Science rejects THE source of truth and prides itself on its trek down the primrose path.

At EvC today,

Percy writes:

Dembski writes:
As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.

An inerrantist of any type, whether Newtonian, Darwinian, Einsteinian or Biblical, cannot be considered a scientist.

This is of course a foundational principle at EvC, though to one who knows the Bible as the Word of God, very odd, as if Science had consciously chosen to be misled. Consciously or not, of course, they ARE misled.

The thread to this point has questioned whether Dembski is really true to the Bible, but I don't have an opinion about that and it doesn't make a difference on this particular point. Dembski claims to believe that the Bible is inerrant and Biblical inerrancy is the point in question.

Percy doesn't seem even to recognize that his statement is based on nothing but a raw assumption, the assumption that the Bible is on the same level as the writings of Newton, Darwin and Einstein, a mere human work. But of course to a believer the Bible is truly the word of God, and as the word of God it can instruct us in EVERYTHING as whatever God says is foundational to ALL truth, including science. It's not a scientific text but it says just enough to make science a liar if it ignores it.

If you start with the Bible you can't go wrong, scientifically or any other way, as long as you recognize that your take on what the Bible implies on scientific questions may not be right. But if you make your own fallible intellect your foundation you will forever be finding what seem to you to be contradictions with the Bible. The problem with scientific thought over the last oh 150 years or so, particularly about origins -- origin of the cosmos, origin of the planet, origin of life -- is that it has progressively rejected God's word because fallible intellect is unable to reconcile its own impressions with the Bible's often veiled hints.

Early scientists had some strange ideas about what sort of evidence the Biblical Flood would have left, for instance (and science is stuck still with those strange ideas), so when science pointed out a fact or two that did not square with their strange ideas they jettisoned not just the strange ideas but the Bible itself, as if those strange ideas came from the Bible, which they didn't.

Same with Galileo. The Roman Church was enamored with the teachings of Aristotle through Aquinas, mixing pagan belief with God's word (just as they do with their worship of the "saints" and the "Queen of Heaven" and relics and indulgences and all that pagan superstition along with their lavish pagan paraphernalia and unholy wealth), and Aristotle's pagan religion put the earth at the center of the cosmos. So it was Aristotle, not the Bible, that Galileo's findings contradicted, but people still have the mistaken impression, since the Roman church taught that mistaken impression, that it was the Bible he contradicted. Now they have accepted Galileo and rejected the Bible, although there is no contradiction, and they have accepted evolution and rejected the Bible, although it should be the other way around.

The early geologist Hutton took a look at a formation on the coast of Scotland and declared off the top of his own fallible head that it proved that the earth was ancient, far more ancient than the age determinable from the Bible, and scientists ever after have accepted that declaration from his fallible head and added their own fallible conjectures to it, declaring it all fact as they went, as well as their conjectures about some supposedly objective scientific procedures they believe confirm it.

God will laugh in the end.