Creationism & Theistic Evolutionism and other isms..

[Crayman]

This was orginally posted elsewhere but at the suggestion of another member I have launched it as a new topic.



I'll be upfront I am a biological scientist, and I subscribe to a theistic evolotion view of history. And I must admit I have never yet seen a compelling well document argument supporting creationism. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there, and if there is, I for one would love to hear it.



I dont necessarily see why creationists and evololutionists need to be at odds with each other. We are both looking at the same process but from different angles. The biblical perspective is more concerned with who and why it is not a scientific document (it doesn't have chemical formulae and instructions on how to make a good mountain) and science is concerned with what and how and when (it isn't concerned with who and why, and nor should it be) both are valid frames of refernece and both bring something unique to the table.



The problem lies in that the questions we are all asking has become clouded by a contest of ideologies, both sides are tying to prove the other wrong - science is trying to refute theology and theology is trying to disprove science. Its all kind of self defeating really - we should all work together science & theology to look at who, why, where, when and how, then we will begin to glimpse the real picture.
Cheers

Crayman

 

[Vance]

Well said and definitely points in the right direction: let science tell us about how and when it was all created, and let the Bible tell us who and why.

There are indeed some atheistic scientists who try and use the evidence they have found to show the Bible can not be trusted, but that just means their misuse of the scientific findings and conclusions is at fault, not the findings and conclusions themselves.

 

[herev]

I agree, let's quit calling the other side stupid or atheistic and lets talk--ask questions, seek to understand, and support dissenting opinions, but hey, doubt that will happen

 

[Crayman]

Quite right Vance, it began when people used Darwin's initial theories (and when he allowed it) as a political tool to score points against the theologians of the day, rather than keeping a purley scientific thoery in the realm of pure science. It is quite tragic that since then religion and science have been at loggerheads. I find very frustrating as a scientist when both my peers and my brothers and sisters in Christ continue to foster this division.
Crayman

 

[Vance]

A point which I draw out in my "Strange bedfellows" post.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

But religions have felt threatened by scientific advance for centuries. Initially it was astronomy that led the way here and then geology and finally biology. Phenomena that were previously the purview of religion became explained in a naturalistic sense and throughout human history in any domain when the people in charge of that little empire lose that power they lash out against the new threat. This will always happen as it is human nature.