Another important distinction is between operational and historical science.

Science gains its impressive reputation from the successes in technological advancement made from the ability to perform repeatable tests and experiments. Such is the case with operational or experimental science. For example, if I suggest a certain contraption or material will fly or float, we can test it under controlled conditions. We can test it repeatedly.

This is not the case with historical investigations, such as researching the origin of something. We can't repeatedly test the past. For example, if there is a glass of water on the table, we can conduct all manner of tests and analyses on the water. But the claim that I drank from the glass last Thursday becomes an historical claim which is more difficult to test repeatedly. For last Thursday can't be repeated. The claim becomes more theoretical and difficult to verify. It moves out of the realm of operational science.

On the subject of evolutionary biology one person put it like this: "Evolution is purported to be a single process of species splitting and progress. This part of the theory was about unique historical events, like the history of England, and unique events are not part of (operational) science because they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."

Therefore, all historical claims, including those found in the Bible, fall into this category. Historical claims can be the subject of scrutiny and all manner of enquiry, such as in the fields of forensics or anthropology, etc. but these become more theoretical and subject to opinion, as they lack the possibility of repeated testing.

I don't find that odd at all, Dan S de Merengue.

>>But this is what Isaac Newton actually said: "The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.”<<

(Incidentally, what he conspicuously did not add was "...when He created the earth in six days, within the past ten thousand years"...)

Newton, as did the vast majority of his contemporaries, believed that there was a God. He did not set out to "disprove" God's existence. It probably never even occurred to him that the discoveries enabled by his work would solve some of the abiding mysteries of how the universe was formed.

Your grasp of atheism, by the way, is somewhat self-serving...

>>It certainly hasn't uncovered any of the atheist ideals to which you hold dear.<<

There are no "atheist ideals" to "uncover". Atheism is simply the intellectual stance of accepting that there is no God. It is certainly not my position that the scientific theories dominating current cosmology somehow invalidate the concept that a God originally created the universe, many billions of years ago. Nor does it concern me that people do so believe, it is entirely their prerogative.

What does interest me, as I have said before, is how young-earth creationists brush aside the theoretical science that underpins, simultaneously, the examination of the earliest moments of the universe and the mobile telephone.

>>...these acknowledged scientific benefits flow from a Christian worldview<<

I also know that a number of "acknowledged scientific benefits" flowed from a Muslim worldview (algebra), a Confucian worldview (the compass, printing) a Hindu worldview (steel) etc. So I'm not sure what point you were making here. If there was anything uniquely "Christian" in his work, it escapes my notice.

>>So different ideas are often vying for prominence, especially when it comes to questions of origins. Science doesn't think just one thing.<<

Absolutely. Which leads back to my question - what thought process allows you to "think just one thing", when the nature of our understanding remains - fascinatingly - fluid?

Pericles,
I could quibble about a few things in your last post. For example, you wanted to highlight the wonders of scientific achievement 'over the last 500 years', and then you turn to examples such as algebra and the compass and a few other things that I think go back beyond those 500 years.

Yet I sense that your basic question to me is, why believe? Or more specifically, why should we have such a singular belief? I think that can only be explained as being in the nature of the gospel itself. To quote: "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all." (Eph: 4.5,6) Jesus sets up the challenge. He confronts the believer (or potential believer) with the question, do you believe in me (the specific, singular me)?

So over time, I've tried to give you many reasons why I think believing makes more sense than not believing. But if you're going to believe, you may as well accept the true faith and not some compromised, watered down version. In its essence, it is an all or nothing type of thing.

So while I'm convinced that the evidence in nature should draw any clear thinking person towards belief rather than unbelief, it is not possible to formulate arguments that amount to perfect proof. Such an idea is unrealistic. Yet I will continue to argue that the Faith is consistent with all we know of science and logic, and the evidence does point in a definite direction.

Yet for the question, why believe? For me, the answer does not rest in my views on science alone, but my reasons lie in several areas of understanding: science, history, morality and other areas of my experience. I'll repeat what I said earlier, "The best a Christian can do is to remain true to his principles and demonstrate clear and consistent logic."

As always an interesting duologue and I apologise for this sidebar...

But it is prompted by recent delvings into Cornelius Van Til's reformed theology and apologetics - my interest being why people think the way they say they do - and I suspect, Dan, he would agree with: "But if you're going to believe, you may as well accept the true faith and not some compromised, watered down version. In its essence, it is an all or nothing type of thing." I also suspect that he might not agree that yours is the true faith - a suspicion I admit is beyond any method of confirmation.

"Yet I will continue to argue that the Faith is consistent with all we know of science and logic, and the evidence does point in a definite direction."

My question is:

How do you know that you could not be wrong about that?

WmTrevor,
I don't have any argument with Cornelius Van Til. In fact, i'd probably say I'm a fan of his his teaching.

Not for the first time, Dan S de Merengue, I find your mode of discussion difficult to follow.

>>Yet I sense that your basic question to me is, why believe?<<

I thought that I had made it particularly clear that this is not in any way my question, basic or otherwise. I have on any number of occasions tried to separate the idea of belief in a deity, which I totally accept is held by many, from the complete dissociation with geology and cosmology that your - very precise and specific - interpretation of belief commands.

I can see the seeds of an answer in your personal philosophy that...

>>..if you're going to believe, you may as well accept the true faith and not some compromised, watered down version.<<

My problem with this is that it means that at some point, you allow yourself to stop comparing sources, weighing balance of probabilities, assessing witness credibility etc., in favour of the single lens through which to reach your personal truth.

It permits you to disallow such events as occur, almost daily, as a result of work performed by people who are not restricted in this manner.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/24/wham_star_punched_by_racing_pulsar_spatter_matter_goes_to_015_lightspeed/

Ignoring such events must take a great deal of persistence.