Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
It is not just evolution, it is anything biblical that they try and prove without any reasonable scientific evidence. Which leads me to my point that they should not be called scientists. Being a Christian, and being a scientist, do not mix well. Believing in a savior such as Jesus Christ, without doing any experimental or investigative work, is A-Scientific. At any rate, I will slightly change the opening statement.
Loving your wife is A-Scientific. Does that mean that scientists who love their wife should not be called scientists?
Your argument is getting pretty weak. To suggest that to be a scientist that every aspect of ones life needs to be driven by the scientific method can only mean that you don't know that many scientists.
I know lots of Christians who are scientists and they do not try to prove anything without reasonable scientific evidence. Their belief in a savior is based on faith and it doesn't affect their scientific work.
If you are suggesting that they can't be good scientists, you should stop using anything of benefit brought about by scientists who were Christian.
How do you feel about vaccines?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. aclufightsforchristians com
NEWSFLASH: Today, 6,000,000 teachers in the US didn't do anything illegal
Loving your wife is A-Scientific. Does that mean that scientists who love their wife should not be called scientists?
Your argument is getting pretty weak. To suggest that to be a scientist that every aspect of ones life needs to be driven by the scientific method can only mean that you don't know that many scientists.
I know lots of Christians who are scientists and they do not try to prove anything without reasonable scientific evidence. Their belief in a savior is based on faith and it doesn't affect their scientific work.
If you are suggesting that they can't be good scientists, you should stop using anything of benefit brought about by scientists who were Christian.
How do you feel about vaccines?
My argument has not weakened in the slightest. There is a huge fundamental difference, between a scientist who is Christian, and a Christian Scientist, who sets out to prove the bible, as their line of work. Granted their have been many great scientists who have been Christian, but taking into account the period in time that they lived, is also important. Have you ever glanced at CNN? or CBS news? I hear Christian Scientists, and new earth scientists, babble on about complete nonsense every morning :=)
To answer your other question, I never said that every aspect of ones life needs to be driven by science, but to truly be a scientist, one does not set out to prove something, or make claims regarding something, without using the scientific method. The same goes for the church of Christian Science, which had the audacity to call themselves a branch of science, while offering no proof that prayer can be used to heal.
Last edited by Parogar; 15th January 2008 at 09:20 AM.
Then you should be able to name a few. Who are these people who refer to themselves as 'Christian Scientists'?
Just name one so we know the kind of person you are talking about. What are their claims? What do they say? Have the written books?
Off the top of my head, Dr. Marcus Ross is pretty popular, but I have a list of them, But this forum won't let me link it until I have 15 posts. I have to go to work, so I will have to resume this debate later. Nice meeting you, look forward to reading your responses when I get home.
TO AVOID CONFUSION, THIS TOPIC IS AIMED AT CHRISTIANS, WHO BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM, YET REFER TO THEMSELVES AS "CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS"
Often when I hear the evolution vs creationist debates, I am dismayed when I hear people refer to themselves, as "Christian Scientists." Look, I have no intention of offending, or being rude, but I feel being blunt is the appropriate way of handling this. If you are a "Christian Scientist" You are not a real scientist.
Now let us examine the definition of a scientist
"a person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject (Biologists, physicists, chemists, geologists and astronomers are all scientists.)"
"The bible told me so!" Is NOT a form of science. Scientists follow the scientific method, and are always able to be proved wrong on any matter providing there is evidence. Do you know why "real" scientists believe in evolution? It's because there is evidence to support such a theory.
Let's face it. Christians don't believe in evolution, because they believe in the bible. And they believe in the bible for many different reasons, none of them being sound logic, or supporting evidence. It is for that reason, that there can never be such thing as a "Christian scientist"
To blindly believe, in Creationism, rocks that make water, opening oceans, women that can give birth without ever having sex, and all of the other magical, fairy tale nonsense your parents spoon fed you when you were six - eliminates the right to call yourself a scientist.
Quote from
Catastrophic Granite Formation: Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusion and Cooling
Andrew A. Snelling, Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048
However, a large reservoir of granitic melts could have been generated in the lower crust during the 1,650 years between Creation and the Flood, particularly due to residual heat from an episode of accelerated nuclear decay during the first three days of the Creation Week. This very large reservoir of granitic melts would then have been mobilized and progressively intruded into the upper crust during the global Flood cataclysm, when another episode of accelerated nuclear decay would have greatly accelerated many geologic processes, including granite magmatism, driven by catastrophic plate tectonics.
I think this is what you mean by Christian Scientist. The above was written by Andrew A Snelling to explain how granitic melts could cool and fractionate mineral crystals in a short time frame, i.e. less than a couple of thousand years.
What he is suggesting is quite fundamental, in essence it is that the laws of physics were different during the first three days of creation and then again during the flood itself. Not to mention catastrophic plate tectonics during the flood.
I find this quite interesting, and let’s enter the world of mysticism for a moment, because this creates a fundamental problem with the creationist model of fossil formation. There are several reasons given by YEC for why the fossil record is so well sorted, including the following (during the flood).
1 Mechanical sorting, i.e. the fossils are sorted by their physical properties, weight, density etc. 2 The slower duller one drowned first, the cleverer and faster one died later.
Lets give the YEC a bit of leeway and accept these ideas for a second.
What this means is that during the flood year all the following were occurring at once. 1 Accelerated nuclear decay 2 Increased granite magmatism on a monumental scale to produce what we see in the world today 3 Catastrophic plate tectonics, suggested to be great enough to have opened up the Atlantic ocean. 4 Fossilisation by mechanical sorting 5 Fossilisation by slowness and dimwittedness.
The fundamental problem with the picture is that you have a world ravaged by extreme nuclear decay, monumental magmatism and plate tectonic movements of 10 of miles per day, but still quite enough for fossilisation by mechanical sorting and slowness.
Even the most ignorant of people should be able to see that it is impossible to squire this circle so to speak. No way can you have such earthly violence and at the same time exquisite fossilisation is taking place.
Therefore, some new mysticism is needed to overcome this glaring problem with the YEC view of Earth’s history.
May I suggest angels protected the dead animals from being smashed during this most violent of time, so as fossilisation could take place.
Result
No you cannot have Christian scientists, but you can have Christians who are scientists.
Scientists follow the scientific method, and are always able to be proved wrong on any matter providing there is evidence.
Better let your clipboard-carrying buddies at S.E.T.I. know this. This year will be what? Their 48th year without projected results? I don't believe for one second that "scientists" do their work without faith. I don't care what field they're in.
My argument has not weakened in the slightest. There is a huge fundamental difference, between a scientist who is Christian, and a Christian Scientist, who sets out to prove the bible, as their line of work. Granted their have been many great scientists who have been Christian...
But your argument has weakened. You just weakened it! Although you're now claiming that you only meant to target those Christians who are unable to separate their faith from their occupations, it's transparently obvious what you were saying:
Originally Posted by Parogar
Being a Christian, and being a scientist, do not mix well.
You want to scale back your argument and be a bit more tactful? Great move. But at least have the grace to admit you were wrong to paint all of Christendom with the same broad brush.
__________________ AV1611VET: "No --- evolutionists should be tarred and feathered --- and I'm serious." AV1611VET: "But 'Helel' is only six letters." Gottservant: "It doesn't follow that you need a brain to believe."
Better let your clipboard-carrying buddies at S.E.T.I. know this. This year will be what? Their 48th year without projected results? I don't believe for one second that "scientists" do their work without faith. I don't care what field they're in.
48 years without verifiable evidence, yes. That's how science works. The SETI team won't abandon their research because they find an old book saying there is, indeed, life on planet Gallifrey.
You might well say that the money could be better spent on other areas - and that's a perfectly reasonable argument. But don't compare scientific research to mystical faith.
Also Ken Miller was a scientist, who was Catholic, I believe. And even if he was a Christian, there is a difference between a scientist who is Christian, and a Christian Scientist.
Is there a difference between an atheistic scientist and a scientist who is an atheist?
Linear Mode
