>>882
Most scientists don't understand that science is a deeply Christian worldview, and many Christians don't either. You have to believe that the world has rules to believe that the world has rules. (Sagan may have believed that Science was a Candle in the Dark, but the only way to leave the Demon-haunted World is to leave the Demon-haunted World.) It is logically invalid to believe that the world has rules from the fact that it
looks like it has rules: this is the problem of induction. Ultimately, believing that the universe has rules for us to discover is an act of faith: it cannot be defended through logic (that is
the problem of induction). But, you
MUST believe that the world has rules, rules that the fallible human mind can discover, or you
CANNOT do science. Science is, ultimately, based on
a faith.
I want to blame evolution as to why science has become so ... dogmatic. Scient
ists didn't understand why Evolution was
the Scientific way of doing things, so they fell back on appeals to authority. They couldn't articulate that Evolution betters represents this aesthetic that the universe has rules, that we as fallible humans can imperfectly know, and that when you apply the rules of Evolution, the world as it appears to us is an emergent property from the initial conditions.
Yes, Evolution contradicts
scripture, but it better encompasses the idea that God imparted rules upon the Universe, and the Universe operates according to those rules, over Deep Time. And that's another issue: if you believe that the Universe is only six thousand years old, then you don't have Deep Time. But, the Universe APPEARS to be over six thousand years old (could be Satan, but I'm not holding my breath), and it APPEARS to have the kind of time-span on which Deep Time, and thus Evolution, can operate.