The limitations of science in dealing with God.

[superdave5221]

Why are there differences between scientists and theologians?

The real problem is that people don't recognize the limitations inherent in a particular system. Science uses evidence which can be tested, observed, and measured. For this reason, science can never supply a valid model to describe the history of the earth or the beginnings of life. Any attempt to do so must take these limitations into account. Much of what people claim to be "science", is not science at all, for it cannot be tested. For this reason, many "scientific" disiplines dealing with humanity, such as psychology, have become behavioristic, in order to be able to base their results on what is testable, measurable, and observable. Darwinism meets none of these qualifications. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not science. It takes more "faith" to believe in Darwinism, than it does to believe in God.

At the same time, Christians can never prove the supernatural existence of God to an atheist. Even if miracles were performed, the atheist could always claim that it is a natural occurence using natural laws that we haven't discovered yet, or existing ones in which we don't fully understand. For this reason, we cannot rely on science to "prove" the existence of God, or creationism. However, there is much empirical evidence that comes out of scientific endeavor which is supportative of creationism, and the existence of God. By using such evidence, in the correct way, we can add weight to our arguments, and perhaps increase our faith, as well as becoming more successful in our evangelistic efforts.

The problem that occurs is that people are selective. They tend to accept evidence which supports their position, and reject evidence which does not. While having faith that God exists, and believing everything that the bible tells us, we must at the same time evaluate ALL evidence in the same light. Evidence which appears to oppose the bible must be dealt with, not simply swept under the rug. If we don't have the answer, we must be ready to admit it. This will not lessen our faith, but increase it. I truly believe that our God will not lead us astray, if we honestly, and faithfully search for answers.

 

[Scotth1960]

Why are there differences between scientists and theologians?

The real problem is that people don't recognize the limitations inherent in a particular system. Science uses evidence which can be tested, observed, and measured. For this reason, science can never supply a valid model to describe the history of the earth or the beginnings of life. Any attempt to do so must take these limitations into account. Much of what people claim to be "science", is not science at all, for it cannot be tested. For this reason, many "scientific" disiplines dealing with humanity, such as psychology, have become behavioristic, in order to be able to base their results on what is testable, measurable, and observable. Darwinism meets none of these qualifications. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not science. It takes more "faith" to believe in Darwinism, than it does to believe in God.

At the same time, Christians can never prove the supernatural existence of God to an atheist. Even if miracles were performed, the atheist could always claim that it is a natural occurence using natural laws that we haven't discovered yet, or existing ones in which we don't fully understand. For this reason, we cannot rely on science to "prove" the existence of God, or creationism. However, there is much empirical evidence that comes out of scientific endeavor which is supportative of creationism, and the existence of God. By using such evidence, in the correct way, we can add weight to our arguments, and perhaps increase our faith, as well as becoming more successful in our evangelistic efforts.

The problem that occurs is that people are selective. They tend to accept evidence which supports their position, and reject evidence which does not. While having faith that God exists, and believing everything that the bible tells us, we must at the same time evaluate ALL evidence in the same light. Evidence which appears to oppose the bible must be dealt with, not simply swept under the rug. If we don't have the answer, we must be ready to admit it. This will not lessen our faith, but increase it. I truly believe that our God will not lead us astray, if we honestly, and faithfully search for answers.

I don't know of any evidence from science that would in any way speak against the credibility and reliability of the Bible. It may speak against a particular interpretation of the Bible, but not against the Bible itself. Genesis 1-2 shouldn't be viewed as chronological history, but merely stating the fact that God created all things. Not a day by day account of when and how everything was created; it is not necessary to read Genesis as if everything is listed chronologically; nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 necessitates a literal reading of how and when God created things. It is enough to know God created everything, it is not necessary to understand the details of how He did it. Take care. In Erie / Scott

 

[trust_in_the_name]

Why are there differences between scientists and theologians?

The real problem is that people don't recognize the limitations inherent in a particular system. Science uses evidence which can be tested, observed, and measured. For this reason, science can never supply a valid model to describe the history of the earth or the beginnings of life. Any attempt to do so must take these limitations into account. Much of what people claim to be "science", is not science at all, for it cannot be tested. For this reason, many "scientific" disiplines dealing with humanity, such as psychology, have become behavioristic, in order to be able to base their results on what is testable, measurable, and observable. Darwinism meets none of these qualifications. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not science. It takes more "faith" to believe in Darwinism, than it does to believe in God.

I think it's silly to try to arbitrarily limit the scientific method into a neat little box like that. As has been pointed out, there is no single "scientific method," but in fact a vast array of methods and approaches that are applied in all kinds of different situations. To say that science cannot be used to obtain information about the past since the past cannot be repeated is an oversimplification and not correct. The past leaves evidence of its passing (fossils, radioactive isotopes, light rays from distant galaxies, etc.). A scientist in this situation is a bit like a detective coming late to the scene of a crime.

 

[francina]

Here, here on the Darwin theory of evolution! It actually defies many proven scientific laws. I think the major problem in the scientific world is those who are of influence around the world in granting licensed approval of scientist & keeping them in paid positions on college campuses are very anti Christ They doctor facts & persecute the many scientist who do not agree with Evolution or who tout facts that support biblical accounts of history.
I think your comments are very logical & obvious.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think the more Science learns, The more Science asctually points to God, or at the very least a Creator. The problem is, Science is up to interpretation. Many people do not want to see proof of God, so they interpret in a way which they think discproves God.

One example is the age of the earth. Scripture says in the last days people will be scoffers. and deny Christ thinking things will be as they were from the beginning

3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

We have this very thing today, as the "old Earth" theory "billions of years" is based on tha fact science interprets things like the way things are happenin today is the way things have always happened. So since erosion happens at such a such over a period of timel, it must have always been that way, so we see billions of years to form the grand canyon.

When there is ample proof the Grand canyon was formed over a period of hours or days, not million sof years, during the flood.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

The real problem is that people don't recognize the limitations inherent in a particular system. Science uses evidence which can be tested, observed, and measured. For this reason, science can never supply a valid model to describe the history of the earth or the beginnings of life.

Ridiculous, by that line of reasoning science can never supply a valid model for anything in the past. There are myriad ways to indirectly test theories about past events from how mountain ranges are formed, to how trees grow, to how the diversity of life evolved by comparing the predictions of the theory to what we observe.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Here, here on the Darwin theory of evolution! It actually defies many proven scientific laws.

There's just so many errors packed into these two sentences I'm at a loss for where to begin. Please do yourself a favor and look up what a scientific theory and law actually are. If you bring unsupported assertions like this to a discussion with a non-believer who is the least bit familiar with science you are going to get pwned. . .hard.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

We have this very thing today, as the "old Earth" theory "billions of years" is based on tha fact science interprets things like the way things are happenin today is the way things have always happened.

Well that's just how science works - assertions based on evidence are favored over assertions that contradict evidence. In science, as in life, we tend to go with the answers that actually work.

When there is ample proof the Grand canyon was formed over a period of hours or days, not million sof years, during the flood.

I've said it before, but unless you are prepared to actually back up assertions please NEVER make such claims in discussions with non-believers. If they are the least bit familiar with geology you will not be able to save yourself by referring them to notorious lie-sites like AIG or CMI. And if a non-believer sees that you cannot be trusted on things that can be easily fact-checked (like geology) they are likely to believe that you are even less trustworthy on things that cannot be easily fact-checked (like theology).




Lurker

 

[superdave5221]

Ridiculous, by that line of reasoning science can never supply a valid model for anything in the past. There are myriad ways to indirectly test theories about past events from how mountain ranges are formed, to how trees grow, to how the diversity of life evolved by comparing the predictions of the theory to what we observe.

Lurker

It is strange that when proponents of intelligent design do this very exact thing, and go even beyond this and show logical proofs based on past experiences, their conclusions are dismissed by scientists as "faith based" and unscientific. Do we have a double standard here, or what?

What about irreducible complexity? This a term coined by Michael Behe, a cell biologist at Lehigh university, who demonstrated "scientifically" that there are biological "machines" in certain organisms that could not have come about by evolutionary means. All of the components must be present, and working simultaneously for the organism to live. It cannot be put together randomly. This is "directly observed and measured", not indirectly.

So lets look at testability. Charles Darwin offered a way to test his theory in "Origin of Species". This is what he said:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".

I give you exhibit A: "bacteria flagella".

So there you have it. Darwin's theory has "absolutely broken down", by Darwin's own standard of testing.

Scientists have no problem throwing statistics and probabilities under the bus, when it suits their purposes. They have no problem ignoring direct evidence in cell biology. Is this science? To ignore evidence?

Darwinism is no longer science. It is a religion. Scientists who are paid by a government which mandates separation of church and state, can only belong to the state religion (atheism), or risk losing their livelyhoods.

 

[resurrection33]

Scientists sometimes provide great services to mankind. I just had two cataracts removed from my eyes, thanks in part to scientists.

Theologians can be helpful, though they can also have their own agendas, it would seem to me.

It all boils down to all of us trying to do the Lord’s will at all times.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

It is strange that when proponents of intelligent design do this very exact thing, and go even beyond this and show logical proofs based on past experiences, their conclusions are dismissed by scientists as "faith based" and unscientific. Do we have a double standard here, or what?

Or what.

What about irreducible complexity? This a term coined by Michael Behe, a cell biologist at Lehigh university, who demonstrated "scientifically" that there are biological "machines" in certain organisms that could not have come about by evolutionary means. All of the components must be present, and working simultaneously for the organism to live. It cannot be put together randomly. This is "directly observed and measured", not indirectly.

Except that it isn't - none of Behe's IC systems have been shown to actually be irreducibly complex.

So lets look at testability. Charles Darwin offered a way to test his theory in "Origin of Species". This is what he said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".

I give you exhibit A: "bacteria flagella".

So there you have it. Darwin's theory has "absolutely broken down", by Darwin's own standard of testing.

Except that the bacterial flagella has already been shown to not be irreducibly complex. Here's a great and easy to visualize breakdown of this by biology professor Kenneth Miller.

Darwinism is no longer science. It is a religion. Scientists who are paid by a government which mandates separation of church and state, can only belong to the state religion (atheism), or risk losing their livelyhoods.

Good grief. . .that's just so wrong in so many ways it's almost pointless to try and correct it. Maybe you should look into the legal realities of the separation of church and state as well as how scientists are actually paid and secure funding before making such comments.



Lurker

 

[superdave5221]

Or what.



Except that it isn't - none of Behe's IC systems have been shown to actually be irreducibly complex.



Except that the bacterial flagella has already been shown to not be irreducibly complex. Here's a great and easy to visualize breakdown of this by biology professor Kenneth Miller.



Good grief. . .that's just so wrong in so many ways it's almost pointless to try and correct it. Maybe you should look into the legal realities of the separation of church and state as well as how scientists are actually paid and secure funding before making such comments.

Lurker

Well then. It seems that there is disagreement amongst the scientists. You have your scientists, and I have mine. The only thing that you have accomplished is to show that evolution is anything but a proven fact.

You present a video by a biology professor, who can hardly have the expertise of a cell biologist in determining irreducibility.

And there is still no answer to the impossible probabilities of proteins sythesizing on their own. Biologists have estimated the odds of a single protein synthesis at 10^160, an impossibility. Furthermore, applying chemical kinetics, it would require a 10^243 years for one occurrence. The earth isn't nearly old enough for this.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

You present a video by a biology professor, who can hardly have the expertise of a cell biologist in determining irreducibility.

Wow, what a fascinating error.

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)). Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design. (22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich)). We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District​

So in reality you've got a biochemist whilst I have +95% of all professional biologists, thousands of peer reviewed articles, and court rulings. At what point are you going to consider which should carry more weight: assertions that contradict evidence or assertions that are consistent with evidence?

And there is still no answer to the impossible probabilities of proteins sythesizing on their own. Biologists have estimated the odds of a single protein synthesis at 10^160, an impossibility. Furthermore, applying chemical kinetics, it would require a 10^243 years for one occurrence. The earth isn't nearly old enough for this.

What on earth are you going on about here? Why does evolution require proteins to synthesize on their own in your mind?




Lurker

 

[trust_in_the_name]

Well then. It seems that there is disagreement amongst the scientists. You have your scientists, and I have mine. The only thing that you have accomplished is to show that evolution is anything but a proven fact.

The problem is that Michael Behe is the only working biologist most anybody knows of who is in opposition to evolution (though as a working biochemist even he is only opposed to certain parts of it), and there are, in total, including Behe, only a small handful of biologists in the world who are in any serious way opposed to it. On the other hand, everyone else, that is, virtually every biologist in the world, acknowledges that evolution is an uncontroversial and essential central pillar of their field. So yes, you have your scientist, and the theory of evolution has all the rest of them.

You present a video by a biology professor, who can hardly have the expertise of a cell biologist in determining irreducibility.

Michael Behe is a biochemist, not a cell biologist, and he's a professor as well, at Lehigh University. Kenneth Miller is a biology professor at Brown University, and has also taught at Harvard University. Both are Ivy League universities, and among the top universities in the world (Harvard is considered by many to be the top university in the world). He's done research involving problems of structure and function in biological membranes, often involving electron microscopy.

And there is still no answer to the impossible probabilities of proteins sythesizing on their own. Biologists have estimated the odds of a single protein synthesis at 10^160, an impossibility. Furthermore, applying chemical kinetics, it would require a 10^243 years for one occurrence. The earth isn't nearly old enough for this.

Proteins don't synthesize on their own, they're synthesized by DNA.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

So in reality you've got a biochemist whilst I have +95% of all professional biologists

It's actually over 99%, but much closer to 100% than 99%, very close to approaching 100%. As noted the opposition, to whatever trivial extent it can even be said to exist at all, makes up a small handful among hundreds of thousands, in other words, a miniscule and insignificant fraction of a percent.