However, it fails to recognize the good quality of recent creationist literature. Published in Origins v. 18, n. 1.
In this essay I have attempted to outline the world as it is, reality as it is perceived through the lens of science and scripture in terms of the concepts of order and chance.
The perceived nature of science has changed from that of an ideal system for discovering truth to more of a more ordinary human effort to discover how nature works. Published in Origins v. 17, n. 2.
The purpose of this paper to compare and contrast scientific and religious paradigms and their communities. Similarities include the fact that it is possible to analyze both in terms of the formal components of a paradigm, that a community is essential to both traditions, and that the intersubjective testing and universality, along with data and experience, are important for "rational objectivity" in both communities.
Science strives to produce models of physical phenomena. Such models are useful, but usually simplifications of reality. Published in Origins v. 16, n. 2.
Dueling has a long and tragic history. Although dueling to death is largely abandoned, we still see unnecessary quarrels, including among scientists. Calm reflection and rational dialogue are much to be preferred. Published in Origins v. 16, n. 1.
It is fashionable in some circles to doubt everything, but experiences with reality show us that truth does actually exist. The person who searches for truth is more likely to succeed than one who doubts everything. Published in Origins v. 16, n. 2.
Disagreements among creationists can lead to better understanding and improvement in creation thinking, and should not be ignored or regarded as an embarrassment. Creationists learn the same way as everyone else, and disputations are expected in the search for truth. Published in Origins v. 15, n. 1.
Cliches may convey little knowledge yet have much influence. Careful thought and study is much better than accepting unwarranted simplifications of reality. Published in Origins v. 14, n. 2.
Science has produced many wonders of technology and is probably the best place to start in the quest for understanding the physical world. However, it is limited in its scope, and is a bad place to end the quest. There is a realm of reality beyond the reach of science, and this realm is perhaps more important than the physical realm. Published in Origins v. 14, n. 1.
Holding two mutually contradictory opinions at once is called "doublethink." This is not the way to find truth, and should be abandoned by all. Published in Origins v. 13, n. 2.
Scientific inquiry may explore immediate results as in an experiment, or a historical event that cannot be replicated experimentally. Experiments offer greater confidence than attempts to study historical questions, and it is not true that evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Published in Origins v. 13, n. 1.
The practice of science does not depend on the beliefs a scientist has about origins. Creationists are able to conduct scientific research , and may even be aided by ideas that derive from the Bible. Conflicts may arise between science and religion, but this is an indication of the need for more study. Published in Origins v. 12, n. 2.
