What do you think science truly understands? What do you think science actually tells us? Many believe that we know for sure so many things that science has absolutely no idea about. In fact there are scientists that believe we have entered into a scientific "dark age" of sorts.
Nikola Tesla said " Today's scientists have substituted experiments for mathematics wondering off through equation after equation eventually building a structure which has no relation to reality".
This is plainly demonstrated in today's cosmology and evolutionary sciences and in fact is a pervasive cancer throughout all disciplines of science. We have peer reviewed journals making extraordinary claims based on a completely false premise. If you do not question the premise then everything that follows is naturally true regardless of the nature and validity of the claim or evidence presented. Many claim that empirical science dictates the natural science world, however this is false. To demonstrate this one may point directly to nearly any realm of science and the specifics of that science to show a false premise. This is the primary method by which atheists become Christians. I am an extraordinarily strict empiricists and require as much direct evidence that can be proven leaving no room for doubt as possible. There also must be a logic and reasonable association to the premise and other facts surrounding the discovery or theory.
-- For instance, the Green River Valley formation is supposed to have 6 million years of varves proving beyond any doubt that the earth is indeed quite old. Now if the earth is old great, if the earth is young, fabulous. The problem here is that 50,000 years ago in the Miocene era the green River Valley was a rainforest and can not produce glacial varve formations. Very well, they simply change the definition of a varve to exclude the glacial aspect of the formation. However then we find fossils of fish cutting through many layers of these varves as well as volcanic carbon and char cutting through 400+ years of varve formations. Now obviously a volcano can erupt over a period of 400 years but it can not continuously do so nor can the prolonged eruption produce the structures we see in the Green River Valley formation. This was a single event as evidenced by the nature of the volcanic formation itself. Therefore varves are not annual and therefore do not represent anything like what we are told they tell us is empirical fact. This is but a single example among hundreds and even thousands I can show where empirical and factual information directly and utterly decimate the media science understanding of the science surrounding the claim.--
There is also a night and day difference between what scientists actually say and what the news reports from google or NBC claim they say. Consider for instance that news agencies are heavily invested in getting you to click on a link therefore they advertise something to catch your eye and a title built to grab your interest. Consider that further they are in competition with literally thousands of other sources all doing exactly the same thing seeking to get more clicks and make more money. This produces a frenzy of more and ever increasing shock and awe tactics geared solely to entice the user to click on a subject. The journalists that write these articles are also not scientists. Consider the PhD who has discovered the ability to teleport matter maybe 5m using quantum phenomena. Do you believe the journalists has even the faintest idea of how this is accomplished or the implications, repercussions, or ideas involved in this? There is this media science culture within America and other societies that believes strongly that science is making claims that science does not make. This is because of the nature of the media sourcing these days.
The objection raised to this statement is the scientists of the new atheists movement. I am aware who Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss are and the kindred spirits of the new atheists movement, which is not new in the least. I understand what they say and that they have made a lot of money saying these things. They have achieved a level of fame and fortune writing and espousing their brand of atheism. Bart Erhman as well has made a lot of money doing these very things as well. However the fact is that such persons are only telling 1/2 the story and painting the very worst picture possible to make their point while never speaking of anything, factual though it may be, that sheds a different light on the subject matter. Alexander Vilenkin has destroyed the premise of Lawrence Krauss' infinite past universe. Sam Harris' work is self contradictory when examined according to the premises and the implications. Bart Erhman has directly stated on multiple occasions that his critique of the text of the scripture has no bearing whatsoever on the teachings or implications of the bible, furthermore the text of the scripture also is not what removed his faith. In each of these examples what we find is a false premise and smoke and mirrors being employed rather than an honest and open dialogue, Sam Harris being the exception. Dr. Harris instead suffers from neglect of the premise and direct results of what is spoken of. Each of these men however are quite brilliant in their specific fields and are worthy of much respect as it pertains to their specific discipline. Sam Harris is exceptionally honest from what I have seen. Lawrence Krauss has developed work that I hold in very high regard and even use in my studies, in fact his work has helped me develop my theology contrary to his apparent desire. Bart Erhman has very much strengthened my trust in the reliability and scientific understanding of the scriptures, most definitely contrary to his wishes, despite his claims to the contrary. None of these men are theologians.
Why do we consider physics irrefutable? What is it about geology that tells us the case is closed? How come we have such tremendous faith in biology given cancer, diabetes, and so many other devastating conditions still run rampant in even the most advanced countries? Do we really find the answers in paleontology? More to the point what is it about these that gain such devotion and acclaim and yet theology, which is far more difficult in my estimation, is set to the back of the table and glossed over with sleepy eyes, disinterested in the workings and implications thereof? Let me ask this another way. If Christ rose from the dead does that impact your life more or less than the way gravity actually functions? Which of these is of greater consequence? Why then do you seek a physicist to teach you theology? Why do geologists and anthropologists get to tell you what carries merit or weight in your understanding of life and eternity? I do not seek a MD to explain to me how a 767 is able to fly nor do I ask a United Airlines pilot for a second opinion before even a minor surgery and yet this media science culture is doing precisely this when they look to "science" to answer question that science is not qualified to ask much less to answer. To this point I would ask this question. "How many theologians are atheists?". Many persons make such a big deal about claims that so many scientists are atheists and so few are creationists. This is actually exactly backwards by the way, it is a simple trick with samples and asking questions without a blind bias that gets these answers. The fact is that 60-80% of all Nobel Prize of Science winners are creationists depending on the discipline they are involved in. No one ever asks why 99.999% of all theologians are creationists. It seems to me that this should be the more accurate measure and of the greater importance. Asking a scientist if they understand or believe in the workings of God and man is a bit like asking a theologian if they understand the workings of quantum tunneling. Of course they don't, Neither does the scientists understand theology. However there is a greater path we can take here. The two disciplines of epistemology need not be exclusive but in fact must be inclusive one to the other. Of all the theologians I speak with, most of them being both PhD scientists and Christian apologists, the two schools of empirical science and theology must compliment one another in agreement or something is very wrong somewhere. Those that know me well know that I am among the most influenced persons they know. I simply accept something as valid then work through everything I can to find discordant data, false premises, and illogical nuances that have meaningful and powerful impact. I seek first of all a direct measurement or system of a logical chain of events which can be tested. Then I try very hard to destroy the premise. Finally I do all I can to falsify any aspect of it. This is the entire idea of peer review. The problem is that the questioning of the premise is a skill most PhDs and certainly those without that education have not acquired nor understand. This is exactly why any degree associated with apologetics has classes concerning philosophy. The premise must be validated for falsified or nothing that follows bears any weight.
The problem is that our minds throw out information that contradicts our own specific view. What's worse is that our mind hides the fact that it is hiding this from us so we never even see the sneaky maneuver to tell us something is amiss. We trick ourselves into believing those things that reinforce what we already believe. We even trick ourselves that we are tricking ourselves. I am quite thankful that at a very young age I was introduced to Aristotle and learned the Aristotelian method. From then on all of my teachers despised me, except the teachers that actually cared about helping me learn to think rather than rote memorization of data. From this stance I have learned that the premises and consistency of the bible can not be compared to anything other than mathematics. The nature and consistency of each is beyond parallel. What's more they both can provide "proofs" meaning they can be proven true or false though it is extremely difficult to do so. Moreover, a biblical proof is even harder than a mathematical proof because the theology involved is incorporated into the history and physics of the subject matter. With mathematics, only using laws and rules to add numbers together in specific ways are required to obtain a proof, which honestly is among the most difficult things one can do in mathematics. Basically, mathematic proofs are very hard, even for mathematicians. Theological proofs are even harder. I can immediately see a host of persons of many different disciplines disagreeing with this and many mathematicians being offended. As a demonstration I point to Isaac Newton who wrote more and in more exquisite detail on theology than he did on mathematics and physics. In reading his work I was struck by his requirement that all things work together as seamlessly as possible . I believe this is precisely the best epistemological approach one may have.
We may not open the door for lies and darkness to cloud the mind of the thinker. For as we teach others, let us never be content with teaching the wrong or misguided thing. Let us instead press hard and forward to that which is knowable, consistent, and pristine for the nurture of the mind and future of mankind. Therefore, be sober minded and demand the very best, letting no premise go unchecked nor allowing that which offends the senses to remain without knowing all that is possible about the thing. Moreover, that thing which soothes the senses shall be more deeply and more rigorously evaluated as the deception of the mind and desires to believe our own beliefs run deep and dark within us.