“Dr.” David Tee, a Fundamentalist Christian who supposedly has degrees in theology, church history, and archeology, says that when science and the Bible conflict, the Bible is ALWAYS right. Tee writes:
Those who side with God on our origins, are not telling God anything. They are merely repeating what he told us about his creative act in the beginning. God never said he used science thus it is those who advocate for a scientific origins that are trying to tell God how he should have made the universe and life on this planet.
Whenever I read comments from those who have rejected Genesis 1 & 2 in favor of secular science, I see the same common theme. They are the ones doing exactly as they accuse those who believe God and who reject secular science’s alternatives. This never fails no matter what the topic or issue, those who reject God and his revelations, are always guilty of committing those errors.
….
The problem with this is, ‘solid science’ may not be telling the truth. Some one forgot to tell Pope Leo that there was a thing called right and wrong, true and false teaching and those biblical teachings apply to science as well.
The church is not opposed to solid science, it is opposed to the lies that secular science produces. Yes, science lies when it says that God and the bible is in error.
….
But if you using religion to do science, a field that says your religion is in error, then what good is your religion? It seems that the person who adopts this attitude has a faulty religious belief for it allows the holder to be taken away from that religious belief.Science is NOT God’s authoritative representative. The Bible is and when science says that authoritative work is not authoritative or correct, then there is something wrong with the science, not the Bible.
….
When it comes to the contents of the Bible, you either believe God or you don’t. There is no middle ground here. You get to choose Genesis and God’s revelation or secular science and its alternatives. Those who hold to a God driven evolutionary method are trying to have it both ways and they do not realize it but they are saying that they do not believe God or take him at his word.
God does not lie so why would he have his authors write something that did not take place if he used a different method?
I could find no online reference to Tee’s degrees. I assume he earned or bought them from some sort of Evangelical institution. Read “Dr.” David Tee for more information. When confronted over his use of “Dr.” this is how Tee responded:
In the comment section below, Tee denies making these comments.
Tee operates TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of God.
If he genuinely had been awarded those degrees he would say from whence they came. It is fair to assume then that he is probably lying or, as you say, they are not degrees that have been earned.
His opinions are total nonsense. There is no such thing as ‘secular’ science; science is either good or bad, and if it’s the latter then, actually, it’s not science either.
I would argue, rather, that science by its very nature must be secular. Religious people think they can redefine the word somehow by putting modifiers like “creation” in front of it. There is no such thing as creation science; “secular science” is the only real science.
I don’t understand your assertion that bad science isn’t really science. One can execute, say, the test of a scientific hypothesis sloppily, or not think through alternatives to what you believe might be happening, thereby doing bad science. In that case your conclusions should get discarded quickly as other scientists poke holes in your work.
Tee has a point, though it isn’t the one he was trying to make. The hypothesis that a deity had a hand in the formation of our planet, or the instigation and evolution of life on it, doesn’t have evidence to back it up. Theistic evolutionists are pretty much reading stuff into the data that isn’t really there. The bible and the current state of scientific knowledge really don’t reconcile well at all.
“God never said he used science thus it is those who advocate for a scientific origins that are trying to tell God how he should have made the universe and life on this planet.”
What? Nonsense. First off, science is a method of study of the material world, and the particular information and understanding gained through the use of that method of study. So saying “God never said he used science” is irrelevant. Science is a tool/methodology for those of us whose perceptions and knowledge are limited; an all-knowing being has no need of methods for studying the physical world… especially if He created it.
Second, even if you presuppose a divine will setting events into motion, science wouldn’t tell us anything about the supernatural (remember: study of the physical world). Nor would it “tell God” how he should have created the world. Study of material reality fundamentally has nothing to say to or about God, or anything else divine or supernatural. That’s what supernatural means. Science can’t say anything about whether God is ultimately responsible for the existence of our universe and the life in it. At most, what science can say is, “If God is responsible for all this, here’s our best understanding of how He went about it…”
And, of course, science doesn’t presuppose such things. One doesn’t, when one is trying to look at the material world for what it is. So most of what science actually says is, “Here’s our best understanding of how it happened and/or how it works.”
If that doesn’t happen to match up with your particular interpretation of your holy book, well — that’s your problem.
Hi Bruce,
Tee gives no indication that he understands scientific method. He does not set forth any scientific hypotheses about the universe that are testable. He doesn’t build any models and has no conditional predictions from those models, nor does he test the implications of those models by gathering empirical evidence (either experimental [controlled or randomised experiments] or observational data with statistical testing).
His whole view of his pseudo science is based on an ancient world view recorded in his so-called infallible holy book. When his holy book has statements that contradicts science, he rejects proper science in favour of his pseudo science.
He alleges that God wrote the book when it was actually ancient world Israelite human beings (who knew nothing about modern science or the scientific method).T hese ignorant, fallible human beings made many mistakes. It is not their fault that they were ignorant of science,but for a modern human being to deliberately reject the findings of modern science in the name of his holy book when science contradicts his interpretation of that book is to shut one’s mind off the findings of science and to embrace ignorance.
Tee will not allow science to contradict his holy book. His mind is closed to empirical evidence and he is unlikely to change it. However, by showing that his holy text is fallible and full of errors, some of Tee’s followers might be persuaded to change their minds. Until people are willing to see this, they will continue in their willful ignorance.What is so tragic is that many Young Earth Creationists are trying to infiltrate public schools with their nonsense. This must be fought.
Shalom,
John Arthur
Earning titles or degrees at the Heavenly University: a few are already taken of course, such as God or Archangel; alas, we’re out of those. But if you set your eyes on something more easily obtainable such as a Dr.’s title, you’ll be fine…. There’s plenty more where that came from. Anyone want to enroll?
Maybe Dr Tee attended the same college as Cyrus Schofield.
If I drank a shot for every logical fallacy in “Dr.” Tee’s writing here, I would be dead of alcohol poisoning before the end of the first paragraph.
It seems science and religion never mix well. You can say God IS part of science since (hypothetically) he created the natural world and what comes out of science is the result of it. Saying science is “wrong” I correlate with saying “God is wrong”, since it is by observation we get science. So to me, they should mix well but instead, we have denial of what we observe, which SHOULD be denial of God, but apparently to evangelicals, it is’t the same. Oxymoron? I guess my point to evangelicals is, it can go both ways…
Looking at science more closely is what easily lead me to deconversion. You have to try REALLY hard to mix them if you interpret the Bible literally. My turning Baptist from more secular Christianity helped me see that it was all just a fairy tale in my head. You either buy it or you don’t.
Science is always wrong. Religions are all same and correct.
Rest of insanity deleted.
I do not expect unbelievers to understand or handle anything God says or what I say properly and with the way they would like to be treated. Also, I do not remember saying those things or even posting here. As far as I am concerned unless there is verifiable evidence that I wrote those words, I am sure someone else wrote them.
If I did write them then I am sorry they sounded so brash BUT I do not respond to people who demand that I must jump through their hopes in order to be heard. You do not like my words on MY website that is your choice but at least be honest, open minded, and have a little bit of character when you address them.
Oh and The Dakota website is gone due to an unfortunate error but a new one exists http://www.theoarch.wordpress.com
We unbelievers understand you and your fallible Bible just fine. We have no need of some Gnostic superpower to read and understand an ancient religious text.
The words in this article are yours.
Insulting my character will get you nowhere.
Bruce