How does your faith affect your view of science?

[Adoniram]

Earlier you agreed that what is learned from books is not proof.

If I founded a school one of the first lessons would be to ask for proof. So opening a history book and believing it 100% would be a folly.

Originally Posted by Digit
Really? I never got any proof at school. We read books upon books, which just stated things. Khan did this, Napolean did that, this animal eats bacteria. I didn't see any proof at all. It was just learning.

I know what you mean, it's one of the main things I hate about the school system. It's also why I would want to found my own school.

Now you say you can rely on learning from books as long as it is shown where the information came from.

We know of people's existance by cross reference from varies sources. This is one reason very few people discount Jesus's existance, the accounts of Josephus are a cross reference.

Not every time it would only have to be shown once and be available for them to see after that. That is how it works in at the college level at least.

Science is very straight forward so those things would only have to be shown once.

No, simply show where that information came from.

I appreciate the fact that you are at least acknowledging the existence of Jesus. (At least I think you are.) But what you've stated here is still reliance on books without proof, don't you see? Whether it is cross-referenced or not. No matter how many books cross-reference an item, how can you be sure that any of them are reliable? They might all be based on the same faulty premise. It's a domino effect. To have complete satisfaction concerning reliability, you would have to prove for yourself every theorem, every scientific fact, every little historical tidbit that has come down through the ages.

You can see how ridiculous that would get. It would be impossible. At some point you have to accept that the authors have done their homework to insure reliability. Which, I guess, is what you're saying above.

In science a fact is an observation of the universe. The facts don't change (nor do interpretations of them) but as new facts come in we must try to explain them in different ways.

Oooooook Let's see. The earth revolves around the sun. That's a fact. In ancient times, astronomers looked up at the sky and observed the sun coming up and going down, and said that the sun revolved around the earth. By your definition, that would be a fact. But the truth is, that was not a fact, but an interpretation based on observation. Copernicus comes along and makes his own observations, which by the way were the same as what the ancients saw, i.e. seeing the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky, and his interpretation is that the earth revolves around the sun. What has changed? The fact, no. The earth has always revolved around the sun. There were not any new facts or observations in evidence. But the interpretation of what was observed indeed changed.

So, mere observation does not make a fact, interpretations do indeed change, and in fact, facts can change also. Newton's laws of motion were long accepted as fact until Einstein came along and showed that they don't hold up in all cases. Also, when I was in school, some 40 years ago, we were taught the evolutionary "fact" was that man descended from the apes; now the "fact" is that apes and man had a common ancestor but descended separately. Another change.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I wouldn't know where to begin if I were allowed to respond to it.

Based on the understanding of science that you demonstrated above, I must believe that you are just not aware of what is going on currently in the relevant fields. I'm not saying that the majority of the scientific community has given up on evolution, only that there is a growing body of scientists and of peer reviewed works that dispute it. Enough to say that acceptance of their conclusions is gaining momentum. The ID/Evolution debates that are being held all over the country are witness to that fact. You didn't see near the number of these kind of debates 40 years ago.

Again facts are observations and among those observations are things that conflict with ID, it is not possible to believe all the facts and believe in ID at the same time.

Well, I've already shown that the first part of this statement is incorrect. And as for ID, it is broad enough to encompass anything science has to offer, be it the big bang theory, evolution, just about whatever you look at shows evidence of design. I'm not saying I think God used those methods in creation, but it would have been within his ability to do so. God is a being who cannot be limited by a mere theory, or law of nature for that matter.

I suppose that would be a valid attitude but first you should show that God really is the author of the book you live by.

OK, we both know that God did not actually pen the words. But with reasonable assurance I can say that God provided the motivation, the inspiration, and the direction to the authors. Why? Because the authors themselves give God the credit, because it contains prophesy in specifics that came to pass exactly as prophesied, sometimes hundreds of years later, and because over the period of 1500 years or so that it was written, the theme remains consistent: God reaching out to men. Coincidence? Not likely. It is enough for me to consider God as it's source. Most of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses and participants to the history that was being recorded, and most of it has been substantiated by extra-Biblical sources. I can rely on it as much as I can rely on any other authoratative textbook, such as those referred to at the top of the post. It is indeed, the book that I live by.

 

[DarkProphet]

I appreciate the fact that you are at least acknowledging the existence of Jesus. (At least I think you are.) But what you've stated here is still reliance on books without proof, don't you see? Whether it is cross-referenced or not. No matter how many books cross-reference an item, how can you be sure that any of them are reliable?

You can't ever be 100% sure of anything but a good standard is to have something cross-referenced from different sources.

They might all be based on the same faulty premise. It's a domino effect. To have complete satisfaction concerning reliability, you would have to prove for yourself every theorem, every scientific fact, every little historical tidbit that has come down through the ages.

Again you can't ever be 100% sure of anything and you're right about being possible for something to be based on the same faulty premise. The Josephus account for example could have been recopied to add the Jesus description at a time after it was originally written. I doubt it but that is a possibility.

You can see how ridiculous that would get. It would be impossible. At some point you have to accept that the authors have done their homework to insure reliability. Which, I guess, is what you're saying above.

You also have to take into account the motivation and viewpoint of the author. Take for example a history of a war written from the victors viewpoint compared to a history of the same war written from the losers viewpoint.

Oooooook Let's see. The earth revolves around the sun. That's a fact. In ancient times, astronomers looked up at the sky and observed the sun coming up and going down, and said that the sun revolved around the earth. By your definition, that would be a fact. But the truth is, that was not a fact, but an interpretation based on observation.

It's not my definition it's scientific fact. And yes at the time that was the best explanation given the facts that were known.

Copernicus comes along and makes his own observations, which by the way were the same as what the ancients saw, i.e. seeing the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky, and his interpretation is that the earth revolves around the sun. What has changed? The fact, no. The earth has always revolved around the sun. There were not any new facts or observations in evidence. But the interpretation of what was observed indeed changed.

Copernicus's observations were new facts that did not fit the old model and so a new model had to be made.

So, mere observation does not make a fact, interpretations do indeed change, and in fact, facts can change also. Newton's laws of motion were long accepted as fact until Einstein came along and showed that they don't hold up in all cases. Also, when I was in school, some 40 years ago, we were taught the evolutionary "fact" was that man descended from the apes; now the "fact" is that apes and man had a common ancestor but descended separately. Another change.

Again facts don't change, it's simply that new facts are added and new models are needed to be made to fit those new facts.

Based on the understanding of science that you demonstrated above, I must believe that you are just not aware of what is going on currently in the relevant fields. I'm not saying that the majority of the scientific community has given up on evolution, only that there is a growing body of scientists and of peer reviewed works that dispute it. Enough to say that acceptance of their conclusions is gaining momentum. The ID/Evolution debates that are being held all over the country are witness to that fact. You didn't see near the number of these kind of debates 40 years ago.

Given the fact that you don't know the definition of a scientific fact I must believe you don't know what you are talking about. In any case the debates you speak of are created by a strong media push by the backers of the ID movement, namely the Discovery_Institute.

Well, I've already shown that the first part of this statement is incorrect. And as for ID, it is broad enough to encompass anything science has to offer, be it the big bang theory, evolution, just about whatever you look at shows evidence of design. I'm not saying I think God used those methods in creation, but it would have been within his ability to do so. God is a being who cannot be limited by a mere theory, or law of nature for that matter.

It is possible to interpret evolution in a theistic way but it is not possible to call ID science. In any case, mere theory? A scientific theory is a model that ties together all the known facts. To call any accepted theory "a mere theory" is completely missing the point.

OK, we both know that God did not actually pen the words. But with reasonable assurance I can say that God provided the motivation, the inspiration, and the direction to the authors. Why? Because the authors themselves give God the credit, because it contains prophesy in specifics that came to pass exactly as prophesied, sometimes hundreds of years later, and because over the period of 1500 years or so that it was written, the theme remains consistent: God reaching out to men. Coincidence? Not likely. It is enough for me to consider God as it's source.

Ah yes, the prophesies, I created a separate thread where perhaps you can help clear something up for me.

Most of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses and participants to the history that was being recorded, and most of it has been substantiated by extra-Biblical sources. I can rely on it as much as I can rely on any other authoratative textbook, such as those referred to at the top of the post. It is indeed, the book that I live by.

What extra-Biblical sources to you refer to?

 

[Adoniram]

What extra-Biblical sources to you refer to?

Oh, there are numerous historical texts that refer to people and events that are consistent with what is recorded in the Bible, not to mention archaeological consistencies.

But, hey, this is devolving into a debate and a pretty well fruitless one at that. So in order to be in compliance with the rules, I will leave you with your beliefs and walk away with mine.

Thankyou for the discussion, it's been......interesting.

 

[Key]

I have no problems with people with a theistic evolutionist view. If you can fit scientific findings to your doctrine then good for you. What I object to is people distorting scientific findings in order to have them fit their version of doctrine.

Huh?

Maybe if you defined "Scientific Findings" are you speaking of Evidence, or the stories made up about the evidence?

God Bless

Key

 

[DarkProphet]

Huh?

Maybe if you defined "Scientific Findings" are you speaking of Evidence, or the stories made up about the evidence?

I'm talking about things like radiometric dating, DNA markers, or even transitional fossils. Creationist Christians either attack the findings by distorting the methods or in the case of transitional fossils deny there existence. I'm not sure what you mean by stories made up about the evidence. In science observations are made and then theories are made to fit those observations. Now it's perfectly alright to make a different theory to fit the same observations (e.g., theistic evolution) but it is not alright to make a theory and then pick and choose what observations you want to acknowledge to fit your theory.

 

[Criada]

I'm talking about things like radiometric dating, DNA markers, or even transitional fossils. Creationist Christians either attack the findings by distorting the methods or in the case of transitional fossils deny there existence. I'm not sure what you mean by stories made up about the evidence. In science observations are made and then theories are made to fit those observations. Now it's perfectly alright to make a different theory to fit the same observations (e.g., theistic evolution) but it is not alright to make a theory and then pick and choose what observations you want to acknowledge to fit your theory.

Specifically, how do you think these things are inconsistent with creation?

 

[Bible2]

Adoniram said in post #41:
[Re: The Bible]
I can rely on it

Amen, the Bible can be relied on, for "All scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Bible nowhere contradicts any proven fact of
Science.

 

[Merlin]

My faith strengthens my viewpoint of science .
I search for order. Creation gives order.
Non-creation doesn't

 

[seashale76]

I aways find it troubling when Christians say things like "evolution is not a fact it's a theory" or "science doesn't actually prove anything". I'm not going to go into what wrong with these statements because this isn't the debate forum but I do want to know how these statements originated. So my question is how does your faith affect your view of science?

One has very little to do with the other. Science is a useful thing and should be utilized. Science has done a lot of good in this world, especially in the field of medicine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians supporting scientific research. However, I feel that maintaining ethical standards is of paramount importance.

Regarding your example of evolution:
Evolution is observable in nature. That isn't in dispute. However, many Christians tend to have issues with the concept of abiogenesis and human evolution, which no scientist worth their salt can claim has been proven to anyone's satisfaction. Not only does nobody know how such was done, they don't even know which group of hominids humans are allegedly descended from (or even how the various hominids specifically relate to each other). It's all conjecture at this point. If one is to posit that it is factual, then I would love to see more than theories as to how it occurred. My information may be out of date, but, back when I cared a whole lot more and actually took classes dedicated to the specific topic as an undergraduate, one of my textbooks had an entire chapter of possible permutations of how all of the hominids may relate to each other. The thing is, they don't know. It was all very theoretical; as it should be. It's good science to not make claims when you can't prove something.

And, science has proven things, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it doesn't. However, when new information comes in, sometimes, the old information that was taken as fact must be re-evaluated. There is nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, people try to create vast opposition where it shouldn't exist. The OT account of Genesis isn't really concerned with science. It shouldn't have been, because the exact 'how' of everything is not the focus. It is the 'why' that is more the focus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that either.

Science is a useful tool that has many limitations. It should not dictate our faith. I used to believe in human evolution; I care so little about this topic now, that I can honestly say that it has become inconsequential to me. Being part of Christ's Holy Church and attempting to work out my salvation by picking up my cross daily and following Him is enough to be getting on with for this Christian. This struggle is of utmost importance.

 

[DarkProphet]

One has very little to do with the other. Science is a useful thing and should be utilized. Science has done a lot of good in this world, especially in the field of medicine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians supporting scientific research. However, I feel that maintaining ethical standards is of paramount importance.

Regarding your example of evolution:
Evolution is observable in nature. That isn't in dispute. However, many Christians tend to have issues with the concept of abiogenesis and human evolution, which no scientist worth their salt can claim has been proven to anyone's satisfaction. Not only does nobody know how such was done, they don't even know which group of hominids humans are allegedly descended from (or even how the various hominids specifically relate to each other). It's all conjecture at this point. If one is to posit that it is factual, then I would love to see more than theories as to how it occurred. My information may be out of date, but, back when I cared a whole lot more and actually took classes dedicated to the specific topic as an undergraduate, one of my textbooks had an entire chapter of possible permutations of how all of the hominids may relate to each other. The thing is, they don't know. It was all very theoretical; as it should be. It's good science to not make claims when you can't prove something.

And, science has proven things, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it doesn't. However, when new information comes in, sometimes, the old information that was taken as fact must be re-evaluated. There is nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, people try to create vast opposition where it shouldn't exist. The OT account of Genesis isn't really concerned with science. It shouldn't have been, because the exact 'how' of everything is not the focus. It is the 'why' that is more the focus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that either.

Science is a useful tool that has many limitations. It should not dictate our faith. I used to believe in human evolution; I care so little about this topic now, that I can honestly say that it has become inconsequential to me. Being part of Christ's Holy Church and attempting to work out my salvation by picking up my cross daily and following Him is enough to be getting on with for this Christian. This struggle is of utmost importance.

I made this post a long time ago and since then I've heard an interesting defense for creationism. It holds that the fall was described in Genesis and only by holding that story as literal does it give a reason for Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. You have to ignore all of reality to hold that position but I can see why that would be important to some people.

 

[seashale76]

I made this post a long time ago and since then I've heard an interesting defense for creationism. It holds that the fall was described in Genesis and only by holding that story as literal does it give a reason for Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. You have to ignore all of reality to hold that position but I can see why that would be important to some people.

Well, let me introduce you to an Orthodox Christian concept. Our theology is different from just about everyone else in Christendom. What you claim isn't necessarily the case. It is a pious belief that even if people had never sinned, Christ still would have needed to come in the flesh. People were created to eventually attain theosis, but were not created in that particular state. Christ would have needed to come regardless of the sin issue. We also do not hold to a penal substitutionary atonement belief, but a Christus Victor belief.

 

[Emmy]

Dear DarkProphet. I believe that the world runs on predictable patterns, laws in nature, sufficiently reliable so as to conduct investigations upon it. If the world was not ordered, science cannot happen. Genesis one makes absolutely clear, that we live in an ordered world. God said produce after its kind, pigs, and they happen over and over again. If this was not so, we could not be sure that a pig gives birth to a pig. Science can exame the world we live in. How does my faith affect my view of science? Because our God made an ordered world, science can examine the world we live in. I say this humbly and with thanks, DarkProphet, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[TerrorTwilight]

I aways find it troubling when Christians say things like "evolution is not a fact it's a theory" or "science doesn't actually prove anything". I'm not going to go into what wrong with these statements because this isn't the debate forum but I do want to know how these statements originated. So my question is how does your faith affect your view of science?

evolution actually has no science basis. it's just if you don't want to beleive in God you are left with evolution. evolution has been proven wrong by studies. many of the world's greatest scientist were very devout Christians and spent their time studying God's creation. The purpose of science is to master nature for the benefit of mankind.

 

[DarkProphet]

evolution actually has no science basis. it's just if you don't want to beleive in God you are left with evolution. evolution has been proven wrong by studies.

And what studies are these?

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

I aways find it troubling when Christians say things like "evolution is not a fact it's a theory" or "science doesn't actually prove anything". I'm not going to go into what wrong with these statements because this isn't the debate forum but I do want to know how these statements originated. So my question is how does your faith affect your view of science?

To answer your question without reading the whole thread, Science solidifies my faith by revealing more and more of the truly miraculous and wonderful creation of His.

 

[Bible2]

DarkProphet said in post #50:
I've heard an interesting defense for creationism.
It holds that the fall was described in Genesis and
only by holding that story as literal does it give a
reason for Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.

Actually, even if Genesis weren't literal, Jesus
would still have had to die on the cross for our
sins, for our sins are literal: "God commendeth his
love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us. Much more then, being now
justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And
not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the
atonement" (Romans 5:8-11).

One can believe that Genesis is literal, and that
Jesus' death for our sins was literal, without having
to reject any proven fact of science.

 

[Bible2]

seashale76 said in post #51:
We also do not hold to a penal substitutionary
atonement belief, but a Christus Victor belief.

Note that the Bible holds to both: "For all have
sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being
justified freely by his grace through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to
be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins
that are past, through the forbearance of God; To
declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that
he might be just, and the justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus" (Romans 3:23-26).

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath
begotten us again unto a lively hope by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"
(1 Peter 1:3).

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all
sleep [die], but we shall all be changed, In a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put
on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on
immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying
that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O
death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy
victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength
of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth
us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast,
unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord,
forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain
in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:51-58).

One can believe that Jesus' substitutionary death
and atonement for our sins was literal, and that His
victory over death via His resurrection was literal,
and that the future victory over death that He will
give to the Church via its resurrection will be
literal, without having to reject any proven fact of
science.

 

[TerrorTwilight]

And what studies are these?

studies done by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

 

[DarkProphet]

studies done by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

Hmm... Sir Fred Hoyle is an astronomer that proposed a counter theory to the Big Bang but that theory has since been repudiated by more evidence. In anycase that doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Chandra Wickramasinghe is a astronomer that was the first to propose that cosmic dust contained biological matter and that it might have seeded life on Earth. This is somewhat related to evolution in that it has a specific origin for life but evolution doesn't really deal with the origin, just the process of change after the origin.

How exactly do these people and their contributions to science suggest that evolution has scientific basis?

 

[TerrorTwilight]

Hmm... Sir Fred Hoyle is an astronomer that proposed a counter theory to the Big Bang but that theory has since been repudiated by more evidence. In anycase that doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Chandra Wickramasinghe is a astronomer that was the first to propose that cosmic dust contained biological matter and that it might have seeded life on Earth. This is somewhat related to evolution in that it has a specific origin for life but evolution doesn't really deal with the origin, just the process of change after the origin.

How exactly do these people and their contributions to science suggest that evolution has scientific basis?

uh, yeah, i said the studies they did about evolution. and there's been plenty of well respected scientists that have rejected evolution. and there's Colin Patterson who, after spending over twenty years working to prove evolution, realised he "didn't know one thing about it." not to mention mathmeticians calculating the odds of evolution happening to be pactically zero. but tell me, what's one solid proof of evolution. after all these years they haven't found any missing links. and besides, evolution defies: the law of biogenesis, the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, the laws of mathematics, the laws of logic, and the laws of heredity. SO WHAT IS YOUR PROOF OF EVOLUTION?