OMFG, LOL, LMAO, G2G, w00t!
How long has it been? Two months? What have I been doing? TONS.....well, half a ton.
Let's see: 1. I've been a long term substitute at East Peoria teaching biology and chemistry.
2. I've been playing San Andreas on PC and I finished "The Warriors" on PS2 (which rocks by the way).
3. There's about a 95% chance I'll be going to China this Summer, so that will be quite an experience.
4. I now have a website, but right now it's just school stuff (www.angelfire.com/planet/heren).
5. I've been playing French Horn for church.
6. I've gotten back into scouts a bit by being an assistant scoutmaster (which I still haven't officially signed up for), and a merrit badge counselor.
What theology have I read recently? Still reading all the old books I've been on for a while: "Systematic Theology" by Grudem, "Mountain of Silence" by Kyriacos Markides, "Hostage to the Devil" by Martin, and "The Book of Concord" which is the Lutheran Church's confessions of faith. On top of that I'm almost finished with Dune:Butlerian Jihad (about freakin time!) and "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe.
I've been relatively impressed with Behe's work. He's very knowledgable and usually doesn't oversimplify. He also hits the nail on the head in many areas where secularists in the science community use poor logic and never analyze their own preconceived notions that they "bring to the table." Why is the use of any divine being out of science's limits when there has never been an expressed reason why absolutely no divine being should be the norm?
To make what I'm saying a little more palpable, imagine asking yourself any question that invovles thinking of how science is done. For my chemistry class, because they're older and able to (hopefully) think outside of the box a little bit, I asked them, "Is science a search for the truth, or is it an endeavor for a possible truth?" I asked them if they were comfortable sharing their answers because this is an opinion, and one that surprisingly will bring out many preconceived notions in the students. Many mentioned evolution right off the bat and used that issue to say that science is the search for a possible truth. Others said that science proves things and that you know the answer to many questions before you go into the lab.
I told them I think it's a little bit of both. You can't say that it's JUST a search for truth because the human component in science will never allow for the elimination of all bias, and if truth is objective in reality, true truth will never be found. Of course, you can't JUST say it is a search for a possible truth because that engenders a dangerous form of scientific agnosticism where you never make a true decision and science becomes completely subjective. What I hoped the kids would get out of the question was that the scientific method is not as simple as most textbooks make it seem. There are very many underlying assumptions that everyone has. I brought up that if I put salt in water, I know why the salt dissolves. However, why would I then question how it happens? The process becomes scientific dogma because no one is questioning it....why? There's no need to as we already know how it behaves and it has yet to do otherwise.....now you're seeing the issue I hope.
Oh, and no, God was not brought up. There was no need as this question was (at their stage of development) somewhat independent of the issue. Of course, then the question can be brought up that if there is a God then can any study of how science works be truly correct unless it mentions Him? So does a purely naturalistic point of view on science leave something to be desired? Is science really just a souped up natural philosophy or theology? Does causing science to be so specialized in different areas miss the point of what science truly is?
Perhaps one day I'll sit down and formally write something that fleshes these questions out. Of course I'm a Christian and that will affect what the final product is. I think that no science can be anywhere on the right track if God isn't thought to operate at some level all the time. In that way, science is a type of theology, but unlike many Christians I don't let the current view of science influence by theological views. But, that's another day....possibly soon ;-).
For now, I'm outta here!
Let's see: 1. I've been a long term substitute at East Peoria teaching biology and chemistry.
2. I've been playing San Andreas on PC and I finished "The Warriors" on PS2 (which rocks by the way).
3. There's about a 95% chance I'll be going to China this Summer, so that will be quite an experience.
4. I now have a website, but right now it's just school stuff (www.angelfire.com/planet/heren).
5. I've been playing French Horn for church.
6. I've gotten back into scouts a bit by being an assistant scoutmaster (which I still haven't officially signed up for), and a merrit badge counselor.
What theology have I read recently? Still reading all the old books I've been on for a while: "Systematic Theology" by Grudem, "Mountain of Silence" by Kyriacos Markides, "Hostage to the Devil" by Martin, and "The Book of Concord" which is the Lutheran Church's confessions of faith. On top of that I'm almost finished with Dune:Butlerian Jihad (about freakin time!) and "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe.
I've been relatively impressed with Behe's work. He's very knowledgable and usually doesn't oversimplify. He also hits the nail on the head in many areas where secularists in the science community use poor logic and never analyze their own preconceived notions that they "bring to the table." Why is the use of any divine being out of science's limits when there has never been an expressed reason why absolutely no divine being should be the norm?
To make what I'm saying a little more palpable, imagine asking yourself any question that invovles thinking of how science is done. For my chemistry class, because they're older and able to (hopefully) think outside of the box a little bit, I asked them, "Is science a search for the truth, or is it an endeavor for a possible truth?" I asked them if they were comfortable sharing their answers because this is an opinion, and one that surprisingly will bring out many preconceived notions in the students. Many mentioned evolution right off the bat and used that issue to say that science is the search for a possible truth. Others said that science proves things and that you know the answer to many questions before you go into the lab.
I told them I think it's a little bit of both. You can't say that it's JUST a search for truth because the human component in science will never allow for the elimination of all bias, and if truth is objective in reality, true truth will never be found. Of course, you can't JUST say it is a search for a possible truth because that engenders a dangerous form of scientific agnosticism where you never make a true decision and science becomes completely subjective. What I hoped the kids would get out of the question was that the scientific method is not as simple as most textbooks make it seem. There are very many underlying assumptions that everyone has. I brought up that if I put salt in water, I know why the salt dissolves. However, why would I then question how it happens? The process becomes scientific dogma because no one is questioning it....why? There's no need to as we already know how it behaves and it has yet to do otherwise.....now you're seeing the issue I hope.
Oh, and no, God was not brought up. There was no need as this question was (at their stage of development) somewhat independent of the issue. Of course, then the question can be brought up that if there is a God then can any study of how science works be truly correct unless it mentions Him? So does a purely naturalistic point of view on science leave something to be desired? Is science really just a souped up natural philosophy or theology? Does causing science to be so specialized in different areas miss the point of what science truly is?
Perhaps one day I'll sit down and formally write something that fleshes these questions out. Of course I'm a Christian and that will affect what the final product is. I think that no science can be anywhere on the right track if God isn't thought to operate at some level all the time. In that way, science is a type of theology, but unlike many Christians I don't let the current view of science influence by theological views. But, that's another day....possibly soon ;-).
For now, I'm outta here!
posted by Chris | 6:12 PM
|
1 comments
