Does science change?

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.

It seems some people think science is in constant flux and each new observation or experiment or hypothesis or theory completely invalidates everything that came before. If this were true, automobiles and computers would suddenly quit working every time a scientist publishes a paper in a scientific journal.

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?
 

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It would be foolish to reject science - it is a time-proven, reliable means to access truth about our world. Certainly there is change in science as new observations require change to current models. However, many of the changes are "adjustments" rather than wholesale guttings.
 
Upvote 0

Tolworth John

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 10, 2017
8,278
4,680
68
Tolworth
✟369,559.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science

Christians do not reject science, but they do reject ideas that influence science that do not honour Gor or are based on pagan ideas.

Do remember this, modern science is built on Christian ideas.
The idea that the universe is constant, that it is understandable, that it is reasonable.
If evolution is true none of the above would apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannheim
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
modern science is built on Christian ideas.
The idea that the universe is constant, that it is understandable, that it is reasonable.
If evolution is true none of the above would apply.
Evolution doesn't contradict any of these. I agree that intelligent design (dare I use this phrase?) is injected from the spiritual realm to cause highly unlikely random events to become highly likely and capable of building sophisticated chemistry-based and quantum mechanics-based organisms. But the framework and mechanisms of evolution are true and fully operational and capable of much more that skeptics of it are usually aware.

I accept modern science except its rejection of the spiritual realm. Thus, the physical aspects of evolution are correct, but they miss the spiritual contribution. The same with consciousness; they try to explain it without souls or mind or the spiritual realm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,696
5,613
Utah
✟713,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith?

Certainly not .... only those things that are in conflict with Gods word.

Example Evolution?

Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), Biblically acceptable - yes - "after their kind" i.e. Dogs .... we breed dogs and therefore their characteristics change ... but this is done within their own kind.

while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. - not biblical - Breeding does not take place outside of their "own Kind"... i.e. a monkey can not breed with a giraffe. A Human can not breed with a monkey.

Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?

Science Definition: is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

Creation of the earth is not "testable" .... it's a theory, it can not be replicated.

It is important to be able to distinguish, fact from theory. Too much of science "theory" is present as "fact". They use very convincing "models", graphics, words ... but MANY are based on theory. If it is unknown "fact" or theory .... always, always, ALWAYS go with Gods Word. Not everything we Want to know is in the Bible ... everything we Need to know is in there.

And yes ... scientific "theory" and new discoveries dismissing previous scientific beliefs changes all the time.

The earth was once thought to be flat, believe it or not some people still believe this.
However, check this out

Isaiah 40 - who lived approximately
740-681 BC - Was he a scientist?

21Do you not know? Do you not hear?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Want to have a better understanding of Almighty God?

Go read Job Chapters 38 & 39

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
circle of the earth
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
Thank you. You have proven my point:
  1. The earth is not a circle (2 dimensions) but a sphere (3 dimensions). This verse (Isaiah 40:22) contradicts science.
  2. The heavens are not stretched out like a 2 dimensional curtain hanging under the influence of gravity from a close large body (the earth). Rather, the stars of the galaxies and the galaxies of the universe float within 3 dimensional space. This verse (Isaiah 40:22) contradicts science.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Biblically acceptable - yes - "after their kind
Take the "dog" kind for example. Presumably it contains wolves, coyotes, hyenas, dogs, foxes, and many others. This means that 2 dogs walked off the ark and started breeding. Within a short time, all these species appeared. What is this if not macro-evolution? (And very rapid macro-evolution at that.)
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.
... ...Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?
Consider what Yahweh Says, Who He Is, Sovereign Creator, Savior of all who call on Him.
His Word is Perfect, and never changes.

Consider what mankind is, what society is, messed up creatures.
Their word is imperfect, always changes, never seeking to do what is right,
except for those who seek Yahweh, who love Him and are called according to His Purpose.

The remnant is a small part of the population, and has never been in control except a few times in history.
The whole of society is composed of sons of disobedience according to the truth of Scripture, Yahweh's Word.
Everyone in society 'needs' saving to receive eternal life and to know truth, to find the narrow road to life (Jesus),
and few find this.

So, Who is Trustworthy ? Who is Faithful and True ? Whose Word is Reliable and Good to Build Upon ? And to Receive Eternal Life, Who Alone is Able to Accomplish this for anyone ?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dannheim
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Creation of the earth is not "testable" .... it's a theory, it can not be replicated.
Science must be testable against the empirical world. You have to be able to test it and prove it false. Since young earth creationism violates geological principles and does not have sufficient geological evidence, it is therefore not true (and it is certainly not science). The only way it could be true is if God created the universe to look old, with light in transit from distant stars and etc. Old earth science matches the geological evidence and the natural laws and is therefore true.

Proving facts and truths about the age of the earth does not require creating the earth (so you can test your theories). Instead, you construct hypotheses from the observed facts and discard these as the evidence contradicts them. Old earth science remains; young earth creationism and intelligent design have long ago fallen to the wayside, discarded in the trash heap of nonsensical ideas. And heck, it's not even Biblical except by way of interpretation ignoring the viewpoints of those who wrote it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,696
5,613
Utah
✟713,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The remnant is a small part of the population, and has never been in control except a few times in history.

Didn't say the "remnant" was in control. God is in control. He has always left a faithful remnant, who carry the truth of His word and will do so until the very end.

God Bless.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dannheim
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
. Too much of science "theory" is present as "fact". They use very convincing "models", graphics, words ... but MANY are based on theory. If it is unknown "fact" or theory .... always, always, ALWAYS go with Gods Word.
It's the opposite of what you state. Given a scientific theory having very high degree of probability of being correct, but contradicting the Bible, always choose science. The Bible is not a scientific book at all, why should we believe it to to be such? And the views of the writers of the Bible were wrong in the areas where they collide with modern science, for example: that there is a firmament (a solid inverted bowl) supported at the edges of the earth; containing the sun, moon, and stars; and holding back the water which is above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Didn't say the "remnant" was in control. God is in control. He has always left a faithful remnant, who carry the truth of His word and will do so until the very end.

God Bless.
I didn't say you said the remnant was in control.
I don't even remember reading about the remnant in any of your posts.
In fact, I didn't read your posts.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Consider what mankind is, what society is, messed up creatures.
Yes, this is why the scientific method excels. However, because humans are so messed up as you claim, they can never interpret the Bible correctly. This is demonstrated by the many wildly contradictory views, teachings, and doctrines; all supported from the Bible. At least when it comes to the physical world, we can know something about it -- because science is trustworthy in the domain of the physical realm.

I don't share your disdain for human reason, by the way. I think it would be beneficial for Christians to study philosophy from the many philosophical greats.

Also, I don't believe the reason humans can't interpret the Bible and all agree on the results is because they are messed up. Rather, it's because knowledge about the spiritual realm cannot be determined conclusively by reason, as philosophy demonstrates. And having the Bible, God's word, doesn't help, because you first must make sure you got the correct books in the canon, then interpret it correctly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,696
5,613
Utah
✟713,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's the opposite of what you state. Given a scientific theory having very high degree of probability of being correct, but contradicting the Bible, always choose science.

Keywords "theory". Probability.

The Bible is not a scientific book at all, why should we believe it to to be such?

2nd Peter

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy

Revelation 22:1

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Revelation 1

Revelation 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Isaiah 46:10

Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

And the views of the writers of the Bible were wrong in the areas where they collide with modern science, for example: that there is a firmament (a solid inverted bowl) supported at the edges of the earth; containing the sun, moon, and stars; and holding back the water which is above.

Genesis 1

6And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters (firmament), and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

Genesis 1

14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Job 38

2“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.

Read about the Almighty ... Job Chapters 38 & 39 - if you have the courage.

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,696
5,613
Utah
✟713,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't even remember reading about the remnant in any of your posts.
In fact, I didn't read your posts.

I don't even remember reading about the remnant in any of your posts.
In fact, I didn't read your posts.[/QUOTE]

Posts are in the thread.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,162
16,006
Flyoverland
✟1,223,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.

It seems some people think science is in constant flux and each new observation or experiment or hypothesis or theory completely invalidates everything that came before. If this were true, automobiles and computers would suddenly quit working every time a scientist publishes a paper in a scientific journal.

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?
Science changes, and that's generally a good thing.

Religion changes, and that's generally a bad thing.

Science plods along, feeling it's way, making mistakes, making corrections, making discoveries that overturn old ideas. It moves forward, but haltingly, using strong inference. Science, for example, figured out hormonal contraception. Now they are figuring out how those chemicals accumulate in the environment and what bad effects they have on wildlife. They learned a lot. The application of what they learned isn't as friendly as the basic science involved.

Religion plods along, feeling it's way, making corrections. Hopefully the old ideas are confirmed and clarified. A greater depth is good, and totally new directions are bad. If one comes up with a totally new religious idea one should really wonder where they went wrong. After 500 years of new ideas, we should wonder a lot.

Science and faith are, in the long run, totally compatible. In the short run things may be rocky, but one should not dump either.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Yes, this is why the scientific method excels. However, because humans are so messed up as you claim, they can never interpret the Bible correctly.
Ooops, total change of subject there, and turned around too. (apparently)

Why would you trust messed up men regarding science, fallible very much,
and
would not (apparently) trust God ? (God is Perfect, not fallible)
 
Upvote 0