veritas

I'm writing this because I'll probably forget the arguments later on. To be honest, I probably already forgot.

Ian Hutchinson argued that science couldn't explain everything. That yes, science is great, but it is bounded. Science is a part of knowledge, but science does not equate knowledge.

For example, he gave the example of music. We can know every note played, we can even get a digital copy of music and know the exact frequency and tones. But science will never be able to tell you how the song makes you feel, the thought that goes into a song, the emotions that come from listening to a song. Something that we experience everyday, that we know to be true...but isn't scientific.

Science has its bounds, basically. He said science is based on witnessing the normal occurrences of the laws of physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. But he says Christians believe this is a display of God's faithfulness to keep things in order, but by no means is God bound by these laws. Miracles are completely possible in God's realm, just science can't explain it because science only studies what happens on a normal basis.

God can't be in the realm of science. The relationship that God offers can't be defined through science. He didn't give much thought on the origins of life and evolution (disappointing for many including myself), but he basically said...either way, it wouldn't give us full knowledge of the meaning of life.

He came to believe in God through Jesus. He came to believe Jesus to be who he claimed to be, and from that, he believes that God exists.


I'm already starting to forget stuff. Maybe I'll ask him for his powerpoint.