Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

[Michael 777]

There is much debate regarding the "truth" of science vs the "truth" of scripture and people get carried away on all sorts of theories, hypothetical or not and get quite arrogant and often combative against anybody who disagrees with them. Often coming back to basic principles can iron out a lot of these heated arguments and people can have rational discourse.

Basic Principle 1: The Holy Scriptures are not scientific or mathematical and are not intended to be so. Their purpose is to teach us about God and His plans and purposes for our lives which have eternal consequences. The intention of the Bible is to lead us to God, and bring us into relationship with him so we can accept Jesus and be forgiven and set free. The scriptures are timeless intended for all generations so they cannot have some meaning that was never meant or understood by the original recipients.

Basic Principle 2: Scripture is written using many different literary types (historical narrative, poetry, song, pastoral letters etc). Scripture must be interpreted in the correct way taking the literal type into account amongst other important literary devices. Science is written in the language of mathematics and logic. I can hear the naturalists already claiming superiority on this point BUT if somebody wants to know the real impactful, long lasting and life changing truths, they will not find them in mathematic and logic. For example, science can explain how the oxygen transfer rate can impact my lung capacity. Nice to know but if I want to know why I breathe everyday, what is my purpose for breathing, my purpose for living, science cannot tell me that. Actually science has failed to define what the essence of life actually is. What makes an organised clump of biological elements actually live? Scripture tells me how!

Basic Principle 3: For any scientific fact, and I must really highlight the word "FACT" to be proven as truth it has to undergo the 3 basic scientific principles. 1) An object of study must be measurable. 2) An object of study must be observable. 3)An object of study must be repeatable. Let's look at some examples of what is scientific fact and what is just theory. Gravity - It is observable as I can actually see an apple falling off a tree and hitting the ground. It is measurable as I can measure the height and time it takes to fall therefore calculating the speed of gravity. It is repeatable as I can repeat the same experiment over and over again and get the same results. Evolution - It is not measurable as nobody has actually got any biological organism to evolve in a controlled experiment. Yes I know about the thousands of bacteria that multiplied in a lab and they did show signs of metabolic change but that is adaptation not evolution because they remained bacteria. They did not suddenly become multicellular in nature nor did they have any additional DNA. Evolution is not observable as it supposedly takes billions of years and evolution is not repeatable for the same reasons. Therefore Evolution is a theory, a hypothesis and is not a proven fact. It is a popular theory so it gets thrown around like fact but it is not actually a proven fact. There is a lot of circular reasoning in evolution science. For example evolution science presumes it takes millions of years for an organism to evolve. A scientist one day finds a fossil of a slightly different shape and size than what has been found before. The scientist assumes, based on evolution science, that the fossil is an example of evolutionary change. Evolution science then uses that fossil as evidence to support evolution theory. Round and round the merry go round. The scientist could have also made other assumptions regarding the fossil but did not because of the perceived truthfulness of evolution theory.

When we go looking for truth we need to go looking in the right places. If I want to learn how to work out the area of a triangle, I will not consult scripture but rather a book on geometry. If I want to learn about the French Revolution, I will not go to the latest book on biology but will consult a historian. Why then do we throw the Bible and Science as supposedly apposing disciplines? I don't hear many people debunking Mozart with the latest scientific journal on sound waves. One is beautiful music, intangible yet can create waves of emotion in the listeners. The other is a cold hard mathematical calculator but does not capture the beauty of the music. The real reason, the truth behind the science vs theology debate is emotional not logical. Yes, I know many will disagree but the real reason people deny God is an emotional one, not one of logic. Logic will actually point us towards God.

If the point I made on evolution makes you upset and emotional, before just jumping on the warrior keyboard and responding, think about why does it make you emotional and upset. The implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, we are all just accidental and results of billions of years of mistakes and iterations. Essentially a life based on evolution has got no value, we are just a bunch of molecules in a churning universe destined to be compost one day. Entropy sucks in the physical world doesn't it? Why does the concept of being created, having a purpose, incredibly valuable in God's eyes upset so much, why is it so hard to accept? I do not want to be controversial or polarising but genuinely have a heart for those who believe their lives have little to no value. God created you and me, how and when does not really matter but know that your life, any life has incredible value and an eternal purpose.

If I want to know the truth about who I am, why I am here, how I should relate to others, what is love, what is forgiveness, what is sacrifice and what is true freedom then I will consult the only source of truth and that is scripture.

We should not go looking to the Bible for scientific facts or theories, quite simply because that is not its purpose and we should not go to science to look for the deeper truths, spiritual truths about life because that is not its purpose. If science could define God then he would cease to be God, because he cannot be defined by the very laws he created.

 

[Yttrium]

The implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, we are all just accidental and results of billions of years of mistakes and iterations.

There is no such implication from evolution theory. You can have God and evolution both. They are in no way mutually exclusive. The Theory of Evolution contradicts the depiction of God establishing the different organisms in Genesis of the Bible. However, God could still have created the first form of life, and the Theory of Evolution would remain unchanged.

When we go looking for truth we need to go looking in the right places.

Yes. You might consider taking some college-level biology classes to learn more about evolution if you want to debate it effectively. Simply repeating what some online creationist site has to say about the subject isn't terribly useful.

Evolution - It is not measurable as nobody has actually got any biological organism to evolve in a controlled experiment.

And here you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Biologic evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time/generations. We can and do observe this in nature and under laboratory conditions. This part isn't a theory. It's an observed fact. You're confusing the Theory of Evolution with the process of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the idea that all life on Earth shares common ancestors. Even if the Theory turned out to be false, the process of evolution would still be true, since it's observably happening all around us.

Evolution is not observable as it supposedly takes billions of years and evolution is not repeatable for the same reasons. Therefore Evolution is a theory, a hypothesis and is not a proven fact.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, this is true, and it's a well-established one. We certainly can't demonstrate all of it under laboratory conditions. However, it's stood up to intense scrutiny for quite a long time, now, and just keeps improving and getting more robust. You've got quite a task ahead for you if you want to discredit it, and learning more about it would be a big help in doing that.

 

[dlamberth]

I have no problem at all being aware of a creating tool of God (evolution) as how God creates new life forms. The nature of this Creation, as created by God, is change. Evolution fits right into that change aspect. And evolution has a way of being able to birth forms of infinite variety as change happens. So from my Heart reaching out to God: Thank You for this!

 

[stevil]

There is much debate regarding the "truth" of science vs the "truth" of scripture and people get carried away on all sorts of theories, hypothetical or not and get quite arrogant and often combative against anybody who disagrees with them. Often coming back to basic principles can iron out a lot of these heated arguments and people can have rational discourse.

Yes, I agree.
Personally I don't feel there is any overlap of science vs scripture. (not that I know much about scripture).
But I certainly wouldn't point to any scientific finding or observation in order to try and disprove scripture. Scripture, as far as I understand it, isn't a book on physics, chemistry, astrology, paleontology or biology.

Basic Principle 3: For any scientific fact, and I must really highlight the word "FACT" to be proven as truth it has to undergo the 3 basic scientific principles. 1) An object of study must be measurable. 2) An object of study must be observable. 3)An object of study must be repeatable.

This isn't quite correct.
But in essence Science is just a label for a method of discovery based on observable and measurable things. It assumes that there is a consistency to our universe and so other people making these observations and measurements should be able to come up with the same results, if their results differ then more investigation is required.

Let's look at some examples of what is scientific fact and what is just theory. Gravity - It is observable as I can actually see an apple falling off a tree and hitting the ground. It is measurable as I can measure the height and time it takes to fall therefore calculating the speed of gravity. It is repeatable as I can repeat the same experiment over and over again and get the same results.

Gravity is much more complicated than this.
Is it a force, or is it based on the shape of SpaceTime?
Why is an accelerating elevator no different to gravity?
Why is gravity more pronounced on a larger mass, e.g. stronger on the Sun or a Black hole than on the Earth?
Why is gravity less the further you get away from the source e.g. Gravity on the surface of Earth is stronger than the gravity of the Earth exerted on the moon?
Even on the Earth, gravity is stronger at sea level than on the top of Mount Everest, gravity is different at the equator vs the north pole.
How come a strong gravity source slows down time? (time dilation)

To properly understand gravity scientists must make all the questions, and must test out their assumptions, proving or disproving their hypothesis. Over time, we realise it's not so simple and the scientists develop models which more and more acurately reflect reality.

It's a fascinating subject to learn about.

Evolution - It is not measurable as nobody has actually got any biological organism to evolve in a controlled experiment.

Yes they have.

Yes I know about the thousands of bacteria that multiplied in a lab and they did show signs of metabolic change but that is adaptation not evolution because they remained bacteria.

Adaptation is Evolution.
I would strongly recommend you write down your assumptions and then go out and read up on evolution. It is a fascinating field of science, along the way you will no doubt improve your understanding of evolution and correct many of your assumptions. This will make you a better and more knowledgable person, and then if you want to go onto the internet and argue about the validity or invalidity of Evolution you will have a much more interesting and productive discussion. There are many people here on this forum who have a decent understanding of Evolution, you could have very productive discussions here, but you would benefit by either doing some research first, or being open to listening what people say. Please don't feel that evolution is a threat to your religious beliefs it doesn't have to be.

They did not suddenly become multicellular in nature

Evolution isn't a sudden thing. No one says that it is.

nor did they have any additional DNA.

Nothing on this earth is perfect, including cell replication. Errors happen, and sometimes they are beneficial.

Evolution is not observable as it supposedly takes billions of years and evolution is not repeatable for the same reasons.

When you go down this journey of educating yourself about evolution, you will learn that there are lots and lots of observable evidence that is consistent with Evolution. Expecting to see some really big drastic change, like perhaps see a fish give birth to a bird is unrealistic and would in fact disprove evolution.

Therefore Evolution is a theory, a hypothesis and is not a proven fact.

A scientific theory isn't a hypothesis, these are two very different things.
A scientific theory isn't a guess or an idea.
I would advise you to put this assumption at the very top of your list of assumptions and then seek to find out what a Scientific theory is. You will learn something here. The answer is very easy to find on the internet.
Your future arguments will be more intellectual and nuanced and knowledgeable when you understand what a Scientific theory is.

For example evolution science presumes it takes millions of years for an organism to evolve.

Scientists put effort into this, to try and work out how fast evolution works. Whenever a scientist thinks they have an answer, other scientists run around trying to disprove them. Makes life hard for the scientist, but very rewarding when they get it right.

A scientist one day finds a fossil of a slightly different shape and size than what has been found before. The scientist assumes, based on evolution science, that the fossil is an example of evolutionary change. Evolution science then uses that fossil as evidence to support evolution theory.

Or to disprove evolutionary science.
They use new information both to confirm and to dispute. That way science is self correcting and over time gets more and more accurate.
It's a great method of discovery.

We should not go looking to the Bible for scientific facts or theories, quite simply because that is not its purpose and we should not go to science to look for the deeper truths, spiritual truths about life because that is not its purpose.

I totally agree with this.

 

[Michael 777]

There is no such implication from evolution theory. You can have God and evolution both. They are in no way mutually exclusive. The Theory of Evolution contradicts the depiction of God establishing the different organisms in Genesis of the Bible. However, God could still have created the first form of life, and the Theory of Evolution would remain unchanged.


Yes. You might consider taking some college-level biology classes to learn more about evolution if you want to debate it effectively. Simply repeating what some online creationist site has to say about the subject isn't terribly useful.



And here you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Biologic evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time/generations. We can and do observe this in nature and under laboratory conditions. This part isn't a theory. It's an observed fact. You're confusing the Theory of Evolution with the process of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the idea that all life on Earth shares common ancestors. Even if the Theory turned out to be false, the process of evolution would still be true, since it's observably happening all around us.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, this is true, and it's a well-established one. We certainly can't demonstrate all of it under laboratory conditions. However, it's stood up to intense scrutiny for quite a long time, now, and just keeps improving and getting more robust. You've got quite a task ahead for you if you want to discredit it, and learning more about it would be a big help in doing th

There is no such implication from evolution theory. You can have God and evolution both. They are in no way mutually exclusive. The Theory of Evolution contradicts the depiction of God establishing the different organisms in Genesis of the Bible. However, God could still have created the first form of life, and the Theory of Evolution would remain unchanged.


Yes. You might consider taking some college-level biology classes to learn more about evolution if you want to debate it effectively. Simply repeating what some online creationist site has to say about the subject isn't terribly useful.



And here you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Biologic evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time/generations. We can and do observe this in nature and under laboratory conditions. This part isn't a theory. It's an observed fact. You're confusing the Theory of Evolution with the process of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the idea that all life on Earth shares common ancestors. Even if the Theory turned out to be false, the process of evolution would still be true, since it's observably happening all around us.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, this is true, and it's a well-established one. We certainly can't demonstrate all of it under laboratory conditions. However, it's stood up to intense scrutiny for quite a long time, now, and just keeps improving and getting more robust. You've got quite a task ahead for you if you want to discredit it, and learning more about it would be a big help in doing that.

Well, since you revert to insults about my knowledge, which is very common as a defence for evolution, might I suggest you find out more about me before passing judgement. By insinuating that your knowledge of science and evolution is greater than mine you expose your pride and weakness in your argument.

BTW - Theistic evolution is the weakest belief in terms of the three generally accepted views on creation.

 

[Michael 777]

After reading the responses, I am actually dismayed that people immediately assume I know nothing about science or evolution. Anyway, I do not need to defend myself or go and research what science is. Just because I have a particular view does not make me ignorant of what the other views are or make me uneducated.

Lets move on...

In theological fields of study there are three main areas or views on creation.

1) Young Earth Creation
2) Progressive Creation
3) Theistic Evolution

What all three have in common is the underlying and critical belief that God created all things and man was created in the image of God. There are many variations of each view but most can be grouped into the one of the 3 above. What is excluded is naturalistic evolution which is the atheistic belief that nothing created everything. It is excluded because this is a Christian site and I assume most here believe in Jesus.

As Christians when looking at the three theistic views, we should base our beliefs and understanding firstly on scripture. As mentioned in my opening post, scripture is not a scientific book, so it will not tell us the mathematical equation for the speed of light etc. What is does tell us in quite vivid detail is the creation account not only in Genesis but is also referred to by Jesus himself who actually created all things. How do we interpret scripture in the light of scientific theory? Do we try and flex our understanding of scripture to fit scientific theory or do we hold on to scripture and rather flex scientific theory?

If we had to draw a moving line from left to right with scripture on the left and science on the right - where does the balance of our beliefs sit? The weight of scripture and the weight of science will show us where we place the most emphasis. Young Earth Creation will sit on the far left, with a literal understanding of scripture and Theistic Evolution will sit on the far right with a more analogous interpretation of scripture. Progressive creation will drift somewhere in the middle depending on how much is deemed progressive and how much is based on literal scripture. Where does your belief sit?

We should not debate who is wrong or right but rather appreciate that people do hold differing views on this topic. Lest keep this friendly and respectful like all Christians should.

God bless

 

[stevil]

After reading the responses, I am actually dismayed that people immediately assume I know nothing about science or evolution.

People aren't assuming. We can see from what you have written that you misunderstand some fundamental scientific terms. Such as a scientific theory, you equate it to a hypothesis. This is a common mistake, especially with people trying hard to deny Evolution.

It is true that in common speak when a person says "I have a theory" actually they are saying "I think such and such is true but I don't know for sure"

But in science, when people speak of a scientific theory it is very different from the common speak "theory" term.
I have advised you to look it up. It would take 5 minutes of your time, but I can see from this post that you have no interest in learning or correcting your use of the term.

Anyway, I do not need to defend myself or go and research what science is.

It is disappointing that you don't have a learning mindset, and instead you are getting all defensive. No one is calling you a dummy, We can't all be experts in everything. Your original post was very well written and well thought out, but unfortunately there are a couple of terms that you have misunderstood and this is impacting your thinking and your conclusions. You can easily look up these terms, but of course no one is forcing you. The ball is in your court.

If we had to draw a moving line from left to right with scripture on the left and science on the right - where does the balance of our beliefs sit?

It is my understanding that science and scripture should not be on the same line, they are completely independent of each other.
I accept science as a great method for discovery of facts about the physical world.

I have no use for scripture or theology, I believe it is a distraction.

 

[Michael 777]

People aren't assuming. We can see from what you have written that you misunderstand some fundamental scientific terms. Such as a scientific theory, you equate it to a hypothesis. This is a common mistake, especially with people trying hard to deny Evolution.

It is true that in common speak when a person says "I have a theory" actually they are saying "I think such and such is true but I don't know for sure"

But in science, when people speak of a scientific theory it is very different from the common speak "theory" term.
I have advised you to look it up. It would take 5 minutes of your time, but I can see from this post that you have no interest in learning or correcting your use of the term.



It is disappointing that you don't have a learning mindset, and instead you are getting all defensive. No one is calling you a dummy, We can't all be experts in everything. Your original post was very well written and well thought out, but unfortunately there are a couple of terms that you have misunderstood and this is impacting your thinking and your conclusions. You can easily look up these terms, but of course no one is forcing you. The ball is in your court.

It is my understanding that science and scripture should not be on the same line, they are completely independent of each other.
I accept science as a great method for discovery of facts about the physical world.

I have no use for scripture or theology, I believe it is a distraction.

Now we are getting somewhere. I am not going to respond to how you interpret my definition of scientific theory as clearly we differ here. That is not the purpose of why I initially posted and I do not want to run down that rabbit hole.

You mention that scripture or theology is a distraction, at least now I know that you hold scripture and theology in a lower position to science. I agree with you that science is great method for discovery of fact about the physical world, but do I understand that you leave it there. all by itself? There is a material world and nothing else? Would you agree that theology is a great method to discover the creator behind the science?

You pointed out that I should have a learning mindset and go and read up on basic science, then the same should apply to yourself that you should go and do some basic learning on Christian theology. Maybe I am making the same mistake you are, that I assume you have no knowledge of theology, as you assume I have no knowledge of science? Hopefully you have a good knowledge of theology and this is why you have discounted it as a distraction - based of intellectual study and not the hearsay and naysayers of the popular crowd.

The purpose of my original post was not to go into debate over who is right or wrong but to get people to think about why they believe what they do.

You believe that scripture and theology is a distraction - why do you think that? What has led you to think like this? One of the biggest life lessons I ever had was to examine my thoughts and to test what I believe. I am not expecting you to post the reasons why but at least go and ask yourself why. Often we become bogged down in debate over polarising views and rarely do we look ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves the real questions that matter.

I used to be an atheist, or so I thought, until I asked myself "am I absolutely convinced that there is no God?" My truthful answer was "no". The reason I said "no" was because if I had said "yes" then I would have to have known everything there is to know about everything and I realised how little I actually knew. Science did not address or even try to address the existential questions I had. I found the answers by studying theology.

 

[stevil]

Now we are getting somewhere. I am not going to respond to how you interpret my definition of scientific theory as clearly we differ here. That is not the purpose of why I initially posted and I do not want to run down that rabbit hole.

It is disappointing that you have no interest to correct your understanding of even very basic scientific terms, especially when you write so much about them. But anyway, it is your life, you need to live it how you see fit.

You mention that scripture or theology is a distraction, at least now I know that you hold scripture and theology in a lower position to science.

We really shouldn't be comparing the two.
As far as Christian scripture goes, I have absolutely no interest in it.

I agree with you that science is great method for discovery of fact about the physical world, but do I understand that you leave it there. all by itself? There is a material world and nothing else?

There is no reason to believe in anything other than the material world.
There is no evidence of anything supernatural.

Would you agree that theology is a great method to discover the creator behind the science?

No. There are many creators of science as we know it. Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, are just three, but there are thousands if not millions.

You pointed out that I should have a learning mindset and go and read up on basic science,

Yes, I assumed you had an interest, based on the amount of science that you wrote about in your OP here. You got some basic things incorrect and I thought you might want to correct your understanding, but it seems I was wrong.

then the same should apply to yourself that you should go and do some basic learning on Christian theology.

I have no interest in writing a post about theology. It doesn't help me understand the natural world better.

Maybe I am making the same mistake you are, that I assume you have no knowledge of theology, as you assume I have no knowledge of science?

I have no knowledge of theology. No knowledge of supernatural things or the devine. I don't think that anyone has knowledge of the actual supernatural. But of course many people do have an understanding of the Christian scriptures and have thought endlessly about their meaning. I have no interest in what is written or what is understood about Christian scriptures. It is irrelevant to my life.

Hopefully you have a good knowledge of theology and this is why you have discounted it as a distraction - based of intellectual study and not the hearsay and naysayers of the popular crowd.

Look at my footer, a really great and relevant quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

The purpose of my original post was not to go into debate over who is right or wrong but to get people to think about why they believe what they do.

You want to be the teacher and not to learn. I get it. It is very compelling to speak, but hard work to listen, to think and to consider.
You would be better at teaching if you don't start off saying things that are fundamentally incorrect. I would suggest either you start learning the fundamentals of science or you don't start off your posts talking about science. It's your call of course, But when you get basic fundamentals wrong like that, people will point it out to you, and then your intended message is lost.

You believe that scripture and theology is a distraction - why do you think that? What has led you to think like this?

Just as I don't want to delve into the physics behind StarTrek, or the magic lore behind Harry Potter or the myth of Vampires.
I just don't have any interest in details behind religion and beliefs in the supernatural.

 

[Yttrium]

BTW - Theistic evolution is the weakest belief in terms of the three generally accepted views on creation.

Well, yeah, because biologic evolution is not about creation. It just deals with the development of the various species. The creation of life part would come before the biologic evolution part.

 

[stevil]

Look at my footer, a really great and relevant quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Another way to look at it, is to consider Carl Sagan's garage dragon.
Basically, some guy claims to have a fire breathing dragon in his garage.
Another guy seeks to confirm or reject this claim.
He goes to the garage and doesn't see the dragon.
The claimant then says that the dragon is invisible
The seeker then goes back to the garage and doesn't find any heat with his infrared sensor.
The claimant then says that the dragon's fire is heatless.

And round and round we go in circles, one guy testing for all the things we would expect to find if the claim is true.
The other guy continuing to say it is true but also providing many excuses as to why we don't find what we would expect to find.

The problem ultimately is that the claim is insufficiently formed.
1. it isn't falsifiable,
2. it isn't testible,
3. it isn't specified to sufficient detail to even attempt to find a way to make it testible.

So these are the reasons why I am an ignostic atheist. "Ignostic" meaning that I see the god claims as being insufficiently formed to evaluate.

If there were a supernatural being, a ghost or a phantom, an angel or a demon or a god. If any of these things existed, it would be absolutely fascinating and would be worthy of much observation and testing, poking and prodding. But alas there is no evidence at all and the claim is insufficiently formed so it would be a fool's errand to invest time investigating such things.

BEFORE anyone seeks to verify this claim, they really ought to insist first that the claim be formulated sufficiently enough to investigate it.

 

[Michael 777]

It is disappointing that you have no interest to correct your understanding of even very basic scientific terms, especially when you write so much about them. But anyway, it is your life, you need to live it how you see fit.


We really shouldn't be comparing the two.
As far as Christian scripture goes, I have absolutely no interest in it.


There is no reason to believe in anything other than the material world.
There is no evidence of anything supernatural.


No. There are many creators of science as we know it. Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, are just three, but there are thousands if not millions.

Yes, I assumed you had an interest, based on the amount of science that you wrote about in your OP here. You got some basic things incorrect and I thought you might want to correct your understanding, but it seems I was wrong.

I have no interest in writing a post about theology. It doesn't help me understand the natural world better.


I have no knowledge of theology. No knowledge of supernatural things or the devine. I don't think that anyone has knowledge of the actual supernatural. But of course many people do have an understanding of the Christian scriptures and have thought endlessly about their meaning. I have no interest in what is written or what is understood about Christian scriptures. It is irrelevant to my life.


Look at my footer, a really great and relevant quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

You want to be the teacher and not to learn. I get it. It is very compelling to speak, but hard work to listen, to think and to consider.
You would be better at teaching if you don't start off saying things that are fundamentally incorrect. I would suggest either you start learning the fundamentals of science or you don't start off your posts talking about science. It's your call of course, But when you get basic fundamentals wrong like that, people will point it out to you, and then your intended message is lost.

Just as I don't want to delve into the physics behind StarTrek, or the magic lore behind Harry Potter or the myth of Vampires.
I just don't have any interest in details behind religion and beliefs in the supernatural.

Again you have reverted to the well known tactic of atheists and that is to attack the scientific knowledge of the theist. It is also common for atheists to take the intellectual high ground and place your belief in a speculative science like evolution. If it was empirical science then you would have a stronger argument. There is an old idiom that says 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander '. You state with such confidence that you don't believe in the supernatural yet you fail to actually research the credible texts which has led billions of people to theism over thousands of years. In fact you dismiss them as irrelevant and try use the analogy of fantasy fiction to support your non-action. Maybe you should apply your own recommendations and inform yourself regarding theology.

Just a correction, maybe it is just semantics, but Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and the other millions of scientists did not create anything. They discovered what was already there. There is a significant difference. Newton et al did not create any laws, instead they made remarkable discoveries and found mathematical methods to measure and define them. If there is a claim to creation, then they developed methods to measure what was already in existence. They did not create the physical laws already in existence. If we want to find the creator of the actual laws then the debate will probably turn to causality, which has probably been discussed at length in this forum.

You say the Christian scriptures are irrelevant to your life but by your own admission you do not know them, so to discard them is actually is an act of ignorance not intellect. If the claims Jesus Christ made are true, then they have the utmost importance in your life. But you cannot claim they are not true because you do not know them.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

You say the Christian scriptures are irrelevant to your life but by your own admission you do not know them, so to discard them is actually is an act of ignorance not intellect. If the claims Jesus Christ made are true, then they have the utmost importance in your life. But you cannot claim they are not true because you do not know them.

I have met a few atheists of this stripe. They demand that all or nearly all of their pet theory be presumed true, and everything or nearly everything that Christ the Lord has Personally said, done, and discussed be considered nonexistent, irrelevant, or absent. They remind me most strongly, that no one knows Him, except by act of God.

 

[Michael 777]

I have met a few atheists of this stripe. They demand that all or nearly all of their pet theory be presumed true, and everything or nearly everything that Christ the Lord has Personally said, done, and discussed be considered nonexistent, irrelevant, or absent. They remind me most strongly, that no one knows Him, except by act of God.

Yup - the word says that believing comes by faith through hearing the word of God. Most atheists will reject this by saying theistic faith is blind and devoid of logic and scientific rigour. Not many of them have actually read or heard the word which would make them well informed and make for more constructive debate. Unfortunately many are conditioned to think in a certain way and to reject anything which could possibly challenge their worldview.

It takes faith to be a Christian but what atheists dont realise is that it takes faith to be an atheist. Most atheists have absolute faith in naturalistic evolution science or variants of evolution. What they dont realise is that they are seeking truth, through science in what is known as Gods general revelation - the natural world around us. They see the perfect order, the perfect physical laws, the incredible complexity of what supports life but fail to see the creator behind it. Blind faith is required to believe this perfect, incredibly complex natural world was created out of random chance and chaos. To quote a famous author "It takes more faith to be an atheist".

To go into an art gallery and look at an oil painting, take in its beauty, take in its layers of paint and textures which create something so unique and valuable. Something which resonates within and creates a sense of awe and appreciation and then to walk away and say - "well there was an explosion in a paint factory and this was the result." This is what atheists do in reality - they miss the artist, the creator and the purpose of why it was painted in the first place.

 

[BCP1928]

Again you have reverted to the well known tactic of atheists and that is to attack the scientific knowledge of the theist.

And you have reverted to the well-known creationist tactic of trying to turn the creation/evolution debate into a theist/atheist debate, which it is not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To quote a famous author "It takes more faith to be an atheist".

I would hardly call Frank Turek a famous author. He's more of a two bit appologist with a typewriter. (To think that we wandered on to this board without any notion of what faith and religion are is ridiculous. Most of us are well aware, on this section at least, what science is and how it works and faith is never a component of science.)

 

[trophy33]

There is much debate regarding the "truth" of science vs the "truth" of scripture and people get carried away on all sorts of theories, hypothetical or not and get quite arrogant and often combative against anybody who disagrees with them. Often coming back to basic principles can iron out a lot of these heated arguments and people can have rational discourse.

Basic Principle 1: The Holy Scriptures are not scientific or mathematical and are not intended to be so. Their purpose is to teach us about God and His plans and purposes for our lives which have eternal consequences. The intention of the Bible is to lead us to God, and bring us into relationship with him so we can accept Jesus and be forgiven and set free. The scriptures are timeless intended for all generations so they cannot have some meaning that was never meant or understood by the original recipients.

Basic Principle 2: Scripture is written using many different literary types (historical narrative, poetry, song, pastoral letters etc). Scripture must be interpreted in the correct way taking the literal type into account amongst other important literary devices. Science is written in the language of mathematics and logic. I can hear the naturalists already claiming superiority on this point BUT if somebody wants to know the real impactful, long lasting and life changing truths, they will not find them in mathematic and logic. For example, science can explain how the oxygen transfer rate can impact my lung capacity. Nice to know but if I want to know why I breathe everyday, what is my purpose for breathing, my purpose for living, science cannot tell me that. Actually science has failed to define what the essence of life actually is. What makes an organised clump of biological elements actually live? Scripture tells me how!

Basic Principle 3: For any scientific fact, and I must really highlight the word "FACT" to be proven as truth it has to undergo the 3 basic scientific principles. 1) An object of study must be measurable. 2) An object of study must be observable. 3)An object of study must be repeatable. Let's look at some examples of what is scientific fact and what is just theory. Gravity - It is observable as I can actually see an apple falling off a tree and hitting the ground. It is measurable as I can measure the height and time it takes to fall therefore calculating the speed of gravity. It is repeatable as I can repeat the same experiment over and over again and get the same results. Evolution - It is not measurable as nobody has actually got any biological organism to evolve in a controlled experiment. Yes I know about the thousands of bacteria that multiplied in a lab and they did show signs of metabolic change but that is adaptation not evolution because they remained bacteria. They did not suddenly become multicellular in nature nor did they have any additional DNA. Evolution is not observable as it supposedly takes billions of years and evolution is not repeatable for the same reasons. Therefore Evolution is a theory, a hypothesis and is not a proven fact. It is a popular theory so it gets thrown around like fact but it is not actually a proven fact. There is a lot of circular reasoning in evolution science. For example evolution science presumes it takes millions of years for an organism to evolve. A scientist one day finds a fossil of a slightly different shape and size than what has been found before. The scientist assumes, based on evolution science, that the fossil is an example of evolutionary change. Evolution science then uses that fossil as evidence to support evolution theory. Round and round the merry go round. The scientist could have also made other assumptions regarding the fossil but did not because of the perceived truthfulness of evolution theory.

When we go looking for truth we need to go looking in the right places. If I want to learn how to work out the area of a triangle, I will not consult scripture but rather a book on geometry. If I want to learn about the French Revolution, I will not go to the latest book on biology but will consult a historian. Why then do we throw the Bible and Science as supposedly apposing disciplines? I don't hear many people debunking Mozart with the latest scientific journal on sound waves. One is beautiful music, intangible yet can create waves of emotion in the listeners. The other is a cold hard mathematical calculator but does not capture the beauty of the music. The real reason, the truth behind the science vs theology debate is emotional not logical. Yes, I know many will disagree but the real reason people deny God is an emotional one, not one of logic. Logic will actually point us towards God.

If the point I made on evolution makes you upset and emotional, before just jumping on the warrior keyboard and responding, think about why does it make you emotional and upset. The implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, we are all just accidental and results of billions of years of mistakes and iterations. Essentially a life based on evolution has got no value, we are just a bunch of molecules in a churning universe destined to be compost one day. Entropy sucks in the physical world doesn't it? Why does the concept of being created, having a purpose, incredibly valuable in God's eyes upset so much, why is it so hard to accept? I do not want to be controversial or polarising but genuinely have a heart for those who believe their lives have little to no value. God created you and me, how and when does not really matter but know that your life, any life has incredible value and an eternal purpose.

If I want to know the truth about who I am, why I am here, how I should relate to others, what is love, what is forgiveness, what is sacrifice and what is true freedom then I will consult the only source of truth and that is scripture.

We should not go looking to the Bible for scientific facts or theories, quite simply because that is not its purpose and we should not go to science to look for the deeper truths, spiritual truths about life because that is not its purpose. If science could define God then he would cease to be God, because he cannot be defined by the very laws he created.

You begin your post with (rightly) claiming that Bible is not a scientific work and we should use it for theology/morality.

Then you make a 180 turn, attacking the scientific theory of evolution, placing it to a contradictory position to Christianity.

Your stance is a bit confusing.

 

[Michael 777]

And you have reverted to the well-known creationist tactic of trying to turn the creation/evolution debate into a theist/atheist debate, which it is not.

If you had read my opening thread you will clearly see the theist / atheist implications of both creation and evolution. One cannot separate the obvious. Interestingly enough a theist can believe in evolution, in fact there is a view called Theistic Evolution which some believers adhere to but is not strongly supported, if at all through scripture. On the other hand an atheist cannot accept creation unless they are more agnostic in reality and believe in some force of creation, like Carl Sagan and his belief in the COSMOS. Hence why I was raising the discussion on the balance of scripture vs our beliefs and worldviews when it comes to science in particular.

I would hardly call Frank Turek a famous author. He's more of a two bit appologist with a typewriter. (To think that we wandered on to this board without any notion of what faith and religion are is ridiculous. Most of us are well aware, on this section at least, what science is and how it works and faith is never a component of science.)

Actually I was referring to Sean McDowell. Nice google search though - BTW the book you are referring to is mainly written by Norman Geisler - good read!

 

[BCP1928]

If you had read my opening thread you will clearly see the theist / atheist implications of both creation and evolution. One cannot separate the obvious. Interestingly enough a theist can believe in evolution, in fact there is a view called Theistic Evolution which some believers adhere to but is not strongly supported, if at all through scripture. On the other hand an atheist cannot accept creation unless they are more agnostic in reality and believe in some force of creation, like Carl Sagan and his belief in the COSMOS. Hence why I was raising the discussion on the balance of scripture vs our beliefs and worldviews when it comes to science in particular.

I just wanted to reestablish the point, as you have not responded in any meaningful way to criticism of your statement that "The implication of evolution theory is that there is no God."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually I was referring to Sean McDowell. Nice google search though - BTW the book you are referring to is mainly written by Norman Geisler - good read!

It is a vast genre of books and other things claiming atheism is faith. It does not make it true. As for the google search, I searched "Frank Turek" only to confirm my memory of his book title. (McDowell isn't a famous author either.)