Using science to spread the gospel?

[Mallon]

I've given a definition of information a couple times around these boards (please see my last post above).

But, with all due respect, your definition isn't terribly useful. You say that evolution from 'simpler' organisms to more 'complex' forms requires an increase in genetic 'information'. Presumably, you seem to think that gene duplication and additional mutation are not enough to bring such evolution about. So what sort of 'information', specifically, do you feel could bring such evolution about?

Yesterday I defined "kinds" in the creationist subforum:

I caught that. Again, not a useful definition. For example, using that definition, can you tell me to which "kind" Archaeopteryx belongs? Are birds all one "kind"? Are penguins their own "kind"?
You say that a "kind" is simply a group of animals that share a common ancestry. Science says that all organisms share a common ancestry. So how can you tell which organisms share a created common ancestor without resorting to the same methodologies used by evolutionary scientists?

I don't remember saying that genetic variation always leads to adaptation.

You didn't, and I didn't accuse you of such. But your post #15 implies that adaptation and genetic variation are the same thing. This isn't the first time I've seen YECs use these words interchangeably, so I'm sensitive to the issue.

Nothing personal, but I refuse to chase links around for a third party's apologetics. It takes up too much time.

Sorry. Just thought I would offer you an avenue to persue the answers you were looking for. You don't need to listen to them if you don't want to.

History as what? History as man's conjecture? I agree. History from Scripture, by way of being Scripture, he defended.

It seems to me that in Mark 10:5-7, Christ was defending the institution of marriage, not the historical accuracy of Genesis.

"The god of the gaps argument is one used to contrast faith-based explanations for nature with those derived from science." Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-of-the-Gaps . Even though TEs wont admit to it, when they deny the clear context of early Genesis for "science" and--worse yet--something whimsical called "general revelation" their worldview often, though not always, reflects it.

Not sure what you're trying to imply here...

I'm a little surprised that you accuse TEs of practicing God-of-the-gaps theology, while at the same time you seemingly insist that evolution does not explain biodiversity --> therefore God.

 

[gluadys]

History as what? History as man's conjecture? I agree. History from Scripture, by way of being Scripture, he defended.

And equally, he defended poetry from Scripture, law from Scripture and prophecy from Scripture and apocalyptic from Scripture. By way of being Scripture he defended what was in Scripture regardless of the literary genre. Why assume that his defence of any passage of Scripture implies that it is literal history? It implies that it is revealed and authoritative Scripture, whatever its nature.


"The god of the gaps argument is one used to contrast faith-based explanations for nature with those derived from science." Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-of-the-Gaps . [/quote]

I couldn't find the above sentence in the article you linked to. Were you perhaps paraphrasing. I found the first sentence of the article to be a much clearer definition:

The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature.​

Note the bolded phrase. This is exactly the position most TEs oppose. We do not agree that anything which human knowledge can explain must be excluded from the domain of God.

That leads to unacceptable conclusions such that our knowledge of human reproduction means we are not formed by God in the womb and are therefore not part of God's creation. (In fact, I did once come across a creationist IDer who upheld this conclusion. I don't think many creationists would agree with him.)

something whimsical called "general revelation" their worldview often, though not always, reflects it.

Since when is the concept of "general revelation" whimsical? It has long been a staple of systematic theology--even before the emergence of modern science. Although he doesn't use this term, Paul is clearly implying a general revelation in Romans when he explains God's judgment on the Gentiles outside of the law. Calvin spends several early chapters of the Institutes on general revelation--notably the same chapters in which he discusses God as Creator.

 

[jds1977]

I appreciate the debate here, but if you will read the first post I hope you'll see that this thread was not intended for debate. Maybe I should've been more specific. Please start a new thread to debate on whatever subject you choose. This thread was meant strictly for testimony or ways of witnessing using the knowledge you have of God's creation...TE or YEC. Gluadys and Melethiel, you have given no testimony or way of witness, I'm curious to see how you would. However, for those who don't think you should witness using science...don't post...thanks

 

[gluadys]

I appreciate the debate here, but if you will read the first post I hope you'll see that this thread was not intended for debate. Maybe I should've been more specific. Please start a new thread to debate on whatever subject you choose. This thread was meant strictly for testimony or ways of witnessing using the knowledge you have of God's creation...TE or YEC. Gluadys and Melethiel, you have given no testimony or way of witness, I'm curious to see how you would. However, for those who don't think you should witness using science...don't post...thanks

In general, I think a life-style witness is stronger than a spoken witness. Words mean nothing unless they are confirmed by actions. So the primary way I would use creation as a way of witness is through a firm commitment to ecologically responsible living and advocacy for the preservation and protection of the environment. I believe a strong commitment to living in harmony with nature is a given of the creation mandate and I would make sure people know that my environmental concerns are faith-driven.

 

[jds1977]

Thanks Gluadys, the Lord opened a door of witness a while back w/ a man whom I've done some business with. He was an athiest. We debated on topics of science and conscience. After several meetings, he has now become a theist, but has yet to give his life to Christ. He has also bought a bible and has been reading it. My methods of witness were to question his theories of how we got here and give him an alternate explanation through creation. Then, go for the kill and deal w/ the conscience. I am a YEC, but I am wondering how a TE might witness to an athiest. Would you involve science or origins or totally ignore it?

 

[gluadys]

Thanks Gluadys, the Lord opened a door of witness a while back w/ a man whom I've done some business with. He was an athiest. We debated on topics of science and conscience. After several meetings, he has now become a theist, but has yet to give his life to Christ. He has also bought a bible and has been reading it. My methods of witness were to question his theories of how we got here and give him an alternate explanation through creation. Then, go for the kill and deal w/ the conscience. I am a YEC, but I am wondering how a TE might witness to an athiest. Would you involve science or origins or totally ignore it?

Mostly I would ignore it since most people's questions re: faith are not related to issues of science. If a person raised science issues, the main point would be to show that the realm of scientific inquiry is limited and cannot be extended to questions of faith. Science neither proves nor disproves what we believe about God, nor in general about anything that is personally important to us, such as matters of love, goodness or beauty, or the purpose and meaning of life. All of these matters are addressed by faith and there is no real antithesis between faith and science.

 

[shernren]

I'm here in Australia which seems to be the epicenter of the neo-creationist movement outside America, and it doesn't seem to have much effect. Quite frankly, I think I make a better (yet more difficult!) witness for Jesus shunning drunkenness than quoting Morris. Living among my uni-mates, it really isn't a matter of more learning or more knowledge. Creationism is often presented as a higher knowledge about the physical realm, a sort of scientific myth - but people don't need knowledge, they need love.

 

[jds1977]

I think I make a better (yet more difficult!) witness for Jesus shunning drunkenness than quoting Morris.

hahaha Nice!

but people don't need knowledge, they need love.

Yeah, knowledge puffeth up. they need the love of Jesus as told and lived through us, His salt and light...

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.​

 

[Deamiter]

And yet Paul was very well educated and was not by default "puffed up."

Anti-intellecutalism scares me. It's not in any way Biblical and the idea that learning less and having less education makes one better qualified in ANY area (be it Biblical interpretation, scientitic etc...) strikes me as insane. In the whole history of the Church, there have been VERY few leaders (if any?) that preached less knowledge leads to better Christianity. Certainly a lack of knowledge or education in NO way prevents one from witnessing or leading in love, but shunning education by default is neither Biblical, nor wise.

 

[jds1977]

Deamiter, in no way was I saying "Forget knowledge, be a dumb preacher!"
You mentioned Paul...if you read 1 Cor., you'll see that he came not w/ man's wisdom but w/ the power of God! He also said, "I would not have you ignorant' several times. My former post was in reference to witnessing through our experience and not just "head knowledge" of Jesus Christ.
I would love to hear how you witness and if you use science to do so...please inform us, thanks.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Deamiter, in no way was I saying "Forget knowledge, be a dumb preacher!"
You mentioned Paul...if you read 1 Cor., you'll see that he came not w/ man's wisdom but w/ the power of God! He also said, "I would not have you ignorant' several times. My former post was in reference to witnessing through our experience and not just "head knowledge" of Jesus Christ.
I would love to hear how you witness and if you use science to do so...please inform us, thanks.

I am sad to see there are more TE's on here arguing evolution and their own philosophies about our creation than actually answering jds1977's question.

I also would love to see how TE's use their knowledge of our creation to witness to unbelievers about the Gospel.

God bless!

 

[Deamiter]

Unfortunately, there's a pretty good reason we keep bringing up the debate in a thread like this. To a non-Christian, knowledge of the Bible and faith is at best inconsequential and at worst, the product of indoctrination.

Knowledge of science is not directly used to witness the gospel -- I don't see how it COULD be used in such a way. But demonstrating an ability to reason -- to back up arguments without resorting to "God did it" is central to science. Demonstrating first that I can support my arguments with actual evidence and that I do not make conclusions based on what I've been taught (or even the belief that evidence is out there somewhere) gives me credibility. Non-Christians are then occasionally supprised to find that I have faith in God and are much more willing to listen since I have previously demonstrated my ability to base conclusions on evidence.

This is nothing new as Augustine talked about it centuries ago:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

Studying the natural world is certainly a persuit that can glorify God. Problems arise, however, when people put more work into defending their own interpretation of scriptures than they do into the study of what they're rejecting. Science used to be very deeply a Christian persuit in the western world, but now people who study geology, biology and other hard sciences are being asked to choose between what they seen in nature and somebody's interpretation of scripture.

Somebody trained in science will not convert with blind faith and wait patiently until God shows himself. They will also refuse to reject the conclusions that have been carefully drawn and extensively supported by physical evidence simply for the promise of eternal life by somebody who draws conclusions not on evidence but on a predetermined interpretation of the Bible.

I know I'm rambling, but the bottom line is just as Augustine said -- non-Christians who know something about the physical universe will continue to reject Christianity if they are taught that Christianity counters what we know about the universe. As far as using science to witness -- it is purely a matter of demonstrating intellectual honesty through my work. With it, even if we disagree, a non-Christian might listen critically to what I say. Without intellectual honesty, it can be assumed (and rightly so) that I don't have any evidence to back my beliefs and am thus just spouting learned nonsense.

Even a creationist who tries to back up their beliefs with arguments like the discussion on Polonium halos has trouble because it takes only a little searching on the net to find that the halos could just as easily been created by at least two Uranium decay products and that the halos have never been found in granite that does not contain Uranium. Right there, the non-Christian has demonstrated to himself that the creationist doesn't bother to fully support his conclusions and thus lacks intellectual honesty when claiming that Po. halos could not have been created other than by God. The issue is not whether the creationist is lying or not, it's whether the creationist does the research to make sure their conclusions really are supported. When one or two arguments like this are shown to be so basically faulty, the creationist's ability to witness to the educated person is limited solely to showing love in action, never in an actual discussion about God.

 

[Melethiel]

I agree with Deamiter. I find that people (who are knowledgable of science) are much more likely to listen to what I have to say, and respect my faith, when they see that I am competent in the various sciences than they are to listen to, say, the hellfire preachers who simply condemn everyone outright.

 

[Mallon]

I don't think science is of any more use to attesting to God's existence than, say, a bike repair manual. I'm sure that in both cases it could somehow be done, but nothing attests to our Lord's existence better than a heartfelt account of a changed life, with Christ-like actions to back it up.

 

[shernren]

I am sad to see there are more TE's on here arguing evolution and their own philosophies about our creation than actually answering jds1977's question.

I also would love to see how TE's use their knowledge of our creation to witness to unbelievers about the Gospel.

God bless!

Let's say I tell my sister that there's a guy in my law firm (say I have one, for the purposes of the illustration) whom I think would hit it off well with her. She asks me, "What's he like?"

"Well, he's a typical lawyer. Wears a suit and tie to work, occasionally goes to court, the rest of the time does research on past cases. Decent fellow."

Is that answer going to be enough for my sister? Of course not. She already knows that he's a lawyer, but what sort of a lawyer and what sort of a man is he? Does he smoke? Drink? Does he turn his soiled underwear inside out and reuse it to avoid laundry days? Is he a BSG fan? Does he think global warming is real? Is he a creationist? Does he separate his garbage? Would he really fall for a girl like her?

When I see people trying to prove that God exists (which creationism at many points reduces to), that is the picture that comes up in my mind. Let's say that for all intents and purposes I accept everything the YECs say and believe that God created the heaven and the earth in six days. So what? "God created the heavens and the earth" is just a job description; it's about as useful to the seeker as "Matt's a nice guy, he's a lawyer". "God exists" is something practically every religion claims; "God created the heavens and the earth" applies as much to Hinduism as to Christianity; "He did it in six days" won't differentiate Allah from Jehovah.

People looking for God don't need that. They need to know what God is like in person. How does God treat His friends? His enemies? How do you get to befriend Him, anyway - will He show up if I go down to King O'Malley's or Mooseheads and buy Him a Carlton Draught or two, and if not how do I get in touch with Him? What's His family like?

Even if creationism were true, it still wouldn't answer many (perhaps not even any) of these questions, would it? In the end, we find our primary witness of who God is through Jesus Christ incarnate, dead, and resurrected, for He said of Himself (and no one or nothing else!) that whoever has seen Him has seen the Father; and we are to lead others to Him by imitating Him in every situation, cultural and interpersonal, we find ourselves in.

 

[Dannager]

I agree with Deamiter. I find that people (who are knowledgable of science) are much more likely to listen to what I have to say, and respect my faith, when they see that I am competent in the various sciences than they are to listen to, say, the hellfire preachers who simply condemn everyone outright.

Yep, that's my experience as well.

 

[jds1977]

Can anyone share an actual witnessing encounter? Remember, this is not for debate.

 

[Melethiel]

Well, in the Plaza at my campus, we get these recurring Hellfire Preachers with Big Signs (TM). They generally enjoy condemning everything from Catholicism to Evolution. As a result, I've gotten to meet and talk to many people who came up to argue about "stupid Christians who lack knowledge of anything scientific but feel they can condemn everyone."

 

[jds1977]

Nice, melethiel...how did they respond to hearing the gospel?

 

[Melethiel]

Nice, melethiel...how did they respond to hearing the gospel?

We mostly just had interesting discussions about various things related to religion. I don't cram the Gospel down people's throat...they get plenty of that from the preachers.