Science and Religion

[TheGrungeDiva]

I saw this:

SCIENCE AND RELIGION: A VIEW FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY CREATIONIST

And thought it might spark some interesting discussion here.

 

[Flutteraritypiejackspark]

Albert Einstein said that the chance that there was no God was less than spontaneous explosions in the universe happening at the same time.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." by Albert Einstein ​

 

[Newluke]

Albert Einstein said that the chance that there was no God was less than spontaneous explosions in the universe happening at the same time.

... and he also said 'God doesn't play dice.' Well ofcourse He doesn't... playing dice is gambling and that's a sin.

But seriously, why do we as christians always have to flirt with scientists to feel good about ourselves AS christians?
We really don't NEED science to confirm our belief in the Triune God. Just say: GOD IS HE...

Deut. 30:11-16
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

​

(Wanna quote that ^ too? )​

 

[jimmydiggs]

We really don't NEED science to confirm our belief in the Triune God.

Science isn't needed at all to confirm the existance of God, or our belief. It's just nice to use once and awhile.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

But seriously, why do we as christians always have to flirt with scientists to feel good about ourselves AS christians?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

First, I don't know what you mean by "flirting" with scientists. I have flirted with scientists when they are male, cute, and we're both single, but I suspect that's not what you're talking about.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "as Christians." I use and rely on science as a human being. I do not have one life as a Christian that I do some things, and then a different life reserved for non-Christian stuff. I am a Christians 24/7. Everything I do is "as a Christian," whether I want it that way or not. Kinda like everything I do is as a female. It's who I am, not even really by choice.

It sounds to me that you're implying that some Christians seem to "pretend" to accept science, just to be "cool," but that Christians should not do that. I hope I am mistaken in that interpretation.

Science is not like a hobby in which you can choose to participate or not. You don't really have an option not to follow science. The rules of physics are going to remain constant, whether you like them or not. You ignore them to your own detriment. Why would you keep yourself in the dark? Why would you handicap yourself like that?

 

[eugenius]

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation

Quote by John Lennox.

As a Christian and Engineer I fully support this. The more I study science, the more my faith grows.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Quote by John Lennox.

As a Christian and Engineer I fully support this. The more I study science, the more my faith grows.

Amen!

Do you mind if I ask (and if you do, just don't answer) -- do you accept the theory of evolution?

 

[megaman125]

Amen!

Do you mind if I ask (and if you do, just don't answer) -- do you accept the theory of evolution?

I won't answer for him, but I can give you my perspective. I don't accept the historical claims of the theory of evolution, because it always just boils down to just believing and accepting their assumptions are true, without any evidence to back them up. Microevolution, change within a species, does have loads of evidence, including DNA mutations, adaptations, natural selection and repeatable experiements that verify it. And microevolution is not anti-Bible in any way.

 

[DannyC]

I won't answer for him, but I can give you my perspective. I don't accept the historical claims of the theory of evolution, because it always just boils down to just believing and accepting their assumptions are true, without any evidence to back them up. Microevolution, change within a species, does have loads of evidence, including DNA mutations, adaptations, natural selection and repeatable experiements that verify it. And microevolution is not anti-Bible in any way.

Do you actually know the theory of evolution? You claim there is evidence for natural selection but don't accept 'macro evolution' that's what I get from your statement, so is that what you're saying or am I getting the wrong conclusion? Evolution is not anti-bible it doesn't try to be anti- anything it's a scientific theory it's not biased. This is not two theories competing i.e The theory of evolution and creation.

You have my agreement and I'm glad you said it there is tons of evidence for natural selection but that is what evolution at its core is. I don't know whether you completely accept the theory of evolution or you misspoke and confused terms but either way you made an error in your understanding.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Do you actually know the theory of evolution?

Thank you for answering this, Danny.

Clearly he does not know the theory. Anyone who thinks that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are at all different doesn't understand the theory of evolution. No scientist makes a difference or distinction; there is no "micro-" or "macro-" evolution. I suppose one could refer to adaptation within a species "micro-evolution" and say once that adaptation evolves to a new species (defined as something that can't inter-breed) you've got macro-evolution. But the process is exactly the same, and the "tons of evidence" exists for evolution both within a species and for mutations beyond speciation.

God created this world. That we know by faith, unquestionably. If evolution is "wrong," that means God is a liar, because God is giving us the information of our senses -- sight, hearing, touch, etc. -- that tells us about evolution. I'm not comfortable calling God a trickster or liar, so it's much easier simply to accept evolution as it is and move on. Not sure why so many people seem to have a problem with it.

 

[Blain]

Well this isnt really news for the news forum but i feel god and science kind of go together to a point. for scientest they study to figure out the mysteries of life and most of the hard core ones can be in an asrgument with each other about this theory against the other. in the unsiverse before time there was nothing not even light or darkness and we are supposed to believe therer was just miracleriously an explosion. The thing about that theory is that we have no actually eveidence of this. dinosaur bones and such we have proof but with this theory scientests are looking into the past which takes faith that they are correct. but belief in god explaines all of this. without god there is no science

 

[DannyC]

Well this isnt really news for the news forum but i feel god and science kind of go together to a point. for scientest they study to figure out the mysteries of life and most of the hard core ones can be in an asrgument with each other about this theory against the other. in the unsiverse before time there was nothing not even light or darkness and we are supposed to believe therer was just miracleriously an explosion. The thing about that theory is that we have no actually eveidence of this. dinosaur bones and such we have proof but with this theory scientests are looking into the past which takes faith that they are correct. but belief in god explaines all of this. without god there is no science

What theory are you talking about?

 

[Blain]

What theory are you talking about?

The big bang theory

 

[raf]

I saw this:

SCIENCE AND RELIGION: A VIEW FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY CREATIONIST

And thought it might spark some interesting discussion here.

careful with this you might be reported to the local magistrate and tried as a witch.

 

[raf]

I believe in evolution but I don't believe species change its Genus.

 

[megaman125]

Thank you for answering this, Danny.

Clearly he does not know the theory. Anyone who thinks that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are at all different doesn't understand the theory of evolution. No scientist makes a difference or distinction; there is no "micro-" or "macro-" evolution. I suppose one could refer to adaptation within a species "micro-evolution" and say once that adaptation evolves to a new species (defined as something that can't inter-breed) you've got macro-evolution. But the process is exactly the same, and the "tons of evidence" exists for evolution both within a species and for mutations beyond speciation.

God created this world. That we know by faith, unquestionably. If evolution is "wrong," that means God is a liar, because God is giving us the information of our senses -- sight, hearing, touch, etc. -- that tells us about evolution. I'm not comfortable calling God a trickster or liar, so it's much easier simply to accept evolution as it is and move on. Not sure why so many people seem to have a problem with it.

I did not make an error. I've delt with many evolutionists before. Micro =/= macro evolution. There is ZERO scientific evidence that micro automatically leads to macro. You just have to assume that it does, and just assume that it happened in the past as the theory of evolution proposes. I see no reason to believe this stuff just because the evolutionists are proclaiming it to be true.

As far as rejecting micro evolution, let's see, you'd have to deny the "hybrid" shark that was found earlier this year, you'd have to deny the concept of mixing different breeds of dogs. And on the note of dogs, if micro evolution were false, then you'd have to believe that Noah somehow had over 300 pairs of different species of dogs on the ark, and that's just for dogs, not counting all the other animals he had to have.

Evolution is a big bag that needs to be unpacked. It's foolish to reject the entire thing, that's why you have to look at the evidence. And if you don't think evolution and creation are at odds with each other, you must not have run into any of the evolutionists that hide behind the theory of evolution to deny creation. The historical claims of evolution is used as a means to deny the Bible as well.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

“ … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”


​

15 questions responses 3 | Feedback 2011 | Feedback

 

[DannyC]

I did not make an error. I've delt with many evolutionists before. Micro =/= macro evolution. There is ZERO scientific evidence that micro automatically leads to macro. You just have to assume that it does, and just assume that it happened in the past as the theory of evolution proposes. I see no reason to believe this stuff just because the evolutionists are proclaiming it to be true.

As far as rejecting micro evolution, let's see, you'd have to deny the "hybrid" shark that was found earlier this year, you'd have to deny the concept of mixing different breeds of dogs. And on the note of dogs, if micro evolution were false, then you'd have to believe that Noah somehow had over 300 pairs of different species of dogs on the ark, and that's just for dogs, not counting all the other animals he had to have.

Evolution is a big bag that needs to be unpacked. It's foolish to reject the entire thing, that's why you have to look at the evidence. And if you don't think evolution and creation are at odds with each other, you must not have run into any of the evolutionists that hide behind the theory of evolution to deny creation. The historical claims of evolution is used as a means to deny the Bible as well.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

“ … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”


​

15 questions responses 3 | Feedback 2011 |
Feedback

Did you read anything I wrote I did not say there were not at odds I said it's not two theories competing because it is not two scientific theories competing creation is not a scientific theory. You just took what I wrote and twisted it to say something else.

I'm not dealing with micro or macro evolution they are not terms found in the theory of evolution they are just pseudo evolutionary terms. You agreed that natural selection has tons of evidence it was the first thing that I noticed. Have you read Darwin's book? If you did you would notice the title 'the origin of species by means of natural selection' It's the core of evolution it's why we have diversity and it's why we have evolved species. You agreed with it you stated it was true, then you create a pseudo evolutionary explanation which just contradicts yourself. Darwin spends 5 or 6 pages of a chapter explaining why dogs are so diverse it's all explained you clearly have not read the book or even spent time studying it.

I have listened to theologians and secularists, I am an atheist but I will happily admit there are brilliant theologians out there and the ones who make sense are not the ones who argue over evolution, because they have studied it and reconciled.No matter what the evidence people will refuse to believe it, evolution and the bible can be reconciled easily but creationism, i.e 6000 year old earth and dinosaurs and man is not a theory.

 

[megaman125]

Did you read anything I wrote I did not say there were not at odds I said it's not two theories competing because it is not two scientific theories competing creation is not a scientific theory. You just took what I wrote and twisted it to say something else.

1. My post was quoting thegrungediva, not you. I didn't twist anything you said.
2. They are two competing theories. You've probably heard of intelligent design, but it's not allowed to compete fairly based on evidence, due to the bias of evolutionists.

I'm not dealing with micro or macro evolution they are not terms found in the theory of evolution they are just pseudo evolutionary terms. You agreed that natural selection has tons of evidence it was the first thing that I noticed. Have you read Darwin's book? If you did you would notice the title 'the origin of species by means of natural selection' It's the core of evolution it's why we have diversity and it's why we have evolved species. You agreed with it you stated it was true, then you create a pseudo evolutionary explanation which just contradicts yourself. Darwin spends 5 or 6 pages of a chapter explaining why dogs are so diverse it's all explained you clearly have not read the book or even spent time studying it.

Where did I contradict myself? You just claim I did, but you can't back up anything. You're like the typical atheist that I've delt with hundreds of times, feeding me the same old tired lines. Agreeing about natural selection in no way means I have to agree with the historical claims of evolution, that the diversity of life evolved from the first single living cell.

I have listened to theologians and secularists, I am an atheist but I will happily admit there are brilliant theologians out there and the ones who make sense are not the ones who argue over evolution, because they have studied it and reconciled.No matter what the evidence people will refuse to believe it, evolution and the bible can be reconciled easily but creationism, i.e 6000 year old earth and dinosaurs and man is not a theory.

You can't say "evolution and the bible can be reconciled" while still denying creationism. Someone can't say they believe the Bible then turn around and say God didn't create the universe. That would be a contradiction.

And there's no reason for me to believe the religious historical claims of evolution just because evolutionists run around proclaiming they're true.

 

[DannyC]

1. My post was quoting thegrungediva, not you. I didn't twist anything you said.
2. They are two competing theories. You've probably heard of intelligent design, but it's not allowed to compete fairly based on evidence, due to the bias of evolutionists.



Where did I contradict myself? You just claim I did, but you can't back up anything. You're like the typical atheist that I've delt with hundreds of times, feeding me the same old tired lines. Agreeing about natural selection in no way means I have to agree with the historical claims of evolution, that the diversity of life evolved from the first single living cell.



You can't say "evolution and the bible can be reconciled" while still denying creationism. Someone can't say they believe the Bible then turn around and say God didn't create the universe. That would be a contradiction.

And there's no reason for me to believe the religious historical claims of evolution just because evolutionists run around proclaiming they're true.

You complain of biased by evolutionists then you ramble on about 'typical atheists'. 'Microevolution, change within a species, does have loads of evidence, including DNA mutations, adaptations, natural selection and repeatable experiements that verify it' You're contradicting yourself, there is no point saying something and then complaining I'm making it up, you stated you agreed with natural selection.That is the core of evolution do you know the theory at all, have you read the book?

I find no point discussing this with some one who can't see the contradiction in his own words and there is no point to this . The literal interpretation of the bible cannot be reconciled with evolution but depending on the interpretation you can easily and that is why theologians can reconcile it.

'There is no tradition of scientists knocking down the Sunday school door telling the preacher that might not necessarily be true, that's never happened, there's no scientists picketing outside churches. There has been this co-existence forever, So to have the religious community knocking down the science door, there is something wrong there and I think back to Al-Ghazali and the 12th century and the fall of that intellectual empire and its got me scared in America' - Neil Degrasse Tyson American astrophysicist and science communicator.