How has Science impacted your Faith?

Osanya · Oct 30, 2002

In my experience as both a Christian and a biologist, I have found that very few churches are educated in, or bold enough to comment on science in the context of faith. The traditional stance between the two fields has either been one of hostility or indifference. Individuals who are able to think critically about both science and faith and allow the disciplines to speak to one another are hard to come by. I think it's sad that the current debate has come to a place where neither theology, nor science can allow the other to have a valued and respected voice. I am of the belief that science can have a prominent role in theology, and our understanding of God. Likewise, I believe faith should be a powerful voice in the application of scientific discoveries.

So, the purpose of this thread is to get some of us science/theology buffs talking. In my studies I have come to some wonderful revelations about how this world works and how God relates to it. But, I want to hear some of your discoveries. One example that comes to mind is evolution and free will. It seems to me that free will is integral to this universe. Genes mutate, species evolve, proteins change, things die, others live and life goes on. It seems to me that chance and choice are often similar concepts in biology. But that's just one example. There are thousands. Let's try not to turn this into a creation-evolution debate, but rather discuss how science has impacted our faith

ZiSunka · Oct 30, 2002

Churches are about spirituality, not science lessons. Science just doesn't impact faith as much as atheists would like us to believe it does.

I have two degrees in science, including biology, and a degree in engineering, and I find that the two do not overlap very much in my own life, let alone Christians who are not employed in science.

Yes, God is revealed through natural revelation in the cosmos, but it is not necessary to be a scientist in order to find God through nature.

It might be an interesting Sunday night series, but it should not become the focus of a church's life.

Osanya · Oct 30, 2002

Lamb,

I agree that one does not need to be a scientist to see God within nature. I also agree that science should not become the focus of a church's life. I'm not making that case. But I do think that science has a strong impact on our understanding of God, and I think it is often ignored. Since its beginnings, scientific findings have challenged the commonly heald ideas of the religious world. The way we think about God today is drastically different from 100 or 200 years ago. I think that this is largely due to science.

Remember Galileo, Darwin, and Newton?

kaotic · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by lambslove
Churches are about spirituality, not science lessons. Science just doesn't impact faith as much as atheists would like us to believe it does.

I have two degrees in science, including biology, and a degree in engineering, and I find that the two do not overlap very much in my own life, let alone Christians who are not employed in science.

Yes, God is revealed through natural revelation in the cosmos, but it is not necessary to be a scientist in order to find God through nature.

It might be an interesting Sunday night series, but it should not become the focus of a church's life.

You can't see god in nature, well I havn't seen him, GOd is metaphysical/supernatural.

Blessed-one · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by Osanya
But I do think that science has a strong impact on our understanding of God, and I think it is often ignored. Since its beginnings, scientific findings have challenged the commonly heald ideas of the religious world. The way we think about God today is drastically different from 100 or 200 years ago. I think that this is largely due to science.

Remember Galileo, Darwin, and Newton?

science has surely revealed that the physical makeup of the world is far more complicated than we ever dream of. That only reinforces our belief in God more. We can play around with gene techonology, but i think we're more than just bodies made up of amino acids and tissues... and we can't make up a planet, so who put it there in the first place?

JohnR7 · Oct 31, 2002

Daniel tells us that we are living in a time when knowledge will increase. We need to be prepared to deal with that and I think the church needs a better perspective on this then what we currently have.

Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Daniel and his three friends were chosen because they were well educatated. They still have a impact on us today. Moses was also well educated. God can use anyone who wants to serve Him. He is no respector of persons and He does not favor one person over another: rich or poor, fat or thin, tall or short, educated or not. God can use any of us.  

 

 

 

LiveFreeOrDie · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7
God can use anyone who wants to serve Him. He is no respector of persons and He does not favor one person over another: rich or poor, fat or thin, tall or short, educated or not. God can use any of us.

Could He use a Muslim to tell us that Islam is the one true path?

Just curious.

JohnR7 · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by Blessed-one
We can play around with gene techonology,

It has been said this is the blue print of life. Even though DNA was discovered by athiests, it helps to show that the Bible is true. For example Paul says:

1 Cor. 11:11  Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.

Even if there were cloning, a women only carries X genes. Women can only reproduce women apart from Man. While the men have an X & Y. So a man has the DNA to reproduce both a man or a women, he just would not have a womb to develop it in.

So DNA proves what Paul said, man is not independant of women, and neither is the women independant of the man.

Also, they are starting to show that the DNA if anything was more perfect at the beginning of man kind. Even if man did evolve, the only way he could have evolved was according to the DNA or the blueprint of life. The building blocks of life have to be assembled using a plan or a blueprint.

Back in the 50's when James Watson (& Francis Crick) discovered DNA I am sure they never gave a thought to the idea that it was going to make it all that much more difficult for people to defend Darwin's nonsense about evolution.

David Gould · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7

Back in the 50's when James Watson (& Francis Crick) discovered DNA I am sure they never gave a thought to the idea that it was going to make it all that much more difficult for people to defend Darwin's nonsense about evolution.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

notto · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7

Back in the 50's when James Watson (& Francis Crick) discovered DNA I am sure they never gave a thought to the idea that it was going to make it all that much more difficult for people to defend Darwin's nonsense about evolution.

Do you realize that Darwin (much like Mendel) predicted that there was a mechanism to pass on traits and mutations which after all is what DNA does? This shows that evolution had predictive power as a scientific theory right from the start.

(cry david, cry)

JohnR7 · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by notto
Do you realize that Darwin (much like Mendel) predicted that there was a mechanism to pass on traits and mutations which after all is what DNA does? 

Darwin took what he knew to be true and mixed it with what he knew not to be true. Mixing truth in with error does not make the error truth. It just makes the water muddy.

No one questions his work on natural selection. He knew that no one would. Every honest man questions his "theory" of evolution. He knew that it was filled with more holes than swiss cheeze and that was why he tried to mix his error in with enough truth that he could sell his nonsense to people who just do not have enough discernment to seperate it out.

David Gould · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7
Darwin took what he knew to be true and mixed it with what he knew not to be true. Mixing truth in with error does not make the error truth. It just makes the water muddy.

No one questions his work on natural selection. He knew that no one would. Every honest man questions his "theory" of evolution. He knew that it was filled with more holes than swiss cheeze and that was why he tried to mix his error in with enough truth that he could sell his nonsense to people who just do not have enough discernment to seperate it out.

So you are retracting that DNA disproves evolution? Do you admtie that DNA has been the greatest boon for evolutionary theory ever? It has shown that there is a mechanism, how it works and why it works.

Up until DNA, they could only base evolutionary ideas on morphology. DNA provided a concrete base that gave immense support to the theory.

If you think that DNA damages evolutionary theory, in what way does it do so?

notto · Oct 31, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7
Darwin took what he knew to be true and mixed it with what he knew not to be true. Mixing truth in with error does not make the error truth. It just makes the water muddy.

No one questions his work on natural selection. He knew that no one would. Every honest man questions his "theory" of evolution. He knew that it was filled with more holes than swiss cheeze and that was why he tried to mix his error in with enough truth that he could sell his nonsense to people who just do not have enough discernment to seperate it out.

I think that you mean that Darwin took what he knew to be true and made predictions and theorized about what he did not know. Science has been filling in the holes, validating his predictions, and strengthening his THEORY ever since. This is how science works.

kaotic · Oct 31, 2002

Isn't science just great.

Osanya · Nov 1, 2002

So much for trying to stay away from the creation/evolution debate.

JohnR7 · Nov 1, 2002

Originally posted by David Gould
If you think that DNA damages evolutionary theory, in what way does it do so?

I do not know if damage is the proper word to use, but DNA does redefine evolution. The following information comes from Harvard University Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology:

"As The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution."

"One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts."

This is what I am addressing is the "mistakes" that we find far to often in text books and other resource. My job is to see to it that our children receive what we know to be true. It is so difficult to unteach a lie, and so I want to see to it that no lies ever find their way into the teaching of our youth.  

LiveFreeOrDie · Nov 1, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7
I do not know if damage is the proper word to use, but DNA does redefine evolution.

Oh. So you're retracting your statement that DNA "damages" evolutionary theory?

This is what I am addressing is the "mistakes" that we find far to often in text books and other resource. My job is to see to it that our children receive what we know to be true. It is so difficult to unteach a lie, and so I want to see to it that no lies ever find their way into the teaching of our youth.  

Why are you changing the subject? Because you were so obviously wrong in your previous posts?

JohnR7 · Nov 1, 2002

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Why are you changing the subject? 

I am not changing the subject at all. I am saying the same thing in a different way so as to be better understood.

Oh. So you're retracting your statement that DNA "damages" evolutionary theory?[/B]

It depends on how you define the term: "evolutionay theory". If your theory is that man evolved from monkeys, then I would say yes, DNA theory does a great deal of damage to that theory. So much so that they want to rename it "abiogenesis".

LiveFreeOrDie · Nov 1, 2002

Originally posted by JohnR7
I am not changing the subject at all. I am saying the same thing in a different way so as to be better understood.

Well it ain't working.

It depends on how you define the term: "evolutionay theory". If your theory is that man evolved from monkeys, then I would say yes, DNA theory does a great deal of damage to that theory. So much so that they want to rename it "abiogenesis".

Evolutionary theory does not predict that man evolved from monkeys. It predicts that man and monkeys share a common ancestor. DNA evidence appears to very strongly support this. See: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Second, how does the evolution of man and monkeys from a common ancestor have anything at all to do with abiogenesis, which deals with the origin of the first primitive life forms? You're talking nonsense again.

JohnR7 · Nov 1, 2002

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
anything at all to do with abiogenesis You're talking nonsense again.

That was a quote from the web site at Harvard University, so I guess what your saying is that Harvard University is talking nonsense. Do you feel that what all Ivy League Collages have to say about evolution is nonsense, or just Harvard University?

How has Science impacted your Faith?

Active Member

It means 'yellow dog'

Active Member

Learn physics

a long journey ahead

Well-Known Member

Science Officer

Well-Known Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Legend

Well-Known Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Legend

Learn physics

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Science Officer

Well-Known Member

Science Officer

Well-Known Member

Similar threads