Interesting post, willhud9. Your approach to reconciling the Bible with science does raise questions, though, which I have brought up in an earlier thread. The post refers to Francis Collins, but applies equally well to what you wrote, I think:

Shrunk wrote:Back to the OP: Dr. Collins' approach to answering the type of questions that Moonwatcher raised is highly problematic.

(O)n other topics, such as whether Adam and Eve were real people or when humans became creatures with souls, BioLogos offers several possible answers — an approach that is either refreshing or unsatisfying, depending on one's need for certainty. "We cannot say that Adam and Eve were formed as acts of special creation," Collins explains. "That is a troubling conclusion for many people."

"Science can't be put together with a literalist interpretation of Genesis," he continues. "For one thing, there are two different versions of the creation story" — in Genesis 1 and 2 — "so right from the start, you're already in trouble." Christians should think of Genesis "not as a book about science but about the nature of God and the nature of humans," Collins believes. "Evolution gives us the 'how,' but we need the Bible to understand the 'why' of our creation."

So what he seems to be saying is that certain aspects of scripture are not to be taken literally, not as "how" stories, but "why" stories. How do we know this? In the case of certain passages, like the story of Adam and Eve, we know they are not literally correct because we can check it against empirical scientific evidence.

But what about the "why" stories? How do we check their accuracy? There is no empirical evidence to confirm or refute the claim that Jesus was son of God and died for the salvation of mankind. That is not an account whose accuracy can be confirmed in any way. In fact, several aspects of that claim, such as the resurrection, are themselves refuted by evidence of what we know to be physically possible. So how does Collins know that these claims are not also metaphors, or allegories, and not meant to be taken literally?

For generations the story of Adam and Eve was taken to be literal truth, only because there was no scientific evidence to demonstrate otherwise. There will never be scientific evidence to determine, one way or another, whether the divinity of Jesus is also meant to be taken literally. So on what basis does Collins assume that it is? If the Bible had already been proven to be an unimpeachable source of reliable information, he might have a case. But since it has been shown to be just the opposite, he doesn't

willhud9 wrote:Well, let me see if I can explain my current standings.

Okay, now if you will just prove that this God character exists, we can then analyze if any of this is actually true.

willhud9 wrote:Well, let me see if I can explain my current standings.

I believe that God created the heavens and earth. This phrase is a generic phrase for everything. Unlike my college Liberty University, I do not believe in Ex Nihilo Creation. This is more of a ploy then evidence. There is no evidence that the "universe" came from nothing and too be honest, would it really be surprising if matter was eternal i.e. matter cannot be created nor destroyed. *speculation out of science: Could an eternal God use eternal matter to create a universe? It is of my belief that yes He could and did*

So when God was forming the Earth, and unlike answersingenesis, this was not a literal week. Surprisingly, if we were to read Genesis 1 literal, we would be so confused. How does morning and evening come with no sun or moon in the skies? The answer: it cannot. So we(Biblical Christians) must analyze that yes the creation account is true, but it serves a different purpose other than being a science textbook. Cause it would be seriously flawed if it was.

As for the evolution issue! Reading the Hebrew text of Genesis 1, when God "creates" the plants etc. There is an interesting line that in English reads, "Let the earth bring forth..." This is rather odd, because if God specifically created each and every life form. Then why not read, "Let plants arise from the ground...?" The answer is two-fold: 1) God was allowing the earth to take over in creation of life and 2) It is demonstrating the power of God to command the Earth(various pagan gods of Egypt were sons and daughters of the Earth, and therefore weaker.)

So if the earth was allowed to create life than natural selection would be allowed to happen. Evolution would be fine to take place and yes even the concept of "macro-evolution." Again the evidence is there.

This change happened 1) because this site was full of people who knew science and actually took the time to rebuttal EVERY line and detail and 2) because talking to a young earth creationist, I discovered that the laws of logic were being ignored.

The young earth creationist believed that God created each individual species. So that would mean that God created over 6 million different species of insect, not to mention the million species of fish, and mammals and birds. Could God do it? Yes; however, evidence says otherwise. God ended the creation account on the 7th "day." Not to say he ended creation, He ended the account. Scientists have discovered animals and plants that are fairly new in this "age" that were not around 6,000+ years ago. So if creationists were to read Genesis literal than these new species should not be there and in fact, according to science, lions, bears, and all the furry mammals we love should not be around either. But again, Genesis 1 is not meant to be literal(word for word). Since God only ended the account, but the *earth still had the power* to bring forth life, evolution was still taking place and new creatures were arising after hundreds of thousands of years.

*earth still had power* is only figurative. The earth is not a sentient being. This being said, evolution is not chaotic nor is it orderly, but rather is. It just happens. The idea of chaos and order are more philosophical than science and they do have a place in science but not here.

Anyways, it may not be what everyone agrees with, but this is so far what I have been thinking and formulated and I admit I could be completely wrong .

It's a reasonable start. I'd ask you to maintain your interest, and look into it further. The more you know about evolution, the more awesome it becomes (IMO), it has almost limitless explanatory powers, and yet is a remarkably simple process.
Whether you believe it's a natural process or a god-designed one, evolution is well worth studying.

Hey, regardless of this sidetrack about semantics, the fact is still clear that you changed some of your opinions based on evidence. That's a huge step and one few theists here have ever shown the slightest willingness to take. Sure, many of us will point out that you are still believing things minus any evidence but while it is true that Rome existed, it is also true that it wasn't built in a day. So instead of criticizing you, I'll applaud you. In fact, I may make fun of people for believing things for which there is no evidence but what really irritates me is when people refuse to accept things for which there is abundant evidence. Clearly, you have accepted evolution to the point of saying creationists are foolish and, if I recall, even that the ID arguments are disproven.

At this point, I would have no beef with you and frankly hope you stick around. It would make you one of two theists here (Jerome being the other) that I think a discussion with is worthwhile.

I agree with pretty much everything that Moonwatcher said.
Even if we ultimately don't agree on the existence of god, it takes character and strength to change ones views on these subjects, and so I can definately respect an individual who displays this willingness. So definately from me a big congratulations for being one of a few people who is even willing to consider the evidence and see where it leads.

Rumraket wrote:I agree with pretty much everything that Moonwatcher said.
Even if we ultimately don't agree on the existence of god, it takes character and strength to change ones views on these subjects, and so I can definately respect an individual who displays this willingness. So definately from me a big congratulations for being one of a few people who is even willing to consider the evidence and see where it leads.

Thirded. I was negligent in not mentioning that in my previous post.

willhud9 wrote:Well, let me see if I can explain my current standings.

I believe that God created the heavens and earth. This phrase is a generic phrase for everything. Unlike my college Liberty University, I do not believe in Ex Nihilo Creation. This is more of a ploy then evidence. There is no evidence that the "universe" came from nothing and too be honest, would it really be surprising if matter was eternal i.e. matter cannot be created nor destroyed. *speculation out of science: Could an eternal God use eternal matter to create a universe? It is of my belief that yes He could and did*

So when God was forming the Earth, and unlike answersingenesis, this was not a literal week. Surprisingly, if we were to read Genesis 1 literal, we would be so confused. How does morning and evening come with no sun or moon in the skies? The answer: it cannot. So we(Biblical Christians) must analyze that yes the creation account is true, but it serves a different purpose other than being a science textbook. Cause it would be seriously flawed if it was.

So for you the Earth was not the accumulation of matter brought together by gravitational forces, from previously extinct stars?

How is that not a scientific question?

John

Okay, it is selective reading of the Bible and it is quote-mining for things that can be construed to agree with known facts. It's a rationalization to justify to yourself that your religion is true while other myths can be rejected. One can take any mythology one is intimitely familiar with and contrive interpretations that make a bit of it here and there seem acceptable.

Nevertheless, being honest but still maintaining the constructive approach,this is still a leap towards accepting facts and evidence. True, you desire to meld your religion and new information but at least you do not simply ignore or try to explain away the evidence. This is particularly imporessive considering you are attending one of the most conservative bastions of anti-science in the free world, Liberty University.

Shrunk wrote:Back to the OP: Dr. Collins' approach to answering the type of questions that Moonwatcher raised is highly problematic.

Wow. I don't even remember this.

Shrunk wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I agree with pretty much everything that Moonwatcher said.
Even if we ultimately don't agree on the existence of god, it takes character and strength to change ones views on these subjects, and so I can definately respect an individual who displays this willingness. So definately from me a big congratulations for being one of a few people who is even willing to consider the evidence and see where it leads.

Thirded. I was negligent in not mentioning that in my previous post.

I was wondering.
Anyway, I believe willhud9's whole attitude towards new evidence is deserving of an Orson. Is Hack around?

Thommo wrote:
He's not in danger of losing his faith as he specifically says, this is just about opening up to rationalism.

I would say discarding of faith is a hope rather than a danger...

Ah. wondered where you had got to.

willhud9 wrote:This site has really opened my eyes into the scientific field.

We aim to please in that regard. Indeed, whilst I never entertained any doubts that evolutionary theory was evidentially supported, not least because a scientific theory doesn't become a scientific theory until is is evidentially supported, I myself was unaware, until about three years ago, of the extent of that evidential support from observational reality. 1,800+ scientific papers later added to my collection, and I am now in the happy position of having a vast repository of knowledge to call upon, and the papers I have amassed form only a tiny fraction of the available literature. In 2007 alone, over 18,000 papers were published in the field of evolutionary biology, and a large percentage of those papers contain direct empirical test and verification of relevant postulates.

As a corollary of the above, I think it is safe to regard any assertions on the part of various ideological warriors for doctrine, to the effect that there is "no evidence" for evolution, as constituting nothing more than hot air and bluster.

willhud9 wrote:Granted I am still a Christian

So is Ken Miller. Doesn't stop him being an evolutionary biologist. Moreover, an evolutionary biologist who frequently provides well-constructed rebuttals of creationist canards. The video clip featuring his exposition of human chromosome 2 is a particular favourite of mine. Somewhere, I have the transcript. It makes amusing reading even if you haven't seen the video.

willhud9 wrote:and I no amount of science will alert the fact that I believe in God;

This remains to be seen. I for one shall derive much amusement and pleasure from watching your development with respect to critical thinking here.

willhud9 wrote:however, I am starting to see things in a new light.

Which makes you a rare and much prized entity here on these boards.

willhud9 wrote:The age-old struggle of evolution is rather dumb. The evidence, thankfully provided by members and moderators, is increasingly evident and creationists really don't have a logical basis for their argument.

Actually, it's even worse for creationists than that. But, I shall leave that to one side for the moment whilst I bask in your most welcome display of honesty, and note the stark contrast between this and the rampant discoursive dishonesty of many creationists, particularly among the professional propagandists.

willhud9 wrote:Next, I have observed that the only reason "creationists" care about the evolution debate is because they are afraid of 1) The Bible being proven wrong, and 2) God being proved non-existent.

Actually, as some others have observed here, it's more to do with the fact that these individuals have clearly invested a large amount of emotional capital in the doctrine of their choice, and would rather immolate themselves and their reputations before a globally watching audience, than admit that they've wasted a large part of their lives devoting effort and energy to supporting the unsupportable.

willhud9 wrote:Well, talking to science professors and members of academia, I have realized, science is not in the business of proving things but rather learning and uncovering knowledge.

Indeed, one of the elementary facts I keep trying to teach to assorted supernaturalists who come here, is the distinction between proof and evidential support. It's refreshing to see someone who is making an effort to learn this. Please tell everyone who follows in your wake to do the same.

willhud9 wrote:Science cannot prove nor care about the existence of God because God is "supernatural" transcending the laws of nature and thus void from any scientific discussion. This is not saying God is non-existent, but rather has no place in the scientific community.

Basically, if you can't subject an entity or phenomenon to some form of empirical test, then that entity or phenomenon is not usually considered within the remit of science. However, if someone asserts the existence of an entity or phenomenon that requires serious violation of known physical laws, then science will have something to say about this.

willhud9 wrote:I thank everyone here for their time and thoughts and I hope and pray this site continues to grow

Quite a few here will doubtless appreciate your good wishes. I count myself among them.

willhud9 wrote:PS Sorry about the long time away. Work and school kinda distract!

Indeed they do. But school is a distraction you should welcome.

Message to other supernaturalists: please take note of the above. This is a good example of how it's done. If you can't exert the effort expended by the above poster, then do not expect your posts to receive the same warm welcome.

Moving on ...

willhud9 wrote:Well, let me see if I can explain my current standings.

If the above is a reliable indicator, you'll probably do so rather well.

willhud9 wrote:I believe that God created the heavens and earth. This phrase is a generic phrase for everything.

I'll leave aside the metaphysical debate for the moment. Do continue ...

willhud9 wrote:Unlike my college Liberty University, I do not believe in Ex Nihilo Creation. This is more of a ploy then evidence.

It can also be seen as an attempt to grapple with some very hard questions. I gather Augustine of Hippo had a few words to say about this. Given that he penned the words in question back around 400 CE or thereabouts, it would be churlish to criticise him for his lack of knowledge of particle physics, because he was making an honest attempt to answer hard questions, whilst subject to epistemological limits that would hamper the best of us. Plus, he also had a few words to say on the subject of the folly of preferring doctrine to reality, words that quite a few creationists would do well to pay attention to.

willhud9 wrote:There is no evidence that the "universe" came from nothing and too be honest, would it really be surprising if matter was eternal i.e. matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Speaking rigorously, one has to factor in modern knowledge about antimatter and the mass-energy relation of Einstein. However, an appropriate conservation principle is indeed a part of physics, and will be duly revised when reality tells us there is a need for this.

willhud9 wrote:*speculation out of science: Could an eternal God use eternal matter to create a universe? It is of my belief that yes He could and did*

I'm tempted to utter the words "braneworld cosmology" at this juncture, which should make you smile.

willhud9 wrote:So when God was forming the Earth, and unlike answersingenesis, this was not a literal week.

Well this opens up its own cans of worms, but we can contemplate your wielding of the tin opener here in a subsequent post.

willhud9 wrote:Surprisingly, if we were to read Genesis 1 literal, we would be so confused. How does morning and evening come with no sun or moon in the skies? The answer: it cannot. So we(Biblical Christians) must analyze that yes the creation account is true, but it serves a different purpose other than being a science textbook. Cause it would be seriously flawed if it was.

Ah. Allegory. Once again, I'll leave this for later consideration. But it's nice to see someone accepting that reality has spoken, and that it disagrees strongly with creationist assertions about the relevant text.

willhud9 wrote:As for the evolution issue! Reading the Hebrew text of Genesis 1, when God "creates" the plants etc. There is an interesting line that in English reads, "Let the earth bring forth..." This is rather odd, because if God specifically created each and every life form. Then why not read, "Let plants arise from the ground...?" The answer is two-fold: 1) God was allowing the earth to take over in creation of life and 2) It is demonstrating the power of God to command the Earth(various pagan gods of Egypt were sons and daughters of the Earth, and therefore weaker.)

At this juncture, you will doubtless appreciate it if I prefer something other than apologetics.

willhud9 wrote:So if the earth was allowed to create life than natural selection would be allowed to happen. Evolution would be fine to take place and yes even the concept of "macro-evolution." Again the evidence is there.

Try telling that to some of the ideological stormtroopers.

willhud9 wrote:This change happened 1) because this site was full of people who knew science and actually took the time to rebuttal EVERY line and detail and 2) because talking to a young earth creationist, I discovered that the laws of logic were being ignored.

You'll discover that the YEC approach is even worse than that if you observe it long enough and diligently enough.

willhud9 wrote:The young earth creationist believed that God created each individual species. So that would mean that God created over 6 million different species of insect, not to mention the million species of fish, and mammals and birds. Could God do it? Yes; however, evidence says otherwise. God ended the creation account on the 7th "day." Not to say he ended creation, He ended the account. Scientists have discovered animals and plants that are fairly new in this "age" that were not around 6,000+ years ago. So if creationists were to read Genesis literal than these new species should not be there and in fact, according to science, lions, bears, and all the furry mammals we love should not be around either. But again, Genesis 1 is not meant to be literal(word for word). Since God only ended the account, but the *earth still had the power* to bring forth life, evolution was still taking place and new creatures were arising after hundreds of thousands of years.

And once again, you'll doubtless understand if I prefer something other than apologetics. But it's nice to see someone trying to think about this.

willhud9 wrote:*earth still had power* is only figurative. The earth is not a sentient being.

Duly understood.

willhud9 wrote:This being said, evolution is not chaotic nor is it orderly, but rather is. It just happens. The idea of chaos and order are more philosophical than science and they do have a place in science but not here.

Well at this juncture, I could remind you that natural selection is a high pass filter, and therefore imposes an ordering upon its output.

willhud9 wrote:Anyways, it may not be what everyone agrees with, but this is so far what I have been thinking and formulated and I admit I could be completely wrong .

And once again, you are to be commended for accepting what reality has to say on the subject. I personally find it amusing that you then go on to try and reconcile this with mythology, but given the steps you've taken, I'm not going to be churlish and withhold from you the credit that is due.

And having dealt with the above, it's time to address this ...

Robert Byers wrote:Oh brother.

We have a habit of uttering something similar every time you post here, Byers. I suspect you're about to provide a demonstration of why this is.

Robert Byers wrote:Have you read the posts here?

We could ask you the same. Indeed, we could ask you if you have bothered to read your own posts, given that there are documented instances of you contradicting yourself, which I have expounded upon in detail.

Robert Byers wrote:First science is not a noun.

You never have let real world data get in the way of your assertions, have you Byers? Oh, but then, you demonstrated in a post in another thread, that your position, like that of arch-charlatan and pathological liar Henry Morris, consisted of "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right". Indeed, this is the post in which you admitted this. I covered this in more detail here for those who are interested in following the links trail and enjoying the lulz.

I see others have attended to the semantic derail. Therefore further comments from me are superfluous.

Robert Byers wrote:it is simply a word

And at this point, you should be working out why people are pointing and laughing at your post.

Robert Byers wrote:for the ordinary accumulation of knowledge or claims to knowledge of the universe.

Go and read the numerous quotes from, and links to, dictionary definitions presented by others earlier in this thread. Then learn once again why many are pointing and laughing at your post.

Robert Byers wrote:As a process is just about being very strict before conclusions are made.

Unlike creationism.

Congratulations upon walking into that one.

Oh, and since you've admitted above that science is rigorous with respect to the matter of supporting its claims, if you erect any more of your apologetic faeces about evolutionary biology being based upon "presumptions" or "speculation", we'll remind you of this admission of yours. This is what happens when you don't bother to think about what you post, Byers.

Robert Byers wrote:In origin issues this strictness fails mostly.

Bollocks. Do I have to bludgeon you about the head with all one thousand, eight hundred or more scientific papers in my collection, which establish conclusively that evolutionary postulates are massively supported by reality?

Robert Byers wrote:Biblical creationism is based on confidence in the bible

In other words, "it's true because my mythology says so".

Your mythology, Byers, says it's possible to change the genomes of organisms on a massive scale, simply by having the parents shag alongside different coloured sticks. Even the most casual student of Mendelian inheritance knows that this assertion is horseshit. Oh, but then you're "Mr I Don't Do Genetics", aren't you Byers? Here is the post over at RDF where you admitted this, when you penned the words:

Byers over at RDF wrote:I don't like genetics as it requires too much basic study

Why should anyone take your assertions seriously, Byers, when you have a track record that includes erecting manifest gibberish such as this?

Robert Byers wrote:and quick observation that nothing does or can contradict it.

Poppycock. I've just cited above that basic Mendelian genetics contradicts the asinine assertion of your mythology, that organismal genomes can be changed on a massive scale by having the parents shag alongside coloured sticks. In other words, Byers, REALITY contradicts your mythology. Likewise, the fact that my tropical fish exist contradicts your mythology's asinine assertions about the fantasy "global flood" that never happened, along with thousands of other consilient pieces of scientific data.

Robert Byers wrote:Then a chance to advance mans knowledge while correcting errors.

Which is precisely what happened when REAL scientists alighted upon REAL scientific explanations for biodiversity, instead of the ridiculous nonsense contained in your worthless mythology. Such as that horseshit about coloured sticks.

Robert Byers wrote:it all comes down to the merits of the case.

Byers, creationism doesn't have a case, because REALITY says that creationism doesn't have a case. All that creationism has, is a series of blind assertions to the effect that an invisible magic man conjured up the universe and its contents, and conjured up the biopshere as a part of this series of tricks. Creationism has ZERO evidence to support any of its worthless assertions, and indeed, Byers, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here and elsewhere, the professional propagandists for creationism have to LIE about science, and LIE about evolution, in order to push their worthless masturbation fantasy of a doctrine. Now if your doctrine was true, Byers, these people would not need to LIE on behalf thereof. The fact that these people HAVE TO LIE to sell your doctrine, should be telling you how worthless your doctrine is, Byers.

Oh, and speaking of LIES, Byers, I've asked you repeatedly some penetrating questions about this matter. Such as how you reconcile claiming to believe in the mythology you claim to believe in, Byers, whilst disseminating known and manifest lies here and elsewhere on the Internet, despite the fact that the mythology you claim to believe in is explicit about what happens to people who disseminate known and manifest lies, particularly those who do so persistently and in a recidivist manner.

Robert Byers wrote:Creationism says the evolution case is not there for such great conclusions.

Creationism, as always, Byers, LIES when it asserts this. We have the evidence that creationism LIES when it asserts this. Your posts constitute a part of that body of evidence.

Robert Byers wrote:its just simple attrition by us or these new I.D people that is going to end the error.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Pull the other one, Byers, it's got fucking bells on and you know it.

The various charlatans and fraudsters amongst the IDists stand less chance of overturning real evolutionary science, than I do of being asked to impregnate every A-list actress on the planet. Scarlett Johanssen and Anne Hathaway will be begging me to tie them to my bed and roger them senseless, before liars such as Casey Luskin and William Dembski have any measurable impact upon real science, other than the impact they're already having of wasting its time with specious nonsense.

@Calilasseia

My first field of study is apologetics and the rationale defense of the Christian faith :p So I do apologize for bringing that into the forum, old habits die hard I guess.

willhud9, please stick around and keep posting, the most interesting discussions are with those who see the world through different eyes.






Except for creationists.


And conspiracy nutters

Byers over at RDF wrote:I don't like genetics as it requires too much basic study

I adore this.

willhud9 wrote:Well, let me see if I can explain my current standings...

This is an interesting and encouraging thread willhud9. And I see that you are quite the Christian apologist, which is not in itself a bad thing as you might have a better chance of influencing other biblical believers than us atheists do. A bit of biblical apologetics might go a long way in assuring other biblical believers that the understanding of evolution would not totally contradict their cherished beliefs.

Could you agree that in the context of the bible where it states "Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after its kind" that this could be interpreted in the way that I have explained it before on various forums – That there never has been a speciation event that crosses the large gulf between what creationists like to think of as “kinds” of creatures. Obviously these speciation events are within their definition of “kind” every time. However, that is not to say that species or kinds are immutable, only that organisms reproduce and vary within the taxonomic classifications in which we put them, following the nested hierarchical structure produced by common ancestry. So that if "kinds" are not immutable then this particular line from the bible could be interpreted to mean that from one generation to the next evolutionary change is always within "kind" and the Earth brings forth creatures kind after kind? In other words, could you interpret that biblical quote to be compatible with the notion that one kind of creature could evolve into another kind of creature but only within the nested hierarchical structure of common ancestry that evolutionary theory explains. Thus biblical apologists would never need to worry again about the arbitrary limit or barrier that they invariably argue for when that biblical quote is used.

I have several long posts from other forums that could fill you in on some of the details of how this idea of mine came about while discussing the concept of speciation, kinds and nested hierarchies etc. with other religionists if you are interested.

If you could put this concept forward to some of your fellow students and report back to us on their responses that could be quite interesting.

I love how, in the space of three posts, we see the difference between the average theist who is willing to learn new things but still keeps his belief in god immediately juxtaposed to the writings of someone desperately trying to remain as ignorant as possible because he recognizes and fears that knowledge will kill his delusion.

In example one, we have a theist who isn't worried about losing faith, and so is open to knowledge, in case two we have someone who is terrified of losing his faith and so attempts to block out reality with the strongest possible psychological defenses he can muster.

Cheers wilhud, you're a credit to theists.

Would it be safe to say that you regard reality as a challenge rather than a threat, Will?

sennekuyl wrote:Mr Byers, you tell us science is not a noun then proceed to describe it as a referring to a collection of knowledge or claims of knowledge.

a word for the ordinary accumulation of knowledge or claims to knowledge of the universe

.
any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in many languages, as in English, typically by the plural and possessive endings and that can function as the main or only elements of subjects or objects, as cat, belief, writing, Ohio, darkness. Nouns are often thought of as referring to persons, places, things, states, or qualities.

'accumulation of knowledge or claims of knowledge' fits that definition very well.
And as part of the service:
sci·ence 

 
[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Quite frankly, nothing in that or most other dictionaries would suggest otherwise.
"I shall science that fish" ?

Science can be used as an adjective, but that would be an awkward phrase, I'm sure.

If we can't trust your English, which I'm led to believe is your native tongue, why would we consider your postulations on science to be of enough value to de-construct your texts? With all due respect, please make a little more sure of the accuracy of your statements before expressing them.

oKay it seems the world is saying science is a thing. I might be wrong.
Yet is this so.
I don't see science as a thing.
The object of the knowledge could be the thing. Yet science being not particularly anything therefore I would suggest it is not a thing in reality.
This would be my criticism of how evolution believers use the word science. As a thing evolution is and creationism is not.
My noun stuff might be wrong here but the author of the post uses it like i see many use it. as a thing opposed to other things.
I need persuasion that the dictionary is right.
Science is not a thing but a catergory of things. Its just a word in the air. Not a actual thing. so why a noun?
HMMM!?
Science being used as a special area of knowledge, as used here, would also fail the list of the dictionary meanings.
I still see that there is just knowledge on subjects, accurate or not, and the word science is invoked to established a higher process and so confidence in conclusions.
I can see knowledge as a thing but still doubt science is a thing.
Hard to fight a dictionary but they might be wrong.

Anyways as a matter of reasoning a error on "words" meaning in no way need suggest error on any aspect of the discussion I involve myself here.
If so then error by the evolution folk here would reflect on their English compentence.
It doesn't.

Robert Byers wrote:... English compentence ...

I suspect you mean 'competence', which is ironic, given that your post indicates a general lack of it.