Is Science Omniscient?

Nobody "knows" much of anything in origins. Much of it is necessarily belief by faith.
Evolution certainly isn't belief by faith.
What you need to do is start reflecting that in your thinking.
Well, what I've been thinking is, that you believe you are right in your faith, but atheists are wrong by theirs. At the very least it shows that faith is a poor path to truth.
 
Evolution certainly isn't belief by faith.

Well, what I've been thinking is, that you believe you are right in your faith, but atheists are wrong by theirs. At the very least it shows that faith is a poor path to truth.
Thanks for sharing.
 
Yes. But if a mechanic stranded on a desert island after a shipwreck were to discover a fishing pole, a packet of vegetable seeds and some garden tools, and yet made no effort to find out who provided them, thinking that the provisions were enough in themselves to get him off the island, assuming he even cared to get off, I would conclude that we were dealing with a very foolish mechanic/scientist, particularly if attached to the fishing pole there were a lengthy but cryptic note from its provider indicating that within the note there were clues about the identity of the provider and how to contact him.
But we aren't talking about a mechanic stranded on a desert island.
 
But we aren't talking about a mechanic stranded on a desert island.

Do I really need to dumb it down for you? Sigh. Oh, all right. Let's look at it again:

But if a mechanic stranded on a desert island after a shipwreck were to discover a fishing pole, a packet of vegetable seeds and some garden tools, and yet made no effort to find out who provided them, thinking that the provisions were enough in themselves to get him off the island, assuming he even cared to get off, I would conclude that we were dealing with a very foolish mechanic/scientist, particularly if attached to the fishing pole there were a lengthy but cryptic note from its provider indicating that within the note there were clues about the identity of the provider and how to contact him.

The mechanic is the foolishly apathetic atheistic scientist. The desert island is the universe in which he finds himself. The fishing pole, vegetable seeds and tools are the rich bounty of goods which our Creator has provided us for both our pleasure and our survival. The note is the scripture which He has providentially prepared for us, which if diligently and sincerely studied will give us knowledge as to His identity as well as guidance to His ultimate rescue.
 
Do I really need to dumb it down for you? Sigh. Oh, all right. Let's look at it again:

But if a mechanic stranded on a desert island after a shipwreck were to discover a fishing pole, a packet of vegetable seeds and some garden tools, and yet made no effort to find out who provided them, thinking that the provisions were enough in themselves to get him off the island, assuming he even cared to get off, I would conclude that we were dealing with a very foolish mechanic/scientist, particularly if attached to the fishing pole there were a lengthy but cryptic note from its provider indicating that within the note there were clues about the identity of the provider and how to contact him.

The mechanic is the foolishly apathetic atheistic scientist. The desert island is the universe in which he finds himself. The fishing pole, vegetable seeds and tools are the rich bounty of goods which our Creator has provided us for both our pleasure and our survival. The note is the scripture which He has providentially prepared for us, which if diligently and sincerely studied will give us knowledge as to His identity as well as guidance to His ultimate rescue.

I understood it perfectly well. The issue is that you are inserting things into the allegory based upon your belief.
As EC said "A mechanic doesn't need to know who made his tools in order to use them correctly."

Even in your extension of the allegory, the mechanic can plant the seeds, fish with the rod and use the tools without needing any knowledge of their origin. Just as the scientist doesn't need to know if there is a designer.
If "The desert island is the universe" then the mechanic was born there and so has no reason to think there is such a thing as a "rescue".
If "The note is the scripture" then it is just a "note" from previous mechanics relating their beliefs.
Our mechanic cannot prove the veracity of what that "note" claims and he can still farm and fish without needing to.
Also if you want to make scripture a "note" then there are a whole stack of "notes" from a plethora of old mechanics all giving different stories of where the "bounty" came from.
 
I understood it perfectly well. The issue is that you are inserting things into the allegory based upon your belief.

Correct. Upon whose belief should I base MY allegory? Yours?

As EC said "A mechanic doesn't need to know who made his tools in order to use them correctly."

Correct. And the castaway in my analogy needn't know who supplied the provisions for food in order to use those provisions to grow, catch and eat the food.

Even in your extension of the allegory, the mechanic can plant the seeds, fish with the rod and use the tools without needing any knowledge of their origin. Just as the scientist doesn't need to know if there is a designer.

Exactly.

If "The desert island is the universe" then the mechanic was born there and so has no reason to think there is such a thing as a "rescue".

If his desire for a rescue were intense enough and if he had any sense, he might deduce that anyone capable of leaving those provisions might, if found, be capable of rescuing him from the island.

If "The note is the scripture" then it is just a "note" from previous mechanics relating their beliefs.
Our mechanic cannot prove the veracity of what that "note" claims and he can still farm and fish without needing to.

Correct. He is free to pretend the note has no significance or value.

Also if you want to make scripture a "note" then there are a whole stack of "notes" from a plethora of old mechanics all giving different stories of where the "bounty" came from.

Aha! And here is where the analogy reaches its limit. Unlike that Whom the note giver analogizes, the note giver, though like his Analogue possibly not being physically accessible on the island, is unlike his Analogue, not spiritually available. But that would not excuse the castaway's indifference to seeking him or searching the cryptic contents of the note for a possible way to contact him.
 
Correct. Upon whose belief should I base MY allegory? Yours?
I believe the allegory of scientist as mechanic came from Eightcrackers. You moved him to the island where you still failed to provide any reason why he would need to know anything about a mythical "provider".

Correct. And the castaway in my analogy needn't know who supplied the provisions for food in order to use those provisions to grow, catch and eat the food.
Exactly.

If his desire for a rescue were intense enough and if he had any sense, he might deduce that anyone capable of leaving those provisions might, if found, be capable of rescuing him from the island.
Why would he desire rescue?
He knows nothing but the island.
What in this world are the fishing rod and garden tools analogous to? A stick?

Correct. He is free to pretend the note has no significance or value.
He doesn't have to pretend.

Aha! And here is where the analogy reaches its limit. Unlike that Whom the note giver analogizes, the note giver, though like his Analogue possibly not being physically accessible on the island, is unlike his Analogue, not spiritually available. But that would not excuse the castaway's indifference to seeking him or searching the cryptic contents of the note for a possible way to contact him.
Your note giver "would not excuse the castaway's indifference ", according to the note.
Being unable to verify other claims made in the note why should our "mechanic" give that claim any credence?
 
I believe the allegory of scientist as mechanic came from Eightcrackers. You moved him to the island where you still failed to provide any reason why he would need to know anything about a mythical "provider".

He only "needs" to if he is not completely satisfied with being a castaway.

Why would he desire rescue?
He knows nothing but the island.

If he's complacent with his life on the island, he will not desire a rescue. If that old Peggy Lee song has no appeal to him, fine.


But I suspect he's lying to himself and has suppressed the lie so deeply, he's not even fully aware of his despair.

What in this world are the fishing rod and garden tools analogous to?

Everything good in life. Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, and ..........................

Your note giver "would not excuse the castaway's indifference ", according to the note.

Correct. Astute observation.

Being unable to verify other claims made in the note why should our "mechanic" give that claim any credence?

Oh, but so many claims in the note CAN be verified.
 
He only "needs" to if he is not completely satisfied with being a castaway.
Even if he isn't satisfied, how does knowing anything about an alleged provider help him?
Will the seeds grow faster? Will it help him catch more fish?

If he's complacent with his life on the island, he will not desire a rescue. If that old Peggy Lee song has no appeal to him, fine.


But I suspect he's lying to himself and has suppressed the lie so deeply, he's not even fully aware of his despair.
So If he doesn't feel despair then he's lying to himself. Why? Because you felt or, maybe, still feel despair and anyone who doesn't think as you do is dishonest or deluded?

Everything good in life. Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, and ..........................
So seeds and tools are both equally indicative of design?

Oh, but so many claims in the note CAN be verified.

Like what? If he can't get off the island, what can he verify?
What scriptural claims can we verify? That there is a place called Jerusalem? That there was a guy called Pontius Pilate?
 
Even if he isn't satisfied, how does knowing anything about an alleged provider help him?

Knowing that my Provider loves me and my family and that He has ensured us of a joyful eternal destiny has been a tremendous help to me over the years.

Will the seeds grow faster? Will it help him catch more fish?

Absolutely! As my Creator AND my Provider, He is also my Sustainer.

So If he doesn't feel despair then he's lying to himself. Why? Because you felt or, maybe, still feel despair and anyone who doesn't think as you do is dishonest or deluded?

Yeah, that''s my gut feeling.

So seeds and tools are both equally indicative of design?

Equally? It probably isn't possible to quantify His blessings. I never think to ask myself: "Which is better: The wood from the trees with which I can have my home built or the tasty fruit from different trees?"

Like what? If he can't get off the island, what can he verify?

He has verified for me through scripture that I WILL some day get off this "island."

What scriptural claims can we verify?

Too many to enumerate. But all come under the heading of "Jesus loves me, this I know."
 
Knowing that my Provider loves me and my family and that He has ensured us of a joyful eternal destiny has been a tremendous help to me over the years.

Absolutely! As my Creator AND my Provider, He is also my Sustainer.

Yeah, that''s my gut feeling.

Equally? It probably isn't possible to quantify His blessings. I never think to ask myself: "Which is better: The wood from the trees with which I can have my home built or the tasty fruit from different trees?"

He has verified for me through scripture that I WILL some day get off this "island."

Too many to enumerate. But all come under the heading of "Jesus loves me, this I know."
None of this is verifiable by your "mechanic on a desert island"
None of it is verifiable through scripture. A warm fuzzy feeling isn't verification of the truth of your belief.
 
None of this is verifiable by your "mechanic on a desert island"

Correct. Analogies don't verify. They elucidate.

None of it is verifiable through scripture. A warm fuzzy feeling isn't verification of the truth of your belief.

Correct. Thus my analogy contained nothing that could be categorized as warm and fuzzy.
 
Back
Top