Does science change?

[Grandliseur]

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?

You either accept the Bible as being true in all things because it was inspired by God, or you reject it. If you reject this, you reject the ransom, and thereby the whole of what is taught about salvation and the kingdom.

It is not a question of accepting Maxwell's equations on electromagnetism, and what else these may cover. It is not a question of accepting chemistry, and what even supercomputers may bring to this if they get the quantum computers to crunch this problem.

It is a question of evolution against creationism. Btw, I am OEC and against the YEC. This does not mean that I accept some of the ridiculous dates of age that presently are given. Many many things are a question of interpretation, and we have the problem of the half full hourglass with dating things. For example, the scientific claim is that though the polar regions, south and north both, were warm, subtropical climate, with all kinds of animals living there, even forests, this was in a remote time of millions of years in the past. The Bible tells us this was before the flood. I accept the Bible's word on this.

When there is contracting claims, I accept the Bible. I know God exists; he has answered many prayers of mine, and of others.
Noah's ark.
In the area the Bible claims Noah's ark landed, a ship like formation has been found, near it high above the present sea levels, we have many ship anchor stones. Scientists reject this as being the ark. The history there, the ark, the creationists examinations, verify the Bible to me.

Many things are a question of perspective and paradigm. The evolutionists reject that dinos and humans lived at the same time; however, there is evidence for this. Why do they reject this clear evidence? Ask yourself this.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Not exactly. The sciences have their own logic, and must be consistent to the truth of reality and to proper method. And religion should work on being consistent to it's origins, not to current fads. They should agree, but a forced agreement CAN mean religion is forced into wrong positions following bad science OR science is corrupted to follow bad theology. Better to have some tension, to have both science and theology look to their proper methods and proper data, and both reassess their own accuracy. There is only one truth, of course, but science and theology have different ways of getting to it, and that should be respected.

 

[thesunisout]

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?

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

 

[David Kent]

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.

There are many breeds of dogs, but take away man and they would all revert to wild dogs, not eveolve into something else.

 

[Tayla]

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Yes of course. Induction and abduction only generate probabilities of truth. But that misses the point entirely, of whether something is 100 percent true or only 99.99999 percent likely to be true.

 

[Tayla]

Not exactly. The sciences have their own logic, and must be consistent to the truth of reality and to proper method. And religion should work on being consistent to it's origins, not to current fads. They should agree, but a forced agreement CAN mean religion is forced into wrong positions following bad science OR science is corrupted to follow bad theology. Better to have some tension, to have both science and theology look to their proper methods and proper data, and both reassess their own accuracy. There is only one truth, of course, but science and theology have different ways of getting to it, and that should be respected.

An interesting perspective I hadn't thought of.

I'm inclined to start with what can be known as true: the physical realm via science. This includes physics, cosmogony, archaeology, geology, textual analysis, and etc. Of course not every aspect or question can be known or is known. Then I fit Christianity into this. If there is a collision, I discard the one not proven as true.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

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

I can, can you though?

 

[Zoii]

The Bible is a spiritual guide. It was never intended as a scientific text and shouldn't be manipulated in a way that attempts to answer questions that was never intended to be answered in this book. The Bible concerns itself with the paradigm of what God is and how to live or lives. It is not an acceptable manual for our mobile phones, space travel, plasma TVs or discussions on space_time. Attempts to even use it to discuss anything about space is ridiculous given the very crude and uninformed verses regarding space. Attempts to ridicule the mountain of scientific evidence regarding space, based on those few crude verses, only serves to put Christianity in a poor light

 

[expos4ever]

The evolutionists reject that dinos and humans lived at the same time; however, there is evidence for this. Why do they reject this clear evidence? Ask yourself this.

What evidence?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Science must be testable against the empirical world.

Yes, it must be. That's why I reject much of what is called science, because it is not empirically testable. The method for developing the theory of evolution is the same now as it was when the ancient Greeks looked at the world and made up their own mythology. They saw the facts and invented a story to go with it. The scientific method was not used then, either. They believed that all life evolved into existence, also. They were wrong then, and they're still wrong.

You have to be able to test it and prove it false.

Wrong. That's a complete fallacy. A dumb theory can always be invented that cannot be proved false. The onus is always on the positive assertion. You have to be able to test it and prove it true, repeatedly, in different ways, at different times and places, and by different people. Events that have only happened once, ever, have no repeatability and cannot be scientific.

 

[Dawnhammer]

I can, can you though?

Since that would disprove evolution you could publish it and go claim your Nobel prize.

When can we expect to hear of this momentous occasion ?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Since that would disprove evolution you could publish it and go claim your Nobel prize.

When can we expect to hear of this momentous occasion ?

So here you claim to be a follower of science but don’t know the mechanism for species adaptation to the environment? I guess you walk by faith and not by sight.
By the way, I don’t have to publish it. Those who adhere to the evolutionary faith already have. So have the creationists.

 

[Dawnhammer]

By the way, I don’t have to publish it. Those who adhere to the evolutionary faith already have. So have the creationists.

Strong claim.

So do link the process that stops evolution for every species and prevents micro evolution accruing over millions of years transforming species as their environment changes and they adapt.

 

[Oldmantook]

The earth was once thought to be flat, believe it or not some people still believe this.
However, check this out

Isaiah 40 - who lived approximately
740-681 BC - Was he a scientist?

21Do you not know? Do you not hear?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

The earth is still flat despite what Copernicus and NASA (Never A Straight Answer) claim. You cite Isaiah 40:18 where Isaiah refers to the circle of the earth. Your confirmation bias leads you to assume that "circle" automatically depicts a globed earth which is three dimensional. However a circle is technically a two dimensional object with its circumference and a flat inner plane. The Hebrew word for circle in this verse is chug. So did Isaiah inspired by the Holy Spirit not know the difference between a circle and a sphere when he described the earth's shape? One need only look several chapters earlier in Isa 22:18 where it states: He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house. The Hebrew word for ball in this verse is dur. Two different words so apparently Isaiah knew the difference between a flat circle and a spherical ball. Yet he chose to use chug to describe a circular flat earth.

 

[thesunisout]

Yes of course. Induction and abduction only generate probabilities of truth. But that misses the point entirely, of whether something is 100 percent true or only 99.99999 percent likely to be true.

99.99999 isnt good enough for a foundation. The only thing that is 100% reliable is Gods truth. An infinite chasm separates the two

 

[Tom 1]

Yes, the writers of the Bible believed the earth to be flat. But science has proven it is a sphere.

Bit of an urban myth, e.g. the Phoenicians and the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round

 

[Tom 1]

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.

Not so sure about the non-evolution bit, I mean not in all of its particulars or implications. The common ancestor idea might turn out to be significantly different or more complicated than currently assumed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

The same ones who were right 1000 years ago, are right today.
The same ones who were right 100 years ago, are right today.
The same ones who were right 10 years ago, are right today.
The same ones who were right 1 year ago, are right today.
The truth never changes.
Trust Yahweh, no men.

Remember what Yahweh says about all of man's wisdom and knowledge.

 

[Zoii]

What evidence?

Heyyyy I never said that...I believe the opposite. How'd my name get attached to that comment

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Heyyyy I never said that...I believe the opposite. How'd my name get attached to that comment

The quote function has been messing up all day yesterday and tonight.