...my point was that science needs to prove if those events where plausible or not.
...I think that the whole point of this excercise, is to find within modern science (or any new valid sources as you pointed) ways to prove that this could be possible instead of just saying that it could've been a miracle.
...I'm not willing to accept divine intervention so easilly as a possibility, as I think this would not be loyal to the concept of this scientific creationism.
As regards the Bible in general, you need to accept the idea of divine intervention. If your idea of a "scientific approach to the Bible" is to attempt to explain all the apparently miraculous events in it via natural causes, then you're missing the point. I have no doubt that some of the miraculous events in the Bible were not violations of natural law as such, but carefully orchestrated "coincidences", and these could be explained in natural terms. Other things, however, like turning water into wine and raising people from the dead, are conspicuously miraculous. An attempt to explain these in natural terms is simply an attempt to erase God from the Bible, and the Bible simply does not allow such a possibility as written. If you seriously demand that miracles can not happen, you may as well dismiss the whole of the Bible without further consideration.
As regards scientific creationism, specifically, you still seem to be struggling to fit it into a naturalist mould. If you insist on strict naturalism, forbidding divine intervention and miracles, then you will wind up with a theory of evolution. Creationism involves a creator, and this creator must at the very least be able to act intelligently in harmony with the laws of nature. In the biblical account of the creation of man, for example, God took dirt and fashioned it into a man. A sufficiently advanced creator can do this without violating a single "law of physics": dirt contains all the necessary atomic elements; the creator's job is simply to fabricate a human being by reorganising the ingredients. If you're not willing to allow this kind of possible scenario, then you've ruled out any kind of creationism.
But i don't really know anything about the scientific community (as im not part of it) to say how much being embarassed could be an objection to them. I also don't know how much obstacle can come to someone just because he has some personal beliefs that might or not affect his work (it shouldn't).
I can only hope that people are reasonable enough to be able to see beyond their prejudices.
Do you know of any large group of people who would be willing to suddenly admit that they were wrong about some fundamental set of beliefs? Scientists aren't all that different from religions in this regard. They've been educated in a particular interpretation of things, and if they've become expert in that interpretation, then they have a heavy personal investment in it. Scientists are human beings -- the same kind of human beings that have religious and political views, and have nightmares about turning up at school or work naked. I'm afraid there's little basis for believing that scientists can see beyond their prejudices any better than the average man, and slim grounds for believing that their self-interest and job security considerations don't colour their judgement. In short, don't assume too much "objectivity" from a person just because he bears the label "scientist". Human beings are only capable of so much "objectivity".
My concept on universal truth is simple. It's not definite and static, just something that up till this day, there isn't any evidence against it, and has lot of evidence in its favour. Wouldn't an "universal falsehood" be the same thing as a new "universal truth"?
I think that people will always look for the truth, so an ideal of a static (dogmatic) science would in reality pose as an obstacle to the development of science. But my belief is that as science evolves we can improve a great deal in accuracy, and discover things that we can't even supose today. We might not ever be able to say with 100% assurance, but at least with great probability.
I still see numerous problems with this "universal truth" idea, the first and foremost of which is that it doesn't encourage further questioning. It simply fosters ossification and the smug assurance that our theories are, if not perfect, then at least only in need of refinement to make them so. History is littered with "universal truths" that were not refined but abandoned -- in favour of new and different "universal truths", of course. The whole attitude of "universal truth" simply discourages criticism and questioning, because it's irrational to question a truth.
Instead, we should call these things "currently popular beliefs". There's no stigma associated with questioning a "currently popular belief" -- and that's all that any scientific theory or law
is, no matter how much evidence supports it. If the data is really that overwhelming, then the data itself will adequately deter doubters. Unfortunately, science as a practice has a rather inflated opinion of its own epistemic status, and "currently popular belief" doesn't carry the air of authority that science ascribes to itself. In particular, the word "belief" is considered a pejorative -- it is the domain of religions, and quite beneath science.
Another problem arises with your prescription of "there isn't any evidence against it". The major problem here is what we allow as "evidence against", and whether we allow it to maintain its status as "evidence against" if it can be explained away. There is abundant
evidence against the theory of evolution, for example. Many books have been written on the subject, and Darwin himself posed problems with the theory in this regard. Confident evolutionists do not feel that any of this evidence is sufficiently challenging to the theory that they should abandon it, of course. Such is their prerogative, but I have a problem with the idea that evolution in particular has no evidence against it (as some would assert) simply because all the evidence presented so far has not disproved the possibility of evolution to the satisfaction of some evolutionists. I don't see why we should concede the adjective "universal" (let alone "truth") to any theory which is actively contended on the basis of data.
If you acknowledge that you will can never know something, then what's the point ? Just something to do with your time ? Or you just wanna know a enough to have an opinion and then settle down? No, i think that in the end, even if today this ideal of having a definite truth is not possible, its what science is walking towards to. Its a paradox in the sense that the quest for a definite truth involves doesn't believing in a definite truth.
As I've discussed in the other topic you started
, science can be useful
whether or not it is true. Scientific revolutions are driven by the utility
of the theory or model. We simply assume that "useful" must imply some connection with "truth". As relates to technology, "useful" is the only important consideration: truth is incidental. Those who promote science as the best route to knowledge of the truth invariably rest their case on the success of science in bringing us technology. I don't dispute the success of science and technology, but I think it's erroneous to confuse utility with truth.