Does science change?

[chevyontheriver]

Ooops, total change of subject there, and turned around too. (apparently)

Why would you trust messed up men regarding science, fallible very much,
and
would not (apparently) trust God ? (God is Perfect, not fallible)

God I trust. It's this spectrum of guys pretending to speak for God that I have trouble with. Scientists have about as good a track record as they guys pretending to speak for God.

 

[Tayla]

Read about the Almighty ... Job Chapters 38 & 39 - if you have the courage.

Yes, I've read it many times. Thank you.

 

[Tayla]

Science and faith are, in the long run, totally compatible.

Yes. I agree. If either contradicts the other, one should be changed to match the other.

 

[Tom 1]

I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.

I think it depends on the nature of the change. Some of Bertrand-Russels’ arguments in ‘why I am not a Christian’, for example, are dependent on the ‘steady State’ theory that was in vogue at the time. That’s one example of how changes in scientific ideas influence the thinking of a generation.

 

[Tayla]

Why would you trust messed up men regarding science, fallible very much,
and
would not (apparently) trust God ? (God is Perfect, not fallible)

I trust human reason using the scientific method because it neutralizes errors. I trust God implicitly. I don't trust those who interpret God's word because the scientific method doesn't work for the spiritual realm.

 

[devin553344]

I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.

It seems some people think science is in constant flux and each new observation or experiment or hypothesis or theory completely invalidates everything that came before. If this were true, automobiles and computers would suddenly quit working every time a scientist publishes a paper in a scientific journal.

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?

Science is the explanation of reality. We should not overlook reality for what we perceive of the bible. I think the bible should become more clear if we embrace reality

 

[Dawnhammer]

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), Biblically acceptable - yes - "after their kind" i.e. Dogs .... we breed dogs and therefore their characteristics change ... but this is done within their own kind.

So can you describe which process halts this micro evolution so it doesn’t continue to become macro evolution after vast periods of time ?

 

[Tom 1]

Thank you. You have proven my point:

1. The earth is not a circle (2 dimensions) but a sphere (3 dimensions). This verse (Isaiah 40:22) contradicts science.
   
2. The heavens are not stretched out like a 2 dimensional curtain hanging under the influence of gravity from a close large body (the earth). Rather, the stars of the galaxies and the galaxies of the universe float within 3 dimensional space. This verse (Isaiah 40:22) contradicts science.

Those verses are poetry. Poetry and science don’t mix, until you come across the occasional poet scientist that is

 

[Tayla]

I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.

I think it depends on the nature of the change. Some of Bernard-Shaws’ arguments in ‘why I am not a Christian’, for example, are dependent on the ‘steady State’ theory that was in vogue at the time. That’s one example of how changes in scientific ideas influence the thinking of a generation.

I think you are referring to Bertrand Russell. He was using philosophy operating upon a scientific theory. This is different than measuring the age of the universe by observing the red shift, for example. And besides, science in this domain doesn't clash with Christianity in the slightest.

The only reason science enters into the discussion is because of those who strongly emphasize young earth creationism (which is not science), and have to discredit science to support their view. But there are no competing scientific theories about the age of the earth claiming it is young.

Maybe there is disagreement about exactly when the tectonic plates solidified or such. And there are no competing scientific theories about whether or not there was a global flood. Or whether there were Nephilim.

And whether evolution (macro) occurs. Of course it does; it has been observed occurring. Examples of new species coming into being recently: oenothera gigas, primula kewensis, tragopogon mirus, and many, many more.

Maybe the Bible doesn't change (although there are many textual variants and various different book lists in the canon), but its interpretation sure changes. There are so many variations of important doctrines I can't keep track of them all. So, saying the Bible doesn't change is not helpful. Without proper interpretation the Bible is just another book.

 

[Tayla]

Science is the explanation of reality. We should not overlook reality for what we perceive of the bible. I think the bible should become more clear if we embrace reality

Yes. But I would clarify. Science only deals with the physical realm. It can say nothing about the spiritual realm which is, in my opinion, much more important.

 

[Tom 1]

I think you are referring to Bertrand Russell. He was using philosophy operating upon a scientific theory. This is different than measuring the age of the universe by observing the red shift, for example. And besides, science in this domain doesn't clash with Christianity in the slightest.

The only reason science enters into the discussion is because of those who strongly emphasize young earth creationism (which is not science), and have to discredit science to support their view. But there are no competing scientific theories about the age of the earth claiming it is young.

Maybe there is disagreement about exactly when the tectonic plates solidified or such. And there are no competing scientific theories about whether or not there was a global flood. Or whether there were Nephilim.

And whether evolution (macro) occurs. Of course it does; it has been observed occurring. Examples of new species coming into being recently: oenothera gigas, primula kewensis, tragopogon mirus, and many, many more.

Maybe the Bible doesn't change (although there are many textual variants and various different book lists in the canon), but its interpretation sure changes. There are so many variations of important doctrines I can't keep track of them all. So, saying the Bible doesn't change is not helpful. Without proper interpretation the Bible is just another book.

Ah yes sorry I got auto corrected from a previous message. What I meant was some of his arguments depend on the idea that the world and the universe could have always existed, and had no beginning. That was consistent with scientific thought at the time

 

[Tayla]

Those verses are poetry. Poetry and science don’t mix, until you come across the occasional poet scientist that is

You presented them as example of science in the Bible. I analyzed them as such based on your claim.

 

[Tom 1]

You presented them as example of science in the Bible. I analyzed them as such based on your claim.

I think you mixed up my post with someone else’s

 

[Tayla]

Ah yes sorry I got auto corrected from a previous message. What I meant was some of his arguments depend on the idea that the world and the universe could have always existed, and had no beginning. That was consistent with scientific thought at the time

Yes. Many people have been wrong about the physical world. But these days, with modern science, the key issues impacting and colliding with young earth creationism are settled. There will be no more changes in which the entire scientific community changes their opinion to a young universe, or young earth, or to non-evolution views.

The (Christian) scientists of Galileo's time were wrong too. But that was then. I'm talking about now, modern science. Modern psychology. Modern archaeology. Much has changed even in the past few decades. Young earth creationist Christians are still in the pre-enlightenment era; they need to radically update their ideas.

 

[Tayla]

I think you mixed up my post with someone else’s

Yes. @eleos1954 presented the verses in Isaiah as scientific to which I replied:

1. The earth is not a circle (2 dimensions) but a sphere (3 dimensions). This verse (Isaiah 40:22) contradicts science.
   
2. The heavens are not stretched out like a 2 dimensional curtain hanging under the influence of gravity from a close large body (the earth). Rather, the stars of the galaxies and the galaxies of the universe float within 3 dimensional space. This verse (Isaiah 40:22) contradicts science.

I do not believe these verses are intending to be scientific. The horizon looks like a circle if you stand on a small hill and spin around. And the curtain is a simile using the word "like"; some kind of visual similarity if you move your eyes across the night sky and imagine the stars are like a tent roof. Beautiful imagery. Not science.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes. @eleos1954 presented the verses in Isaiah as scientific to which I replied:

1. The earth is not a circle (2 dimensions) but a sphere (3 dimensions). This verse (Isaiah 40:22) contradicts science.
   
2. The heavens are not stretched out like a 2 dimensional curtain hanging under the influence of gravity from a close large body (the earth). Rather, the stars of the galaxies and the galaxies of the universe float within 3 dimensional space. This verse (Isaiah 40:22) contradicts science.

I do not believe these verses are intending to be scientific. The horizon looks like a circle if you stand on a small hill and spin around. And the curtain is a simile using the word "like"; some kind of visual similarity if you move your eyes across the night sky and imagine the stars are like a tent roof. Beautiful imagery. Not science.

Yeah I agree, I’ve come across so called scientific arguments from the bible. I find them unnecessary and misleading. I haven’t found any indication that God intended the bible as a tool for teaching or informing science, not in the sense of figuring out how things work in the physical universe

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I all-too-often encounter the idea that science is untrustworthy because it changes, and only the Bible is trustworthy because it doesn't change.

It seems some people think science is in constant flux and each new observation or experiment or hypothesis or theory completely invalidates everything that came before. If this were true, automobiles and computers would suddenly quit working every time a scientist publishes a paper in a scientific journal.

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? Shouldn't they instead adapt their pre-scientific views of the Bible to match modern science?

Guess that would depend on what your calling science wouldn't it? Most liberals mistake scientism with scientific fact and engineering. In reality the debate isn't really about science but about politics and the use of scientism masquerading a science for the purpose of getting a political advantage over the people of faith. Or we could put it another way. The use of the coercive power of human government to impose scientism on the nation to usurp the God given rights of the peoples expression of the principles of their faith in their government. Same old same old. Been going on for thousands of years now. First it was the imposition of idolatry, then imperial churches and now scientism.

 

[eleos1954]

So can you describe which process halts this micro evolution so it doesn’t continue to become macro evolution after vast periods of time ?

(In Jest) How much time before a turtle mates with a giraffe, or fruit fly with an elephant?
All produce and will produce after their kind. I guess one can believe that if they want. Which takes more faith to beleive? I'll keep my faith in the God and what he says in His word.

God Bless.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Those verses are poetry.

COOL! Remembering a Hebrew person last year
said of this

"we are HIS WORKMANSHIP" may be read as

"we are HIS POEM" (GOD'S POEM every day!) ongoing!

GOD'S POEM for all to see and hear as GOD HIMSELF writes HIS POEM , us, before others !

 

[Stormy]

I believe that If science ever reaches the mythical peak of the mountain of knowledge, there will be Christians there to reach out their hands in welcome.

Science can not disprove truth.