Does science change?

[Biblewriter]

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?

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

 

[Edison Trent]

Well the Sun is a working science object, what scienctist know as of today is only child's play compared to the Grandest of all, the sciences of God. not to say we as humans aren't learning the very basics of science, in fact we are but what we know is so so small.

 

[Edison Trent]

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

Hey don't add to the verses, you know better I hope.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

By what evidence do you arrive at your 100 per cent assertion?

 

[Tom 1]

You just shut out millions of Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution. They even make some compelling arguments how and why God created the concept of evolution. Does that mean that all those Christians are wrong and you are right?

There are a lot of simplistic and superficial notions floating about that conflate 1000s of years of scientific and religious debate and development into a few polarising ideas, based on some brief periods of conflict and unyielding dogma. And not just religious dogma, scientific progress has often been slowed and blocked by disagreements between scientists or people working in related fields, whether believers or not, than anyone outside of that field.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You asume that evolution is right.
There is no scientific evidence that any creature has evolved into another, only a faith based belief that it has.

Only because you completely ignore it. For example, you have a vestige of a tail in your body.

Can you name any good thing that has happened purely because of a belief in evolution?

Evolution knowledge informs our use of test animals for drugs, informs our treatment of antibiotics in the face of developing resistance, informs our development of flu vaccines . . .

And some of us really appreciate getting to the truth about life and the universe.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You need to know what science is and how it is redefined in order to accommodate the incompatible evolution. The new definition sounds as if science is all about evidence while it's not.

This is the nature of what science is,
======
Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for an end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion.

Sorry, your artificial limits on what science is and what science can do will be ignored.

 

[Tom 1]

As I am sure you are aware evolution was promoted by those who hated God.
So why should Christians believe in it?

There’s a fair bit more to it. Darwin for example started out believing in the Bible, became a theist, and towards the end of his life described himself as agnostic. Some of that process seems to have been linked to recognising sloppy processes in the findings of biblical historians. People on both sides of the debate are far to quick to polarise the arguments and reinterpret what famous scientists had to say about their own faith, or lack of it. As Christians it’s important, I think, to keep ourselves informed so that we don’t link ignorance and faith in he minds of those looking for God.

 

[Gottservant]

I think the technicality science overlooks, is that you have to be a human being, first

Don't mistake how hard that is!

Every decade, you see things differently, experience things differently - if you didn't first set time aside to balance this, you would never get anywhere (even "scientifically")

 

[Archie Dupont]

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

I think people should believe for reasonable reasons. I also think that people should always base their information on something.

I am religious because I was taught like that by my parents, by my pastor, by the Bible, but never in a way where I zealously (or even fundamentally) claim that everything I know is a 100% the truth. You can never know that and however I love my parents and appreciate the work of my pastor, I am a reasonable enough thinker to know that they are not a source of 100% truth.

I hope you can enlighten us on how you are so zealously sure of the 100% truth of God's word. What source (other than your family, church and reading the bible) do you have to know those sources are definitely the truth.

 

[JacksBratt]

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..... the topic of many of these threads depends on many of the scientific fields and the views and observations of the men and women who practice them.

I contend that there are sciences that we know to be true and the evidence of this is the technology that is resultant of them... This could be the internal combustion engine, all the science that allows people to live in a submarine, under water for months...... airplanes and all the science that makes them possible.... welding practices, surgeries and the chemistry of pharmaceuticals.....metallurgy and the production of alloys....ballistics and all the science that goes into weaponry.....

These are tried and proven factual scientific applications that are observable, testable and repeatable every single day of our lives.

However....

There are sciences that are predictions, assumptions, extrapolations and, for a better term.... totally wishful thinking and delusions of the so called scientist who is presenting them.

It is no secret, here, that I would place evolution in this category. As well, I would put "climate change" here.

These are views, ideas and speculations that, although they have some scientific feel to them, are not science. They are not testable, observable or repeatable concepts. They are the true essence of what the word "THEORY" used to mean...."an idea yet to be proven"

These views, unfortunately are:

1/ Pushed and forced on us in all levels of academia, as "FACT"
2/ Held in high regard by those that are atheists...not that Christians are not included, but for the most part it is the Darwinian atheist camp that glorifies these two views.
3/ These two views are, for some reason, a benchmark in the rock of science, placed there as a target or goal.

All information or observation or speculation that aligns with the path to this benchmark, is accepted and rewarded.

Any and all observation that does not align with this said "benchmark" of "truth" is ridiculed, discredited, hidden, destroyed, ignored and all attempts are made to label it as a hoax or propaganda.

That, my friends, is the new age of how we do "so called science". Anything that aligns with God's word is the target to be destroyed.

The new "Benchmarks" of our so called "truthful fact" are nothing more than man made idols on a pedestal that must not be questioned.

The support for these so called "truths" are backed by math and formulas with so much speculation that in the end.... it is just a means to an end..... an incorrect and anti biblical end. And that is the sole purpose.

Tesla said it best:

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Nikola Tesla

 

[thesunisout]

I think people should believe for reasonable reasons. I also think that people should always base their information on something.

I am religious because I was taught like that by my parents, by my pastor, by the Bible, but never in a way where I zealously (or even fundamentally) claim that everything I know is a 100% the truth. You can never know that and however I love my parents and appreciate the work of my pastor, I am a reasonable enough thinker to know that they are not a source of 100% truth.

I hope you can enlighten us on how you are so zealously sure of the 100% truth of God's word. What source (other than your family, church and reading the bible) do you have to know those sources are definitely the truth.

By what evidence do you arrive at your 100 per cent assertion?

We know that scripture is true because it accurately predicts the future. There is no other book, religious or otherwise, that does that. In Daniel we read about world history before it happened. In Isaiah we read about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, before He was born. Everywhere that the scripture can be tested, be it historically or scientifically, it has been found to be completely accurate. Everywhere where historians or scientists have disputed the text, they have been found to be wrong. Therefore we can have full confidence that the scripture is the inspired word of God. What does the scripture say about itself?

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work

If all scripture is God-breathed, it is 100 percent true. Jesus held the same confidence, and said that the whole of scripture was about Him.

This is all apart from an even more important witness: the Holy Spirit. It is through our faith in Jesus Christ, by the word of God, that the Spirit indwells us and makes us into new people. This is a dramatic confirmation of Gods word. It is also the Spirit who teaches us what Gods word means and He leads us into all truth. The Holy Spirit has told men from every walk of life for thousands of years that the scripture is 100 percent trustworthy and reliable for all the issues of this life and the next.

 

[Archie Dupont]

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work

If all scripture is God-breathed, it is 100 percent true.

How can a book prove itself to be true? That is like a man blowing in his own sails.
If God would come to earth and tell me the Bible is the truth I would believe it in a second, but I am getting so frustrated by fellow Christians claiming the Bible is true because the Bible says so

 

[thesunisout]

How can a book prove itself to be true? That is like a man blowing in his own sails.
If God would come to earth and tell me the Bible is the truth I would believe it in a second, but I am getting so frustrated by fellow Christians claiming the Bible is true because the Bible says so

Why did you skip over the rest of my post which proves why that is?

By the way, God did come to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ and He told you that is true.

 

[Biblewriter]

Unlike most of the people involved in this discussion, I am actually educated as a scientist, and worked for many years in a related field. For those who are unaware of what "The Scientific Method" is, I will teach you what it actually is:

The Scientofic Method:

1. Observe ALL available data, and form a theory to explain ALL of it.
2. Design an experiment to test the postulation.
3. If the test fails, formulate a new theory and repeat.
4. If the test does not fail, design multiple new tests that test the theory in many different ways. Only when the theory has passed many such tests, exhausting all conceivable possibilities, can it be deemed a "law."

Without a single exception, the theories that people call "scientific," and which conflict with the scriptures, have not been subjected to this rigorous system of testing.

During my formal education as a scientist, I exhaustively checked the application of these rules to the varied theories of origins, and found they they had simply not been followed. Despite all the claims to the contrary, evolution still had not passed even the most basic tests. And Every system for dating strata, other than tree ring dating, which only goes back a few thousand years and thus cannot conflict with the Bible, was based on at least one rank assumption.

That is why, about this time, the famous Dr. Robert Millikan, who at the time was the president of the American Academy of Science, publicly stated that Evolution is unproved and unprovable.

And during the time I was taking upper level genetics courses, my Professor, who had been teaching such courses, confided to his lab assistant, whom I was dating at the time, that "Evolution is not really very good explanation of the facts, it's just the best one we have."

Modern evolutionists have insisted that many cases of evolution in action have been witnessed recently, as in cases of bacteria resistant to new drugs, and in life forms changing in new situations. But they fail to mention that the new drugs never killed all the bacteria, so naturally the offspring of the ones that had survived would multiply, leaving a new "strain" composed only of that fraction of the original population that had always been resistant to this drug. And they also fail to mention that the offspring of te life forms that change in new situations, change back when moved back to the old situation. This, of course, only proves that the "new" form is nothing but the form that that particular life form had always taken in the new situation.

And sadly, there has been no shortage of outright frauds presented in this debate. Evolutionists love to point out the frauds on the anti-evolution side. (And there have been some.) But they keep quiet abut the frauds n their own side of the debate.

The HARD FACT is, that there are far more real scientists that doubt the proven nature of the theory of evolution, than the press would have you believe. But most of these scientists, like myself were specifically and repeatedly warned that exposing their faith in the Bible would result in termination form their jobs. (I was given such a warning in writing, and required, as a condition of my employment, to sign a document admitting that I had been given this warning.)

 

[Biblewriter]

How can a book prove itself to be true? That is like a man blowing in his own sails.
If God would come to earth and tell me the Bible is the truth I would believe it in a second, but I am getting so frustrated by fellow Christians claiming the Bible is true because the Bible says so

The Bible indeed declares that it is an inerrant message directly from God. Now this is either true or false. There can be no middle ground. A false message cannot be good. But the Bible is indeed good. We have HARD PROOF of this, in its power to change lives. There the Bible cannot be false. and if it cannot be false, then it HAS to be, as it clearly declares itself to be, the inerrant word of God.

 

[Archie Dupont]

The Bible indeed declares that it is an inerrant message directly from God. Now this is either true or false. There can be no middle ground. A false message cannot be good. But the Bible is indeed good. We have HARD PROOF of this, in its power to change lives. There the Bible cannot be false. and if it cannot be false, then it HAS to be, as it clearly declares itself to be, the inerrant word of God.

That something (even a book) changes lives doesn't mean its message is 'good' or true. If you really support this kind of reasoning, you would agree that the Quran is the inerrant word of God. It changes lives, therefore it is good, therefore it must be true. This is you own reasoning not mine, you support it still?

 

[Biblewriter]

That something (even a book) changes lives doesn't mean its message is 'good' or true. If you really support this kind of reasoning, you would agree that the Quran is the inerrant word of God. It changes lives, therefore it is good, therefore it must be true. This is you own reasoning not mine, you support it still?

The Quran indeed changes lives, but not in a good way. Anyone and everyone who really accepts the teachings of the Quran becomes a bloodthirsty murderer. And anyone who denies this is either grossly ignorant or an outright liar.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The Bible indeed declares that it is an inerrant message directly from God. Now this is either true or false. There can be no middle ground. A false message cannot be good. But the Bible is indeed good. We have HARD PROOF of this, in its power to change lives. There the Bible cannot be false. and if it cannot be false, then it HAS to be, as it clearly declares itself to be, the inerrant word of God.

well, no the Bible nowhere declares of itself that it is inerrant.

Unlike most of the people involved in this discussion, I am actually educated as a scientist, and worked for many years in a related field. For those who are unaware of what "The Scientific Method" is, I will teach you what it actually is:

The Scientofic Method:

1. Observe ALL available data, and form a theory to explain ALL of it.
2. Design an experiment to test the postulation.
3. If the test fails, formulate a new theory and repeat.
4. If the test does not fail, design multiple new tests that test the theory in many different ways. Only when the theory has passed many such tests, exhausting all conceivable possibilities, can it be deemed a "law."

Without a single exception, the theories that people call "scientific," and which conflict with the scriptures, have not been subjected to this rigorous system of testing.

That is false. Every time a new species is discovered, the fact that it fits into the nested hierarchy is another passing of the test of evolution theory. Every time any species is examined carefully, remnants of previous species - "vestiges" - are found. Predictions have been made as to where in the fossil record transitional species should be found, and the transitional species were found there. Dating methods confirm the overall development of life in the fossil record. And you have a vestigial tail.

And Every system for dating strata, other than tree ring dating, which only goes back a few thousand years and thus cannot conflict with the Bible, was based on at least one rank assumption.

For example, the constancy of radioactive decay. But has that been tested? Of course it has. Through astronomical observations and through counting of annual layers deposited in Ice and in lake bottoms, and through systematic analysis of the natural oklo reactor. And consider how radioactive decay dating of the Hawaiian island chain exactly matches the plate tectonics. Isn't that, after all, another passing of a test?

That is why, about this time, the famous Dr. Robert Millikan, who at the time was the president of the American Academy of Science, publicly stated that Evolution is unproved and unprovable.

He was wrong about that.

And during the time I was taking upper level genetics courses, my Professor, who had been teaching such courses, confided to his lab assistant, whom I was dating at the time, that "Evolution is not really very good explanation of the facts, it's just the best one we have."

Perhaps you would agree a God directed evolution makes more sense.

Modern evolutionists have insisted that many cases of evolution in action have been witnessed recently, as in cases of bacteria resistant to new drugs, and in life forms changing in new situations. But they fail to mention that the new drugs never killed all the bacteria, so naturally the offspring of the ones that had survived would multiply, leaving a new "strain" composed only of that fraction of the original population that had always been resistant to this drug. And they also fail to mention that the offspring of te life forms that change in new situations, change back when moved back to the old situation. This, of course, only proves that the "new" form is nothing but the form that that particular life form had always taken in the new situation.

They don't fail to mention anything, they mention all you said they fail to mention as evidence of evolution. And bacteria don't routinely, easily adapt; they adapt at different times, and in different ways, as if from random mutations that finally come along to help them out, instead of having the answer all along in their genetic tool kit.

And sadly, there has been no shortage of outright frauds presented in this debate. Evolutionists love to point out the frauds on the anti-evolution side. (And there have been some.) But they keep quiet abut the frauds n their own side of the debate.

Not as many by a long shot. The Piltdown Skull was likely a prank that went awry. What else have you got? Are you going to complain about a photographer pinning a moth to a tree in order to take a picture?

The HARD FACT is, that there are far more real scientists that doubt the proven nature of the theory of evolution, than the press would have you believe. But most of these scientists, like myself were specifically and repeatedly warned that exposing their faith in the Bible would result in termination form their jobs. (I was given such a warning in writing, and required, as a condition of my employment, to sign a document admitting that I had been given this warning.)

Its possibly you were being somewhat pushy in a way that bothered people.

 

[NobleMouse]

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?

Love how the opening remarks to a thread are already marked as 'Winner' - seems to already be a closed thread. For grins though, I'll still bite...

Some of the conclusions, theories, and various ideas that emerge from science do change with time as history has shown. These generally stem from areas of science that are more theoretical in nature with less hard facts to back them up - as more research is done, the theories will change (ex. "Darwinism" and now "Neo-Darwinism"). In the areas where the nature of the topic is still highly theoretical it is reasonable, as a Christian, to be interested but also approach with a degree of understanding that 'certainty' may not be known and should not be assumed. As a Christian, I am skeptical of theories that propose ideas around events and times that cannot be proven, cannot be observed, and directly run perpendicular to God's word.

Do Christians really think they have to reject modern science to practice their faith? I hope not, but they should recognize that science falls below the word of God (unless I'm in the wrong forum here and this is HumanistForums or NaturalistForums), and learn to recognize when science is just theory and when it is fact.

To re-interpret scripture on the basis of what is believed outside of scripture seems to follow the ways of Francis Bacon and I would caution the following (borrowing from one of my other posts in a different thread):

- It significantly compromises your apologetics - what unbeliever will you share the gospel message with to convince that God exists when you attribute most of what they see to the natural causality of mainstream science and go on to concede that you don't even really take all of the Bible as being true? Would be like me selling Ford's, but then when asked, admit to my clients I in fact drive a Honda.

- It also opens doors to compromise on a number of theological doctrines and writings of the OT, NT, and Jesus himself. If you make the claim that scientific conclusions that spawn out of secular mainstream science and the Bible actually agree, but then very carefully do not regard the interaction between the two and default to the 'science trumps scripture' mentality - the Bible is no longer inerrant, no longer the authority of truth, and least of all perspicuous.