Christians in Science

[vojvoda]

Does anyone know some member of this organization?

 

[Cabal]

...

Do you mean Christian Science, as in Mary Baker Eddy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_science

 

[vojvoda]

...

Do you mean Christian Science, as in Mary Baker Eddy?

No. I mean on modern organization which congregate modern scientist from different fields in one Christian organization. Their center is in England I think.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Does anyone know some member of this organization?

This is what you are looking for, but it is just another creationist talking show trying to look intellectual.
CiS is an international network of those concerned with the relationship between science and Christian faith, open to scientists, teachers, students and all those with an interest in this dialogue.

LINK

Our Aims:

Science and Faith

To develop and promote biblical Christian views on the nature, scope and limitations of science, and on the changing interactions between science and faith.
To bring biblical Christian thought on scientific issues into the public arena.
Faith at Work

To encourage Christians who are engaged in scientific work to maintain an active faith and to apply it in their professional lives.
To communicate the Christian gospel within the scientific community.
Faith and the Environment

To stimulate responsible Christian attitudes and action towards care for the environment.
Students

To help Christians who are science students to integrate their religious beliefs and their scientific studies.
CiS is a member of the Evangelical Alliance and is one of UCCF's recognised Professional Groups.
Basis of Faith


We believe in...
1. The one true God who lives eternally in three persons—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. The love, grace and sovereignty of God in creating, sustaining, ruling, redeeming and judging the world.
3. The divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God—fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.
4. The dignity of all people, made male and female in God's image to love, be holy and care for creation, yet corrupted by sin, which incurs divine wrath and judgement.
5. The incarnation of God’s eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ—born of the virgin Mary; truly divine and truly human, yet without sin.
6. The atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross: dying in our place, paying the price of sin and defeating evil, so reconciling us with God.
7. The bodily resurrection of Christ, the first fruits of our resurrection; his ascension to the Father, and his reign and mediation as the only Saviour of the world.
8. The justification of sinners solely by the grace of God through faith in Christ.
9. The ministry of God the Holy Spirit, who leads us to repentance, unites us with Christ through new birth, empowers our discipleship and enables our witness.
10. The Church, the body of Christ both local and universal, the priesthood of all believers—given life by the Spirit and endowed with the Spirit's gifts to worship God and proclaim the gospel, promoting justice and love.
11. The personal and visible return of Jesus Christ to fulfil the purposes of God, who will raise all people to judgement, bring eternal life to the redeemed and eternal condemnation to the lost, and establish a new heaven and new earth.


I have highlighted No 3 above, NOT particularly scientific, wouldn’t you say

 

[Cabal]

To be fair, CL, they don't specifically mention creationism (not that that rules it out of their agenda or anything, but still). They claim the Scriptures are trustworthy for faith and conduct, but they don't claim they're useful as science texts.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

To be fair, CL, they don't specifically mention creationism (not that that rules it out of their agenda or anything, but still). They claim the Scriptures are trustworthy for faith and conduct, but they don't claim they're useful as science texts.

Agreed; but this is about semantics, they do not state that the bible is wrong in any way, but they do state it is correct for faith, that’s a pretty big door to be left open?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Sorry wrong thread.

 

[Cabal]

Agreed; but this is about semantics, they do not state that the bible is wrong in any way, but they do state it is correct for faith, that’s a pretty big door to be left open?

Sure, there's definitely some wiggle room there. I guess the reason why I'm personally inclined to give this place the benefit of the doubt is that it's a British group, I know there are some crazy YECs in the UK but by and large most of the Christian scientist groups in the UK are TEs. To what degree they push that TE point of view is down to the group and the individuals involved in it.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Sure, there's definitely some wiggle room there. I guess the reason why I'm personally inclined to give this place the benefit of the doubt is that it's a British group, I know there are some crazy YECs in the UK but by and large most of the Christian scientist groups in the UK are TEs. To what degree they push that TE point of view is down to the group and the individuals involved in it.

It is true that the UK Christian groups are more logical than those in the US, but TE is still illogical and has no standing in geology or biology, it’s just easier to sell to the Christian religious flock. Anyone who understands the geological and biological history of the Earth knows that TE is has illogical as YEC. So I suppose the UK Christian groups go in for a mild form of indoctrination.

I should add that I think that there are probably many good scientists in these groups, even though I do not know any, and I bet none of them publish papers on TE.

 

[atomweaver]

It is true that the UK Christian groups are more logical than those in the US, but TE is still illogical and has no standing in geology or biology, it’s just easier to sell to the Christian religious flock. Anyone who understands the geological and biological history of the Earth knows that TE is has illogical as YEC.

I'd have to actually disagree. Where scientific matters are concerned, TE's don't dispute scientific findings from a solely theological POV. IF they disagree with one or another finidng, they do so from a similarly scientific foundation. In short, they hold as accurate the same science which you do. So, they are nowhere near as illogical as YECs, and I think its a bit disingenuous to suggest such.
That some TE choose to go on to use that basis to make certain assertions about theological matters is a wholely independent process from the science.

I should add that I think that there are probably many good scientists in these groups, even though I do not know any, and I bet none of them publish papers on TE.

True, that. Papers on the theological implications of a TE position wouldn't be published by scientists or in science journals. Its of interest to note, though, that science done by a TE is indiscernable from science done by an atheist. The implications of science for a TE's beliefs is more a philosophical/theological matter. Basically, they know how to correctly separate the two...

 

[Axioma]

I wouldn't trust scientists who uphold a text that says the value of pi is 3 as fully trustworthy.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I'd have to actually disagree. Where scientific matters are concerned, TE's don't dispute scientific findings from a solely theological POV. IF they disagree with one or another finidng, they do so from a similarly scientific foundation. In short, they hold as accurate the same science which you do. So, they are nowhere near as illogical as YECs, and I think its a bit disingenuous to suggest such.
That some TE choose to go on to use that basis to make certain assertions about theological matters is a wholely independent process from the science.

True, that. Papers on the theological implications of a TE position wouldn't be published by scientists or in science journals. Its of interest to note, though, that science done by a TE is indiscernable from science done by an atheist. The implications of science for a TE's beliefs is more a philosophical/theological matter. Basically, they know how to correctly separate the two...

OK, I may have been a little extreme towards TEs and yes many do good science, because it does not conflict with their beliefs, or put another way scientists that believe in TE, do not let their religious views cloud their scientific judgments.

I suppose TE is a workable comfort blanket for many scientists, but for geologist and biologists it does not work and when creationism is banished to the dustbin of history, we will go after TE.

 

[Cabal]

OK, I may have been a little extreme towards TEs and yes many do good science, because it does not conflict with their beliefs, or put another way scientists that believe in TE, do not let their religious views cloud their scientific judgments.

I suppose TE is a workable comfort blanket for many scientists, but for geologist and biologists it does not work and when creationism is banished to the dustbin of history, we will go after TE.

Your two paragraphs don't line up very well - if separating beliefs from your scientific field works for "science" in general then it can surely work for geology and biology (plenty of people who are Christian and in those fields) - it is up to each individual to reconcile the scientific truths of each with what they believe the Bible is saying.

And seeing as we don't get in the way of your doing science and generally tend to be more moderate and not push our views on you the way YECs do, we'll be heading for no dustbins in the near future, thank you very much

 

[atomweaver]

Your two paragraphs don't line up very well - if separating beliefs from your scientific field works for "science" in general then it can surely work for geology and biology (plenty of people who are Christian and in those fields) - it is up to each individual to reconcile the scientific truths of each with what they believe the Bible is saying.

And seeing as we don't get in the way of your doing science and generally tend to be more moderate and not push our views on you the way YECs do, we'll be heading for no dustbins in the near future, thank you very much

Agreed. Upon what basis would one "go after" TE's, anyways? Given that they find the scientific process to be fundamentally sound, you'd have to approach matters from a strictly theological/philosophical angle, instead... I hear those kinds of disputes are rarely, if ever, resolved

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I do not want to go off on a tangent here, but does not TE incorporate the idea that god is in control of evolution, i.e. she is guiding it?

If so I think this is debatable through science.

Is this TE

Evolutionary creationism

Evolutionary creationism states that the Creator God uses evolution to bring about his plan. Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge state in Evolution Vs. Creationism that it is in fact a type of evolution, as well as that it is "hardly distinguishable from Theistic Evolution".[2]

 

[Cabal]

I do not want to go off on a tangent here, but does not TE incorporate the idea that god is in control of evolution, i.e. she is guiding it?

If so I think this is debatable through science.

Well, there are all different flavours of TE, and as has been mentioned already, whatever our beliefs our they tend not to show up in actual scientific papers.

But sure, we can save this tangent for another day.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Well, there are all different flavours of TE, and as has been mentioned already, whatever our beliefs our they tend not to show up in actual scientific papers.

But sure, we can save this tangent for another day.

No Problem, look forward to it.