Science and Religion Thread
- Thread starter Human
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
May I point out that the scientific method was created by a Christian studying the emergence of "science" and its ties to the Socratic method?
SCIENCE is born out of those who sought to understand the universe around them. It's greatest giants and "fathers" were priests, monks, Christian laity, Muslim sufis, Jewish doctors and philosophers.
Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, was a monk.
Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian.
Gallileo and Copernicus were devout Christians.
Moses ben Maimon, the Father of Modern Anatomy, was the personal physician of Salah al-Din and a famous Jewish philosopher.
etc...
To separate Religion from Science is to the detriment of both.
SCIENCE is born out of those who sought to understand the universe around them. It's greatest giants and "fathers" were priests, monks, Christian laity, Muslim sufis, Jewish doctors and philosophers.
Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, was a monk.
Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian.
Gallileo and Copernicus were devout Christians.
Moses ben Maimon, the Father of Modern Anatomy, was the personal physician of Salah al-Din and a famous Jewish philosopher.
etc...
To separate Religion from Science is to the detriment of both.
Actually, in his "Short History...", his argument is that matter simply came into existence because it had to. That's not good science. Now, Hawking has admitted that was supposition on his part.
However, I would like to ask the key question...why don't you expect on a Christian forum that the supposition of God's existence and His being the Creator to be already accepted? Even the first "scientists" who were philosophers had no problem with presupposition, as long as it is clearly stated prior to the logical theory there after.
However, I would like to ask the key question...why don't you expect on a Christian forum that the supposition of God's existence and His being the Creator to be already accepted? Even the first "scientists" who were philosophers had no problem with presupposition, as long as it is clearly stated prior to the logical theory there after.
The only way to study the universe 'scientifically' is by observation of and experimentation with the universe, underpinned by the body of knowledge obtained by the same means. Observation of the universe requires that things can actually be observed, tested and verified, and experimentation requires established principles based off such observations and past experiments. We can't tangibly experiment with or observe metaphysical notions, since they are abstract concepts with no material form. That isn't to say we can't speculate, articulate or explore metaphysical notions, just that such notions are not tangibly verifiable against physical reality.
''Quatzelcoatl created the universe, it is evident in that the universe is created''. This can't be tangibly verified because the argument is based off unproven abstract notions, that isn't to say the notion can't be explored.
Science derives from the natural philosophy of Socrates, and natural philosophy is just that; study of the natural.
''Quatzelcoatl created the universe, it is evident in that the universe is created''. This can't be tangibly verified because the argument is based off unproven abstract notions, that isn't to say the notion can't be explored.
Science derives from the natural philosophy of Socrates, and natural philosophy is just that; study of the natural.
Last edited:
Matter and potential energy are different things, at least in the standard model. Matter came into existence consequentially, which is verified by the fact that matter exists, but do you understand how??
I do expect the existence of God to be presupposed here. The issue is not the presuposition of God's existence, it's the further assertion of notions that blatantly disregard scientific progress that bother me -- notions such as; ''the world is 6000 years old'', ''evolutionary theory is a lie'', and so forth. What bothers me even more is that such assertions rarely if ever are accompanied by an understanding of scientific theory much less a coherent and articulate argument with a tangible basis.
I do expect the existence of God to be presupposed here. The issue is not the presuposition of God's existence, it's the further assertion of notions that blatantly disregard scientific progress that bother me -- notions such as; ''the world is 6000 years old'', ''evolutionary theory is a lie'', and so forth. What bothers me even more is that such assertions rarely if ever are accompanied by an understanding of scientific theory much less a coherent and articulate argument with a tangible basis.
A
The scholarly rebuttals of both Darwinian speciation and this false assertion with respect to Islam and modern science have already been published. There's no need for me to regurgitate them here though, of course, I fully expect the people who have been making those false assertions to simply skip over them and continue making false assertions as is their habit. It's a bad habit btw.
Dr. Edgar Andrews successfully rebutted Darwinian speciation in 'Who Made God?'
Dr. Rodney Stark successfully rebutted the false popular assertion that Islam gave rise to modern science and was instrumental to its progress in 'For the Glory of God.'
Dr. Edgar Andrews successfully rebutted Darwinian speciation in 'Who Made God?'
Dr. Rodney Stark successfully rebutted the false popular assertion that Islam gave rise to modern science and was instrumental to its progress in 'For the Glory of God.'
Can you please give me the link to a ''scholarly rebuttal of Darwinian speciation'' by a reputable, peer reviewed scientist so that I can read it? Preferably on a resource I don't have to use my credit card with.
Dr Andrews book doesn't talk about creationism at all, and he believes in evolution.
Dr Andrews book doesn't talk about creationism at all, and he believes in evolution.
Last edited:
A
Both resources are available through many public libraries. Worldcat.org is the standard for online public library searches itemizing the collections of 72,000 libraries in 170 countries and territories which participate in the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) global cooperative.
Resource 1: https://www.worldcat.org/title/who-...erything/oclc/465389538&referer=brief_results
Resource 2: https://www.worldcat.org/title/for-...f-slavery/oclc/50511057&referer=brief_results
Resource 1: https://www.worldcat.org/title/who-...erything/oclc/465389538&referer=brief_results
Resource 2: https://www.worldcat.org/title/for-...f-slavery/oclc/50511057&referer=brief_results
