FIDO95 said:
The exception to this was when God became physical as Jesus, walked the Earth, ministered, was crucified, and 3 days later rose from the dead. There is an entire body of historical and archeological records, both Roman and Jewish, (outside of the Bible) that provides evidence that all those things happened. That is science as it can physically be demonstrated and supported. Whether or you chose to believe that Jesus was God, Lord, and savior however is an act of faith and that is a different field of study all together.
All that is to say, mankind being made in God's image refers nothing to our physical appearance. The claim is not a scientific claim. Attempting to find one will leave you frustrated. Saying we are made in Gods image refers to the fact we have a soul. As such, there exists a mystical part of our existence that makes us unique from any other creature. Just as Christ was both physical and mystical in nature, so too are we made in that image.
I agree with a number of things you stated above, but I do want to add some comments.
Quote:
The definition of science is clearly defined. Science is the study of what can be observed and physically measured. God is neither of those things. People who picture God as a grey bearded man in the clouds have 5 year olds view of who/what God is. It is no wonder that individuals who never developed a deeper, more mature understanding, struggle with the ideas of religion when they become adults.
Do we agree that a belief that God created life and all biological diversity is not a scientific conclusion? Even if its true, the belief proposes something that cannot be observed and physically measured. It proposes a process, miracle, which cannot be scientifically studied.
I understand that 'made in the image of God' is generally considered metaphor. My description of God as invisible should be read in that same context. Whatever properties are meant by 'image of God' are not visible to science.
Quote:
God is mystical and can therefore not be measured by science any more than science can measure love, peace, or joy. Would you deny the existence of love, peace, and/or joy because you can't objectively measure them, or do you know that they exist because you can feel their presence? There are things you can't measure with science.
Of course I wouldn't deny the existence of emotions, though I would argue that measurement of those things is not totally outside the possibility of measurement. Put someone in an MRI and ask them about someone they love and observe the results. Certainly this is an incomplete way or measuring or describing love, but its not nothing.
I think we would both agree that simply describing something as 'mystical' is not justification that it must exist or must be true. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is mystical, but [almost] certainly not real. Things like God or the nature of God are described in such a way that they are outside the realm of the physical, and therefore justification and evidence for these things tend to require non-scientific evidences. All of this is not really a rebuttal to what you said - I think in this case we are on the same page.
-----
I didn't watch all of the OPs video, but I did sorta skim it to see what it was about. Much of what it appears to be is a criticism of the confidence with which many people or scientists believe macro evolution to be true. And, I am all for offering skepticism. Are there gaps in our knowledge? Of course. Can the evolution of an earlier primate be observed to evolve into humans and chimpanzees? Or course, not.
The problem I have with these types of videos is that they clearly imply that legitimate (or illegitimate) skepticism about evolution equates to scientific justification for a belief that God is a better scientific explanation for life or diversity.
As an example, the video discusses high quality randomized control studies as strong evidence and expert opinion as weak evidence. Fine, lets keep with this example.
Lets say that I made a medical claim. And that claim is based on a 2000 year old document written by a fallible man about medical advice from a proposed infallible doctor. And not only have these medical claims by this proposed infallible doctor not been subjected to randomized control studies, the nature of the claims are such that it is impossible to subject them to any sort of testing or verification whatsoever. Is this strong evidence that the medical claim is correct? Is the fact that the authors of this 2000 year old document really really believed the doctor to be infallible count as strong evidence? Does the fact that other historical documents point to the existence of someone who thought of themselves as infallible doctor make the claims true? I would categorize this type of medical claim is below the lowest level of evidence that the video proposes.
What drives me nuts here is the categorization of evidences for evolution as scientifically weak while offering alternative evidences and arguments that are so scientifically weak that they can't even be categorized as science to begin with.
Lets say that it is true that God created all life and that explains biological diversity. Even if that is true, it is still possible that the best scientific evidence available today points to evolution. And the reason for that is that evidence for God creating life and biological diversity are not scientifically supportable. Those claims require different evidences. As stated above, maybe there are things that science cannot measure. And if that is the case, lets stop pretending that science confirms mystical claims, right?
