Share good examples of Christian Science

Is Genesis History?

Rent or Buy the Feature Film @ Amazon: Watch Is Genesis History? | Prime Video (amazon.com)

The Cast (all Christians)
The Topics Covered In The Film

1rreducibly Complex said:

Above is Lee Strobel's creationism documentary entitled "The Case For a Creator".

Click to expand...

Strobel's 'Case for a xxxx' aren't good and they certainly aren't science. They provide nothing new or of interest about the natural world, possess no real explanatory or predictive power and aren't subject to revision should more/better information come along.

They are apologetics. Intended to appeal to the sort of Christians that are so insecure in their faith they can't handle understanding the natural world as it actually is. Instead, they cling or revert to increasingly bizarre versions of biblical literalism that require outright rejection of the vast amount of progress made in understanding the world in the last 100 to 150 years.

1rreducibly Complex said:

Above is Lee Strobel's creationism documentary entitled "The Case For a Creator".

I first saw this documentary maybe 5 years ago and remember it as good content for anyone interested in alternatives to evolutionary theory. It is a good watch for those interested in the scientific side of creationism in general.

Please watch and enjoy~

And share other examples of science that christians might be interested in or learn from.

Click to expand...

Anything by James Tour, professor at Rice University. He's one of the most influential scientists in the world. He recently produced a number of videos debunking origin of life theories that reject God as the author of life. He has also debunked evolution.

He is an evangelist who leads people to Christ regularly. He preaches at his church. Very few scientists have been willing to debate him. The reason is obvious. They cannot win.

1rreducibly Complex said:

Above is Lee Strobel's creationism documentary entitled "The Case For a Creator".

I first saw this documentary maybe 5 years ago and remember it as good content for anyone interested in alternatives to evolutionary theory. It is a good watch for those interested in the scientific side of creationism in general.

Please watch and enjoy~

And share other examples of science that christians might be interested in or learn from.

Click to expand...

One of my ex house mates is Dr of genetic algorithms and he’s a very devout Christian.

Does he count?

What is "Christian" science and how does it differ from just regular science?

I can point to scientists who are Christian, but I can't point to Christian science.

One of the norms of science is that science is universal. Gravity behaves the same whether you are in Tallahassee or Tibet or on Titan. And whether you are Christian or Buddhist, the results are the same.

St_Worm2 said:

Is Genesis History?

Rent or Buy the Feature Film @ Amazon: Watch Is Genesis History? | Prime Video (amazon.com)

Official Trailer
​

The Cast (all Christians)

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist
• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

The Topics Covered In The Film

• Paradigms
• Created Kinds
• Fossil Record
• DNA
• Transitional Forms
• Historic Views
• Evolution
• Ecosystems

• Global Flood
• Starlight
• Tower of Babel
• Big Bang
• Rock Layers
• Genealogies
• Isotope Dating
• Beauty

• Hebrew Text
• Dinosaurs
• Epochs of History
• Neanderthals
• Nautiloids
• Soft Tissue
• Coal Formation
• And much more…

Click to expand...

At least one of the cast, Paul Nelson (Philosopher of Science) dissents from his role in it ('it presents a false dichotomy').

Biologos finds problems with it ('massive misrepresentations about natural history')

Natural Historia dismantles it ('portrays paleontology (and the other disciplines it highlights) extremely inaccurately')

Mark Riser, Apologist's review ('false dichotomy', 'Ad hoc and unfalsifiable assertions', 'Cherry-picking', 'ultimately, disappointing')

Steadfast Lutherans savages it ('logical fallacies', 'circular reasoning', 'begging the question', 'anything but a balanced look', 'fringe at best', 'an unjustified conclusion that does not stand up to logical scrutiny', 'straw men abound', 'factually inaccurate', 'Too many problems exist with it intellectually, scientifically, logically, and theologically')

Considering these are all from Christian sites or authors, i.e. even scientifically literate Christians don't think it's a good example of Christian science, I suggest this is a poor submission.

The IbanezerScrooge said:

What is "Christian" science and how does it differ from just regular science?

Click to expand...

At first I might have thought the OP was about the religion ironically called "Christian Science". Then I thought it was about science by Christians, or science done in a Christian fashion.

As you correctly note there isn't really a "Christian" form of science. Science is science. It is not "CHristian" or "Islamic" or "Atheist" or "Communist" or "Hindu" or any other such thing.

The OP is really about, sigh, this, which means the OP is in the wrong sub-forum.

1rreducibly Complex said:

Above is Lee Strobel's creationism documentary entitled "The Case For a Creator".

Click to expand...

And Strobel's work at argumentation isn't that impressive to the non-believer.

1rreducibly Complex said:

And share other examples of science that christians might be interested in or learn from.

Click to expand...

This might be an interesting topic, but it isn't an argument for the truth of Christianity.

St_Worm2 said:

Is Genesis History?

Click to expand...

No. (That was easy.) This also isn't the "History" board.

Aussie Pete said:

Anything by James Tour, professor at Rice University. He's one of the most influential scientists in the world. He recently produced a number of videos debunking origin of life theories that reject God as the author of life. He has also debunked evolution.

Click to expand...

James Tour is a synthetic chemist. He designs complex molecules. His influence is soooo vast, that I'd never heard of him until earlier this year and I suspect nearly all of my colleagues are in the same position.

His videos aren't that convincing and he isn't an expert on origins of life research or evolution.

Aussie Pete said:

He is an evangelist who leads people to Christ regularly. He preaches at his church. Very few scientists have been willing to debate him. The reason is obvious. They cannot win.

Click to expand...

He's a preacher. Cool. Not relevant to science, but it is an indicator of his ideological bias. Why would a scientist debate him? Science isn't settled by debate and he has literally nothing to add to any questions in my field.

1rreducibly Complex said:

Above is Lee Strobel's creationism documentary entitled "The Case For a Creator".

I first saw this documentary maybe 5 years ago and remember it as good content for anyone interested in alternatives to evolutionary theory. It is a good watch for those interested in the scientific side of creationism in general.

Please watch and enjoy~

And share other examples of science that christians might be interested in or learn from.

Click to expand...

I’d like to share something I’ve noticed that I’ve never seen anyone mention as evidence against evolution. It’s focused more towards the young earth theory but I believe anything that supports the young earth theory is evidence against evolution since everyone seems to agree that the evolution process couldn’t have taken place in just 6,000 years.

My evidence is based on man’s advancement in technology. Historians believe the wheel was invented some time around 3500 BC. Evolutionists typically believe that man as we know him today has existed for around 300,000 years. So based on man’s technological advancements in just the last 6,000 years, is it more plausible that it took man 500 years to invent the wheel or 285,000 years to invent it? Seeing the advancement man has made in just the last 6,000 years it doesn’t seem plausible to me that it would take him 57 times longer to invent something as primitive as the wheel as it would to invent space travel or every other advanced technology we have today. What are your thoughts?

BNR32FAN said:

I’d like to share something I’ve noticed that I’ve never seen anyone mention as evidence against evolution. It’s focused more towards the young earth theory but I believe anything that supports the young earth theory is evidence against evolution since everyone seems to agree that the evolution process couldn’t have taken place in just 6,000 years.

My evidence is based on man’s advancement in technology. Historians believe the wheel was invented some time around 3500 BC. Evolutionists typically believe that man as we know him today has existed for around 300,000 years. So based on man’s technological advancements in just the last 6,000 years, is it more plausible that it took man 500 years to invent the wheel or 285,000 years to invent it? Seeing the advancement man has made in just the last 6,000 years it doesn’t seem plausible to me that it would take him 57 times longer to invent something as primitive as the wheel as it would to invent space travel or every other advanced technology we have today. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

If we're so worried about the timing of these developments, let's ask this question a different way:

If the wheel was invented 5500 years ago, why did it take until 200 years ago to develop a powered cart with wheels? Now we have self-driving cars and high-speed trains just 200 years later. Is that really plausible? Wouldn't it be better to assume that the first wheels were invented at the dawn of Grecco-Roman world about 2500 years ago?* A 2300 year gap is much more palatable than a 5300 year gap.

*[Yes, I know that written records of wheels predate the ancient Greeks, but if we trust the Sumerian or Egyptian historical record, then the notion of the 6000-year-old Earth just looks silly.]

BNR32FAN said:

I’d like to share something I’ve noticed that I’ve never seen anyone mention as evidence against evolution. It’s focused more towards the young earth theory but I believe anything that supports the young earth theory is evidence against evolution since everyone seems to agree that the evolution process couldn’t have taken place in just 6,000 years.

My evidence is based on man’s advancement in technology. Historians believe the wheel was invented some time around 3500 BC. Evolutionists typically believe that man as we know him today has existed for around 300,000 years. So based on man’s technological advancements in just the last 6,000 years, is it more plausible that it took man 500 years to invent the wheel or 285,000 years to invent it? Seeing the advancement man has made in just the last 6,000 years it doesn’t seem plausible to me that it would take him 57 times longer to invent something as primitive as the wheel as it would to invent space travel or every other advanced technology we have today. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's entirely plausible. Nomads and hunter-gatherers have little or no use for the wheel. It's only with the advent of agriculture and settled communities (around 10,000 years BC) that such technologies became useful.

BNR32FAN said:

I’d like to share something I’ve noticed that I’ve never seen anyone mention as evidence against evolution. It’s focused more towards the young earth theory but I believe anything that supports the young earth theory is evidence against evolution since everyone seems to agree that the evolution process couldn’t have taken place in just 6,000 years.

My evidence is based on man’s advancement in technology. Historians believe the wheel was invented some time around 3500 BC. Evolutionists typically believe that man as we know him today has existed for around 300,000 years. So based on man’s technological advancements in just the last 6,000 years, is it more plausible that it took man 500 years to invent the wheel or 285,000 years to invent it? Seeing the advancement man has made in just the last 6,000 years it doesn’t seem plausible to me that it would take him 57 times longer to invent something as primitive as the wheel as it would to invent space travel or every other advanced technology we have today. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

There is a glaring flaw in your argument, white settlers of Australia noted the indigenous population never used the wheel.
As @FrumiousBandersnatch pointed out hunter gatherers had no need for the wheel.
The 'technology' utilised by these hunter gathers was the controlled use of fire, the evidence of which was first utilised by Homo erectus over a million years ago.

Hans Blaster said:

If the wheel was invented 5500 years ago, why did it take until 200 years ago

Click to expand...

So your comparing 285,000 years to be able to carve a wheel as compared to another 7,500 years to learn what oil is, how to drill for oil, how to refine it for lubricant, how to refine it for gasoline, learn how to create electricity, then learn how to combust gasoline, learn how to cast iron, forge steel, learn advanced mechanics, and piece that all together? Anyone can create a wheel with any simple wood cutting device in one day. That’s hardly a comparison.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

It's entirely plausible. Nomads and hunter-gatherers have little or no use for the wheel. It's only with the advent of agriculture and settled communities (around 10,000 years BC) that such technologies became useful.

Click to expand...

Carts have always been useful.

BNR32FAN said:

So your comparing 285,000 years to be able to carve a wheel as compared to another 7,500 years to learn what oil is, how to drill for oil, how to refine it for lubricant, how to refine it for gasoline, learn how to create electricity, then learn how to combust gasoline, learn how to cast iron, forge steel, learn advanced mechanics, and piece that all together? Anyone can create a wheel with any simple wood cutting device in one day. That’s hardly a comparison.

Click to expand...

Technology is cumulative and can grow exponentially. The two things that underlie this are our ability to communicate complex ideas and instructions with words, and the technology to WRITE DOWN WORDS.

[Plus, the first powered wheeled vehicles were not oil powered, but steam boiler powered. The first steam engines were used to pump water and were fixed on land. The innovation of the piston used in steam engines was adapted to (explosive) internal combustion engines. This illustrates the cumulative effect of technological innovation.]

BNR32FAN said:

Carts have always been useful.

Click to expand...

Today, carts are readily available and easy to make. How many contemporary hunter-gatherer societies use carts?

-

All these creation groups are not in it for witnessing to God's true creation given in The Bible. Really not sure what they are in the creation debate/business for, may be money. But really their beliefs can not really be that profitable, as it does not seem to have that many actual believers of their creation beliefs.

sjastro said:

There is a glaring flaw in your argument, white settlers of Australia noted the indigenous population never used the wheel.
As @FrumiousBandersnatch pointed out hunter gatherers had no need for the wheel.
The 'technology' utilised by these hunter gathers was the controlled use of fire, the evidence of which was first utilised by Homo erectus over a million years ago.

Click to expand...

I don’t see how this is relevant since all civilizations derived from hunting & gathering at some point. Before they knew how to farm and tend livestock they had to hunt and gather food.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Today, carts are readily available and easy to make. How many contemporary hunter-gatherer societies use carts?

Click to expand...

I don’t know, I don’t know of any societies today that solely rely on hunting & gathering. Do you?