| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
29th May 2009, 04:26 AM
| | Member
47    
| | Join Date: 4th April 2007 Location: Australia
Posts: 813
Blessings: 243,383 My Mood 
Reps: 127,776,370,444,235,264 (power: 127,776,370,444,240) | | | Science indicates the origin of the cosmos from a singularity, where all laws of science break down completely. So science itself cannot go beyond a certain "horizon" (Plank length has been the traditional marker) with any authority at all, let alone certainty.
The creator is the cause of physical existence, and cannot be tested scientifically. Science is indeed agnostic. |
29th May 2009, 09:11 AM
|  | Gangster of Four
64  
| | Join Date: 3rd April 2003
Posts: 410
Blessings: 65,515
Reps: 7,487,994,377,694,246 (power: 7,487,994,377,703) | | | Science doesn't rule out a Creator. It just can't say anything about Him. |
29th May 2009, 08:24 PM
|  | My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
22  
| | Join Date: 20th April 2005
Posts: 11,605
Blessings: 36,888 My Mood 
Reps: 27,354,533,772,047,632 (power: 27,354,533,772,065) | | Originally Posted by oncelost  If science is the self-correcting exploration of knowlege of our natural universe, then the employment of naturalism certainly seems appropriate. After all, I don't want a "scientist" telling me that swine flu is God's smite upon our planet and that natural resistance is futile.
But when it comes to explaining our existence, we are no longer exploring knowlege of our natural universe or how it works. Rather, we want to know what caused our existence. We are trying to explore our history. In this instance, naturalism seems to lose its utility. A creator is distinct from its creation. Why should a cause outside our phisical universe be ruled out? Why should intelligent causes be ruled out? If, when we try to explain what caused our existence (either as a universe, a life form, or the human race), we don't allow for explanations outside of the natural universe, then we unnecessarily limit ourselves.
Regarding the field of origins, if we call it a science, we should not continue to employ naturalism. Alternatively, if naturalism is indispensible form science in any instance, then "science" should stay away from offering theories of origins -- exploration of origins should fall under some other category, e.g., history or philosophy.
Science does not rule out God. Instead, it assumes God is not the answer, because if it ever did except God (or anything supernatural for that matter) as the answer, it must end. That and the current track record for finding not supernatural explanations for issues.
__________________ Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
|
29th May 2009, 08:28 PM
| | My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
22
| | Join Date: 20th April 2005
Posts: 11,605
Blessings: 36,888 My Mood
Reps: 27,354,533,772,047,632 (power: 27,354,533,772,065) | | Originally Posted by oncelost Okay. I guess we agree. You say science does not consider causes outside the natural universe and is useful to the extent it does. But what I'm getting at is whether that is an unnecessary limitation in the field of origins? Or is orgins better addressed under the category of philosphy? I mean, if you limit your self to naturalistism, aren't you inevitably lead to less potential conclusions (especially in the field of origins)? Are you fine with saying: Science can only suggest a common ancestry but reality may be something other than that because science does not comprehensively address hypotheses of origins?
I think the difference is here.
Humans look for the origin of the Universe. Science looks for the natural origin of the universe. The way science works is like a recursively enumerable language. It can recognize all natural causes, but it just freezes up in an infinite loop on all non-natural clauses. It can never say something is not natural, in can only say something is natural.
The above may make a lot of sense if you really like computability theory and computational science.
__________________ Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
|
3rd June 2009, 12:42 AM
| | Newbie
 
| | Join Date: 15th April 2006
Posts: 454
Blessings: 95,331
Reps: 162,057,471,836 (power: 162,057,477) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Science doesn't rule out non-physical causes. It can't because it doesn't have access to such causes. Non-physical causes cannot be tested because they are non-physical. So science ignores them. It is agnostic. Science is not atheistic.
Furthermore, origins hypotheses that make use of natural explanations CAN be tested, and so very much do belong within the realm of science.
So why do scientists even look for alternatives to the biblical account of creation? In fact, since they have to make up stories that don't happen in reality and that no one in history has passed along, like claiming that monkeys turned into people, then why do it? 
They also totally and completely ignore the accounts of over 200 ancient people fo a global flood along with the sedimentary rock layers all over the world that prove a global flood, along with new evidence of ancient sea animals on the tops of mountains, and again, make up stories of an ice age that no one in history has passed along. The evidence wreaks of a global flood yet they ignore that.
So as Jesus says; "He who is not with me is against me." He makes no distinction between atheists and agnostics. One either believes Jesus or he doesn't. |
3rd June 2009, 01:27 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
29  
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by peace4ever So why do scientists even look for alternatives to the biblical account of creation? In fact, since they have to make up stories that don't happen in reality and that no one in history has passed along, like claiming that monkeys turned into people, then why do it?
With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. No scientist has ever claimed that humans are descendants of monkeys. The theory is that we share a common ancestor with monkeys.
Perhaps the reason why you think evolution doesn't happen in reality is because you have an unrealistic concept of evolution? They also totally and completely ignore the accounts of over 200 ancient people fo a global flood
Did these ancient people happen to live along swollen river banks and flood plains? along with the sedimentary rock layers all over the world that prove a global flood
Sediments are being deposited all around the world right now! Is your house under water? along with new evidence of ancient sea animals on the tops of mountains
Ancient sea animals aren't just found on the tops of mountains, they are found in the mountains. How does a global flood explain that? and again, make up stories of an ice age that no one in history has passed along.
Did you know that most creationist organizations, including AiG, accept ice ages? In fact, they try to work it into their global flood scenarios.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
3rd June 2009, 01:32 AM
|  | Anglo-Catholic in the Anglican Communion
 
| | Join Date: 29th May 2009 Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 213
Blessings: 40,643 My Mood
Reps: 11,125,222,912,482,012 (power: 11,125,222,912,485) | | | Doubt Genesis was intended to be a book of science
I think Christians put far too much effort into trying to disprove certain scientific theories-especially evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design.
Since God is our Creator, He cannot be at odds with science, mathematics, geology or any other field of study. I believe God could have created us in a moment or by evolution.
If there is an apparent conflict between Science and the Bible, then either we are not interpreting the Bible correctly, or Science has made a false assumption.
We experience God in the Spiritual realm. Science deals with the physical realm. I don't believe Genesis was intended to be a book about science. I think Genesis tells us about the human relationship with God, mankind-and all of God's creation. It reveals the origin of sin and the need for reconciliation with God.
I read about 500 pages of court manuscripts regarding the trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case. I was shocked by what I read.
What I am about to say now is my own impression of what I read in those 500 pages of that court case: Several of those who called themselves Christians appeared to have committed blatant perjury, and finally had to admit the truth on the stand. At one point it got so bad the Judge took over the questioning. This was not our finest hour as Christians.
In the end, upon cross examination, Michael Behe’s claims about the Theory of Intelligent Design fell apart, along with his credibility (this is my opinion.) Behe admitted, under oath, basically that the definition of a scientific theory would have to be changed, for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory.
Too often, we let other Christians tell us things without checking it out ourselves-very dangerous. Then we lose credibility.
I think we should leave science to the scientists. We need to deal with the spiritual issues and concentrate on walking with Christ. |
26th June 2009, 12:17 AM
|  | Veteran
50
| | Join Date: 31st July 2003 Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,408
Blessings: 10,129,954
Reps: 35,233,846,689,871,508 (power: 35,233,846,689,882) | | Originally Posted by oncelost Why does science rule out a Creator?....
It doesn't. That's a philosophical presupposition that's not actually supportable by science.
__________________
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you....For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink..."
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him...
John, Ch. 6 |
26th June 2009, 10:41 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 26th June 2009
Posts: 6
Blessings: 64,031
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | it doesn't...
but, about origins.. origins of what? life and planets are free game... the origins of the universe isn't...
however, there are no current theories regarding the origins of the universe. the big bang expains the evolution of the current universe. not evolution as in the theori of evolution, but the developent... but, it says nothing about how the universe came into existance... |
26th June 2009, 10:52 PM
|  | Member
 
| | Join Date: 4th November 2008
Posts: 1,195
Blessings: 80,502 My Mood 
Reps: 2,303,137,087,325,443 (power: 2,303,137,087,330) | | | Science does not make comment one way or another about a Creator. As others have stated, science is agnostic.
.
__________________ The Universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects - Thomas Berry The most excellent being in the universe is the universe itself. - Thomas Berry | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
