is creation outside of science's scope?

[archaeologist]

Bottom line is, we believe that you and your ilk

looks like a personal attack tome. it is always those who wish to go against God who result to such tactics.

let me put it to you another simpler way:

although there issome good in science and some things are discovered----secular science is WRONG. they lead away from God and do not proclaim His majesty nor His work.

So if I bring you a loaf of bread and have you do a chemical analysis of it, what can you tell me about the baker? If you eat it and find it tasty, what does that tell you about the baker?

quite a bit. if it was too salty or sweet, allowed to rise too much, too dark or too light, overcooked and so on then it says he/she was a careless baker who did not pay attention to what they were doing.

if it was tasty then it would say that the baker cared about his/her product, took care to make sure it was just right and knew of the dangers of making a mistake and so on.

there is a lot that can be discerned about a person from the results of one's work.

let's look at creation, there are a variety of flowers, animals which means God loves beauty, took pride in His creative work, has a purpose for each animal created (notice none were created without a purpose), tookspecial care to provide all the plants needed for survival of His creation which shows a personal interest,
since He did it himself, it shows He cared enough about what was being done to be personally involved.

i could go on but do you get the idea? you do not need science to tell you these things.

 

[archaeologist]

reading things into it that it doesn't intend. You make something literal that should not be taken literally. It's a harmless subversion on the personal level - not affecting one's salvation one whit - but harmful on the cultural level where it's evident that many Christians are closing their eyes to reality in a desperate attempt to hold onto outdated interpretations of scripture.

ONE MORE THING... it is not 'me and my ilk' reading into things or saying something is there when it isn't or as stated in the above quote.

IT IS What God is saying HE DID, we believe that and do not allow science to change the word of God.

another thing culture does not interpret scripture but scripture interprets culture. if it didn't, then it wouldn't be God's word and God would not be God.

 

[Citanul]

sailors probably were well ahead of astronomers and if the two ever met it would be a lucky meeting during the ancient world.

But what the sailors did was astronomy (i.e. the study of the stars), even if wasn't it a formal sense.

 

[shernren]

another thing culture does not interpret scripture but scripture interprets culture. if it didn't, then it wouldn't be God's word and God would not be God.

Does your church allow women to speak or to be bareheaded?

 

[crawfish]

ONE MORE THING... it is not 'me and my ilk' reading into things or saying something is there when it isn't or as stated in the above quote.

IT IS What God is saying HE DID, we believe that and do not allow science to change the word of God.

another thing culture does not interpret scripture but scripture interprets culture. if it didn't, then it wouldn't be God's word and God would not be God.

Sorry if the "your ilk" comment offended you. I didn't mean it that way - just referring to those who believe like you in a more literal Genesis.

Problem is, you MUST allow science to change the way we interpret the word of God, or it will become obsolete. Do we still believe in a flat earth? Do we still believe in geocentricism? Obviously not. Those were "faith issues" for bible literalists at one point in time, but now those same types of people dismiss them without a notch taken down from their faith. It's not that the bible is changing, it's that when we understand more about the universe we can better interpolate what God is saying - and what He is not saying.

We also must interpolate the scriptures in terms of culture. It doesn't mean that culture can invalidate or dismiss scripture, but it does mean that we must read scripture in a way that takes into account cultural differences. For instance; it would be a sin for a woman in Victorian England to wear a bikini top in public; it would NOT be a sin for a woman on the Hawaiian islands at the same time to wear it. The SCRIPTURE states that women should dress modestly; the CULTURE has described what is modest and what is not.

 

[crawfish]

although there issome good in science and some things are discovered----secular science is WRONG. they lead away from God and do not proclaim His majesty nor His work.

Do you not see the glory of God more clearly in the supermassive vastness of a universe that science has revealed to us, more than when we thought stars were tiny pricks of light (or angels)?

Isn't a God who can create and guide the creation and evolution of an entire universe over hundreds of billions of years equally impressive as a God who simply pops things into existence?

Isn't a god who creates life from the dust of primordial sludge and gently guides it into the final form of man over billions of years, equally as impressive as a God who sculpts a fully grown man from earth?

Just where has science taken away from the glory of God? Can God's glory be evident through the natural, consistent processes of our universe, or is it only evident through supernatural magic tricks?

 

[gluadys]

quite a bit. if it was too salty or sweet, allowed to rise too much, too dark or too light, overcooked and so on then it says he/she was a careless baker who did not pay attention to what they were doing.

if it was tasty then it would say that the baker cared about his/her product, took care to make sure it was just right and knew of the dangers of making a mistake and so on.

there is a lot that can be discerned about a person from the results of one's work.

So far, so good. But does the loaf of bread tell you whether the baker is married or a bachelor? Does it tell you whether he is kind to his mother? Do you know from the loaf of bread whether he is a Christian or an atheist? Does he volunteer time and money to charity?

let's look at creation, there are a variety of flowers, animals which means God loves beauty, took pride in His creative work, has a purpose for each animal created (notice none were created without a purpose), tookspecial care to provide all the plants needed for survival of His creation which shows a personal interest,
since He did it himself, it shows He cared enough about what was being done to be personally involved.

i could go on but do you get the idea? you do not need science to tell you these things.

Again, good as far as it goes. But does this tell you that God hates greed and violence and envy? Does it tell you that God is loving and forgiving? Does it tell you God has acted to redeem us from sin? Does it even tell you whether he used miracles to create flowers or a natural process?

In regard to the first three questions, science and the study of creation will not answer them. For those questions you need to turn to revelation. And for the last, you do need science to answer the question, because scripture and theology don't reveal how God did this work, only that he did it.

 

[busterdog]

looks like a personal attack tome. it is always those who wish to go against God who result to such tactics.

let me put it to you another simpler way:

although there issome good in science and some things are discovered----secular science is WRONG. they lead away from God and do not proclaim His majesty nor His work.

Understanding that your statement is qualified, why would you say that secular science leads people away from God? We all understand that we are on message board made possible by electrical engineers, etc., so you appreciate science in an obvious way.

Why go to this extreme in your conclusion about secular science?

There are a number of TEs who do proclaim the glory of God, with the qualification that it is a grand thing to moderate evolution or set the thing in motion. We have debated whether that is more or less glorious than a YEC version of the events.

Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

As for flat earth and geocentrism, that's been done here, and no YEC agrees that flat earth or geocentrism is a biblical concept.

is creation outside of science's scope?

There have been a number of attempts of late here at CF to say that science does not speak to spiritual matters ( or however that was phrased). The funny thing is, if you presume to eliminate the most powerful force in the universe from your methods of arriving at the truth, what exactly are you doing? Isn't that like playing poker and betting the ranch where you know the deck has five wild cards and you are holding none of them?

Arguably, it is preferable to do science that way. But, let's understand that we are taking the most truthful, powerful, important and impactful thing there is and presuming to read it out of the equation and calling it taboo for this method of searching out the truth. Does any one else see the humor in that? (Even looking at the more overtly agnostic scientists, shouldn't there at least be the possibility of a God-variable that throws off every calculation?)

That being said, why is it that scientists get so bent out of shape when you suggest that they are headed away from the truth? No one is proposing an inquisition here, but just recognition of a huge variable (actually "cipher" is probably a better term) and some evidence that the "Cipher" has spoken to the issue. You can't even ask for a thoughtful reflection on that possibility, since such suggestions ar taken as tantamount to the inquisition itself and a demand that all scientiss immeidately recant.

There have been a number of posts elsewhere by which TEs have answered you question to suggest that these two fields are completely seperate -- but underlying all these assumptions is the idea that whatever is real is ultimately revealed in creation itself as measured by scientists. Never mind the YEC dispute. Never mind that the fundamental assumption on which this thesis rests violates the thesis itself. You cannot presume to search for truth and exclude it at the same time.

What you can do is express a preference for a certain type of method of searching and respectfully acknowledge that the naive people of this world who have no use for this method might end up being the ones who have been right all along.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There have been a number of attempts of late here at CF to say that science does not speak to spiritual matters ( or however that was phrased). The funny thing is, if you presume to eliminate the most powerful force in the universe from your methods of arriving at the truth, what exactly are you doing?

Naw, dawg. We just lack the audacity to ask God to get under our microscope.

Arguably, it is preferable to do science that way. But, let's understand that we are taking the most truthful, powerful, important and impactful thing there is and presuming to read it out of the equation and calling it taboo for this method of searching out the truth. Does any one else see the humor in that? (Even looking at the more overtly agnostic scientists, shouldn't there at least be the possibility of a God-variable that throws off every calculation?)

How do you propose to include God in the research?

I might ask God to reveal to me the mysteries of the quark and bless me with successfull experiments. He might even plant the knowledge in my head. Nevertheless when I do the experiment, the results are physical; my perception of the results are through physical senses; the paper I write will be about physical evidences and how they verify (or not) my hypothesis and how it supports (or doesn't) Quantum Theory.

Again, how exactly would you include God in your theories? How would you go about it? Please pardon my flippantness, but I'm completely mystified ... would you ask God for a Snickers bar on your desk if your guess is right and jelly beans if you are wrong?

That being said, why is it that scientists get so bent out of shape when you suggest that they are headed away from the truth? No one is proposing an inquisition here, but just recognition of a huge variable (actually "cipher" is probably a better term) and some evidence that the "Cipher" has spoken to the issue. You can't even ask for a thoughtful reflection on that possibility, since such suggestions ar taken as tantamount to the inquisition itself and a demand that all scientiss immeidately recant.

Until you can answer how God should be included in my experiements, you can't expect anyone to consider a thoughtful response.

God will not submit himself to our experiments. The only on which to experiment is physical. The only results are physical. The only conclusions are physical.

As a Christian, I give glory to God because of him it is all possible. Beyond giving credit to God, there is nothing to do.

Never mind that the fundamental assumption on which this thesis rests violates the thesis itself. You cannot presume to search for truth and exclude it at the same time.

Are you serious? Searching for physical truth presupposes only that physical truth is discoverable. That's it. Nothing more.

Until you can answer how God can be included in the experiment, he will by default be excluded.

What you can do is express a preference for a certain type of method of searching and respectfully acknowledge that the naive people of this world who have no use for this method might end up being the ones who have been right all along.

What way of knowing the physical universe is better than science? Even shamans experiment with herbs and bark and leaves to discover properties. Shaman's are scientists. Sailors -- discovering the usefullness of stars -- are scientists.

All humans who have discovered that certain patterns of behavior bring certain results are scientists.

Science -- in a broad sense -- is how any human knows anything. Science -- in a narrow sense -- is the discipline that help insure authentic and reliable knowledge.

 

[crawfish]

There have been a number of attempts of late here at CF to say that science does not speak to spiritual matters ( or however that was phrased). The funny thing is, if you presume to eliminate the most powerful force in the universe from your methods of arriving at the truth, what exactly are you doing? Isn't that like playing poker and betting the ranch where you know the deck has five wild cards and you are holding none of them?

Arguably, it is preferable to do science that way. But, let's understand that we are taking the most truthful, powerful, important and impactful thing there is and presuming to read it out of the equation and calling it taboo for this method of searching out the truth. Does any one else see the humor in that? (Even looking at the more overtly agnostic scientists, shouldn't there at least be the possibility of a God-variable that throws off every calculation?)

What could possibly be the use of such a "God variable"? Science can ONLY be used to evaluate what is repeatable and testable. Since miracles are, by their very nature, one-time events, science cannot possibly either disprove or verify them. Unless the miracles occur in a repeatable fashion - let's say, God involves a supernatural component in every single chemical reaction of a certain type - then there is nothing added by including a "god component", because an experiment could not possibly include this component.

"Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God." Obviously, we should not be "testing" whether or not God will intrude in a process. So, apart from theistic scientists saying "God could've done it any way He wanted", isn't the best thing to go forward and study the testable elements of creation and, if you can put things together in a way that is consistent without DIRECT supernatural means, be comfortable in theorizing that God did it in that way?

I think we hurt ourselves by trying to assume that God did things a certain way, and working from the back end to "fit" the evidence into a pre-planned result. Even if we arrive there, we have prejudiced the experiment by assuming an end. And the problem is, when we demand that we force scientists to choose between the secular and spiritual

 

[crawfish]

As a Christian, I give glory to God because of him it is all possible. Beyond giving credit to God, there is nothing to do.

I can write and write and write, but you just summed up my entire thought process in one short, concise, sentence.

Nice work. I may use that someday.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you! What a nice thing to say!

 

[archaeologist]

Problem is, you MUST allow science to change the way we interpret the word of God, or it will become obsolete

so you are saying that science is greater than God's word? so you are saying that science is greater than God? that is heretical.

God's word does not change, it does not become obsolete, it is the revelation from God to man. are you that arrogant that you think you have the right to change what God has said?

The Bible doesn't teach the world is flat nor does it teach geocentricism. i have to stop you people are giving me a headache just reading this stuff.

let me make it simple for you--- following culture, science over God's word is wrong; it is saying that the created has the final say over the Creator and is also wrong.

culture does not dictate anything to God's word nor does secualr science. they are part of the creative act given no authority by God to do what you have given to it.

please state from God's word where He says to follow science, culture or any other field over HIm:


there is not one instance where thathappens. christians are to be the light of the world yet they cannot be that light if they do the opposite or change the words of God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

shernren asked you, archaeologist, in post 24 whether your church allows women to speak or to go bareheaded.

If so, why?

 

[laptoppop]

Again, how exactly would you include God in your theories? How would you go about it?

The problem becomes when you use a methodology that specifically excludes God (the scientific method), but you exist in a universe where God is real. loving, and very definitely exists.

Until you can answer how God should be included in my experiements, you can't expect anyone to consider a thoughtful response.

God will not submit himself to our experiments. The only on which to experiment is physical. The only results are physical. The only conclusions are physical.

Right. He is an independent being. We need to be aware of the limits of our methods. If the presupposition of our method is anti-God, then we should not be surprised when the solution set does not include Him. Scientific investigation is fine and good for understanding the way things normally work - but it is NOT the source for ultimate Truth. He is there, and he is not silent!

As a Christian, I give glory to God because of him it is all possible. Beyond giving credit to God, there is nothing to do.

Nice sentiment, that I mostly agree with. He made all things, and in Him they consist.

Are you serious? Searching for physical truth presupposes only that physical truth is discoverable. That's it. Nothing more.

Until you can answer how God can be included in the experiment, he will by default be excluded.

What way of knowing the physical universe is better than science? Even shamans experiment with herbs and bark and leaves to discover properties. Shaman's are scientists. Sailors -- discovering the usefullness of stars -- are scientists.

All humans who have discovered that certain patterns of behavior bring certain results are scientists.

Science -- in a broad sense -- is how any human knows anything. Science -- in a narrow sense -- is the discipline that help insure authentic and reliable knowledge.

And here is where you make a major mistake. Science is absolutely NOT the only way anyone knows anything. It is useful for understanding some things, but not everything by a far margin.

We have a glorious God, who has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Yes, one way is in the glory of His creation. But the primary way is in the person of Jesus Christ, and in God's direct communication with man in the Scriptures. To put "science"as the only way we know things is to ignore the revelation of God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I should have said "science is the only way anyone knows anything physical."

Now, answer the question. How should scientists include God in their calculations?

 

[archaeologist]

shernren asked you, archaeologist, in post 24 whether your church allows women to speak or to go bareheaded.

If so, why

sorry, there are too many posts for me to read and answer at the same time..

i saw the question, i do not go to church right now as i live in a small town in korea whose churches do not have english services nor english churches.

if i had a choice, i would look for a church that followed God's direction which would include that women be silent in the church.

when it comes to a topic of culture and that culture dictates what the rule is then we have lifted up that culture's dictates above the word of God.

culture cannot be used as the defining or final authority for then we have made that avenue superior to God's word and that is wrong.

in following the kind of thinking that culture has a say over God's word, then you must ask, whose culture is right? what about the other cultures which died out ? are they lost because they had a different set of rules to follow?

if God is God and His word is His word, then His directives do not change because culture changes. some peopl ewould be shafted if it did change. God's word is the what we are to follow not the dictates of culture or science or archaeology.

***as a side: i notice people writing like they are talking to someone who does not know anything. i hold 4 degrees, 2 post-graduate and i have long investigated these matters.

if you are talking to me, please talk like an adult and not to someoone you feel knows nothing. i have gone through what your are mentioning over 25 years ago when i was an undergrad. i am well aware of the evangelical as well as non-evangelical church's positions.

 

[laptoppop]

I should have said "science is the only way anyone knows anything physical."

Now, answer the question. How should scientists include God in their calculations?

I would not even agree with that statement. I would say that the revelation of an infinite, all-knowing God should be trusted on whatever He chooses to reveal.

In terms of how scientists should incorporate Truth and reality into their investigations --

1) Be aware of the limits of the scientific method. Specifically, be cautious of conclusions as opposed to the evidence itself. Do not look for "science" to reveal ultimate Truth.

2) If the results of scientific investigation conflict with your interpretation of scripture -- analyze BOTH very carefully.

3) If there are two ways to interpret evidence (such as the geologic strata), choose the method more consistent with Scripture - even if it may be less probable.

 

[archaeologist]

But what the sailors did was astronomy (i.e. the study of the stars), even if wasn't it a formal sense.

i would disagree because navigation is not astronomy...there is a big difference.

We also must interpolate the scriptures in terms of culture

no not at all. see previous thread. what you are saying then is you do not believe God and that His word does not apply. how do you expect non-christians to follow God's word if you don't?

Isn't a God who can create and guide the creation and evolution of an entire universe over hundreds of billions of years equally impressive as a God who simply pops things into existence?

this isn't the point, the point is God left no doubt who did it and showed that there is no other way it could be done--just like salvation. there is a purpose for why God did it in 6 days--He could not command His people to work 6 days and rest the 7th IF HE didn't do it also. if He did then that would be hypocrisy and sin (which God cannot do)

Just where has science taken away from the glory of God

when it changes what God said He did and when it leads people astray from the truth.

Can God's glory be evident through the natural, consistent processes of our universe, or is it only evident through supernatural magic tricks?

not when evolution is a secular human construct and contradicts what God said in the Bible. It is n't magic tricks, but a demonstration of God's power so that we as believers can have confidence in Him to meet our needs, overcome evil answer prayers and so on.

But does the loaf of bread tell you whether the baker is married or a bachelor? Does it tell you whether he is kind to his mother? Do you know from the loaf of bread whether he is a Christian or an atheist? Does he volunteer time and money to charity?

all those questions are moot as they just refer to the same characteristics one finds in a person who takes care in producing a good product.

But does this tell you that God hates greed and violence and envy

obviously since adam and eve had none till they fell to temptation.

In regard to the first three questions

obviously, you do not know much about people or your own questions. most of which are designed to be a waste of time and energy.

why would you say that secular science leads people away from God

because it is not of God. read 1 John to get a fuller answer. then read the passages in the N.T. which talk about unbelievers being deceived and are deceiving ---and so on.

then look at their work and see how they attribute to evolution, ice ages, the Big Bang and so on all that God has done yet there is never one mention of or credit given to God. it is not hard to see.

As for flat earth and geocentrism, that's been done here, and no YEC agrees that flat earth or geocentrism is a biblical concept

i am sure it has BUT the references you find in the Bible we still say today. a sailor travels to the four corners of the globe or we say the sun is travelling east to west. it is quite a normal thing to say though we know the earth is not round and the sun does not move.

That being said, why is it that scientists get so bent out of shape when you suggest that they are headed away from the truth

why wouldn't they? they believe they are searching for the truth YET they (and others) fail to account for the evil one and his minions to work in these areas. there hasn't been a conversation yet on a christian or non-christian forum that i have had, that has factored in the evil one's desire & work to deceive.
everyone assumes science is telling the truth and assume that it is infallible free from corruption WHEN it is not.

There have been a number of posts elsewhere by which TEs have answered you question to suggest that these two fields are completely seperate

SORRY, if i do not get to all the points made, i am just one person and it seems you all are many so it is difficult to address everything that has been said.

We just lack the audacity to ask God to get under our microscope.

that has nothing to do with it. it must be remembered that scientific definitions have been authored by unbelievers thus this is just an excuse to avoid doing what God says pleases Him-- one must have faith.

How do you propose to include God in the research

1. remove all that is not of God from the mix. evolution is a secular construct not a divine one.
2. stop following secular thoughts, methods,theories and so on.
3. look to whatis true--"in the beginning God created...' and stick to the genesis account as GOD dictated it.
4. and so on.

Until you can answer how God should be included in my experiements, you can't expect anyone to consider a thoughtful response.

sure i can as i am not here to do everyone thinking for them. look to the Holy Spirit to guide you and allow Him to direct you to remove that which is not of God from your work. you will find the answers when you do that.

All humans who have discovered that certain patterns of behavior bring certain results are scientists.

and scientists are perfect, infallible, endowed by God with special abilities that are lost to others, etc.??

Science -- in a broad sense -- is how any human knows anything. Science -- in a narrow sense -- is the discipline that help insure authentic and reliable knowledge

the first part is just wrong for in the beginning there was no science, scientific fields, or scientists so how would the first humans know what to do? abel was a rancher yet he had no one to tell him about birthing of animals and so on. science has had little to do with what we know.

the second part is wrong also as science has been wrong more times than it can count. remember the egg fiasco?

isn't the best thing to go forward and study the testable elements of creation and, if you can put things together in a way that is consistent without DIRECT supernatural means, be comfortable in theorizing that God did it in that way?

no. you can study the result of creation, find out how things work, find out about diseases and cures but that doesn't place science on a pedestal as the only place to get answers or is the final authority on any matter.

I think we hurt ourselves by trying to assume that God did things a certain way

not at all. if we change what God said He did, then we call Him a liar and how do we expect to win souls if non-chistians here us doing that? there is more at stake here than the scientific field and wanting alternatives. that hurts us more. (and God as well)

 

[archaeologist]

sorry if i did not get to everyone's point there were a lot of responses and too many things to address in the little time i have.