OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
So, let's first identify a few simple rules.
Science does not seek to validate negatives. In other words, the claim, "Genesis is false. The creation account in Genesis did not happen as literally understood or described" are not claims science seeks to show as true.
Rather, science makes an affirmative claim (theory) and then finds evidence to support it or evidence is found and a theory is espoused to explain the evidence, in which case the theory then makes predictions which validate the theory.
The claim (theory) may be contradictory to other claims and according to the principle of non-contradiction, both claims cannot both be true. So, science does not, by evidence or otherwise, show a negative to be true (It is not the case a literal truth reading of Genesis is true) but rather the validation, or showing as likely true some claim they are making renders contradictory claims not true or not likely true. It is important to note science's claim of evolution does not claim the creation account in Genesis is wrong. Evolution does not concern itself with creation, and cannot comment on the creation claim in Genesis. Rather, what evolution does claim is contrary to a literal reading in Genesis of how all the presently living organisms came about. Science asserts it took many speciation events transpiring over the tenure of millions of years on earth, whereas a literal reading of Genesis, if true, states the living organisms have never changed, and are today as they were when God created them.
So some have decided, mostly Christians, the Genesis account of how living organisms presently in existence is not literally true but metaphorically true. The basis for this conclusion is the scientific claim, supported by evidence, which directly contradicts a literal truth reading of Genesis in regards to whether living organisms evolved to their present state or were created in this state.
Is this a good approach to understanding scripture?
Thoughts?
Science does not seek to validate negatives. In other words, the claim, "Genesis is false. The creation account in Genesis did not happen as literally understood or described" are not claims science seeks to show as true.
Rather, science makes an affirmative claim (theory) and then finds evidence to support it or evidence is found and a theory is espoused to explain the evidence, in which case the theory then makes predictions which validate the theory.
The claim (theory) may be contradictory to other claims and according to the principle of non-contradiction, both claims cannot both be true. So, science does not, by evidence or otherwise, show a negative to be true (It is not the case a literal truth reading of Genesis is true) but rather the validation, or showing as likely true some claim they are making renders contradictory claims not true or not likely true. It is important to note science's claim of evolution does not claim the creation account in Genesis is wrong. Evolution does not concern itself with creation, and cannot comment on the creation claim in Genesis. Rather, what evolution does claim is contrary to a literal reading in Genesis of how all the presently living organisms came about. Science asserts it took many speciation events transpiring over the tenure of millions of years on earth, whereas a literal reading of Genesis, if true, states the living organisms have never changed, and are today as they were when God created them.
So some have decided, mostly Christians, the Genesis account of how living organisms presently in existence is not literally true but metaphorically true. The basis for this conclusion is the scientific claim, supported by evidence, which directly contradicts a literal truth reading of Genesis in regards to whether living organisms evolved to their present state or were created in this state.
Is this a good approach to understanding scripture?
Thoughts?
