How does your faith affect your view of science?

[DarkProphet]

What version has birds? I can find "insects" and "winged swarming things". And that's just from the Jewish translations.

KJV has birds. This more an example of bad translation then anything else but it is still not scientifically valid in the NIV.

As for your OP, the longer I live the more I see the Bible proved. Archeology in particular is proving the history in the Bible. As for science, I hold out great hope that quantum physics will provide many explanations. I happen to disbelieve the ToE but that's just because it cannot be proven just as Creation cannot be proven. So I chose!

ToE is a theory which means that it fits facts. So in order to disbelieve ToE you have to either disbelieve those facts or have Creation fit those facts. So do you believe Creation fit's the facts or that the facts are wrong?

 

[Adoniram]

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.

Just curious, if you founded a school, and had to come up with proof for any or every event or person that has existed throughout history, upon what would you base that proof? It would seem to me that you could not use any existing written source, either singly or collectively, because they would all be suspect. So what? Supernatural inspiration?

If you had to prove every mathematical theorem every time you wanted to use it, would you have time to get anything else done?

If you had to reprove that the earth circles the sun, or use the equation E=mc2, how would you ever accomplish anything meaningful?

Almost every thing we know now is predicated on the painstaking work of someone else in an earlier age. And you would throw all that out? Good Luck.

Of course, that is not to say that previous work should not be scrutinized from time to time. Interpretations of evidence fluctuate with time, and as new evidence becomes available. Which is why we know Galileo was correct, not Copernicus; why we know Einstein had a firmer grasp on motion than Newton did; why even now, we know that even Einstein didn't get it completely right. Most of what we know in science is based on interpretation of available evidence. And that interpretation is in a continuous state of fluctuation. That's not a bad thing, it's just the way it is. Two hundred years ago, creation was the almost universally accepted interpretation of our origins. One hundred fifty years ago, that started to change as Darwin's theory began to take hold in scientific circles. Thirty to forty years ago, the pendulum began to swing back the other direction as scientists began to unravel the DNA molecule and it's mysteries, and began to look seriously at the complexity of the organization of various components of the body (irreducible complexity). Some respected paleontologists are even now beginning to take a step back from interpretations once held dear. Some of the most respected scientists in every applicable field now hold to the "intelligent design" concept.

So, I will continue to hold to the interpretation given by an author I have never been given any reason to doubt. God.

ToE is a theory which means that it fits facts. So in order to disbelieve ToE you have to either disbelieve those facts or have Creation fit those facts. So do you believe Creation fit's the facts or that the facts are wrong?

No, ToE is an interpretation. To disbelieve ToE, you merely have to disbelieve the interpretation, not the facts. There are other interpretations that are just as valid, but merely do not have the acceptance of the majority of the scientific community as it now stands.

 

[ReformedChapin]

KJV has birds. This more an example of bad translation then anything else but it is still not scientifically valid in the NIV.



ToE is a theory which means that it fits facts. So in order to disbelieve ToE you have to either disbelieve those facts or have Creation fit those facts. So do you believe Creation fit's the facts or that the facts are wrong?

Except only microevolution is a scientific fact and macro is naturalism run a muck.

I think ID fits the facts emperically a lot better.

 

[DarkProphet]

Just curious, if you founded a school, and had to come up with proof for any or every event or person that has existed throughout history, upon what would you base that proof? It would seem to me that you could not use any existing written source, either singly or collectively, because they would all be suspect. So what? Supernatural inspiration?

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.

If you had to prove every mathematical theorem every time you wanted to use it, would you have time to get anything else done?

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.

If you had to reprove that the earth circles the sun, or use the equation E=mc2, how would you ever accomplish anything meaningful?

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

Almost every thing we know now is predicated on the painstaking work of someone else in an earlier age. And you would throw all that out? Good Luck.

No, simply show where that information came from.

Of course, that is not to say that previous work should not be scrutinized from time to time. Interpretations of evidence fluctuate with time, and as new evidence becomes available. Which is why we know Galileo was correct, not Copernicus; why we know Einstein had a firmer grasp on motion than Newton did; why even now, we know that even Einstein didn't get it completely right. Most of what we know in science is based on interpretation of available evidence. And that interpretation is in a continuous state of fluctuation.

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.

That's not a bad thing, it's just the way it is. Two hundred years ago, creation was the almost universally accepted interpretation of our origins. One hundred fifty years ago, that started to change as Darwin's theory began to take hold in scientific circles. Thirty to forty years ago, the pendulum began to swing back the other direction as scientists began to unravel the DNA molecule and it's mysteries, and began to look seriously at the complexity of the organization of various components of the body (irreducible complexity). Some respected paleontologists are even now beginning to take a step back from interpretations once held dear. Some of the most respected scientists in every applicable field now hold to the "intelligent design" concept.

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.

So, I will continue to hold to the interpretation given by an author I have never been given any reason to doubt. God.

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.

No, ToE is an interpretation. To disbelieve ToE, you merely have to disbelieve the interpretation, not the facts. There are other interpretations that are just as valid, but merely do not have the acceptance of the majority of the scientific community as it now stands.

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.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

My faith along with my philosophy has showed me that man can easily be corrupted so I question everything including scientists who claim to believe that they have the answers for all of humanity's activities.

 

[ebia]

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.

I'm not a supporter of ID, as it's non-science pretending to be science, but what facts did you have in mind? One of the biggest problems with ID is that it's claims are neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

 

[DarkProphet]

I'm not a supporter of ID, as it's non-science pretending to be science, but what facts did you have in mind?

Simple things like radioactive half-life, genetic drift, or transition fossils.

 

[ebia]

Simple things like radioactive half-life, genetic drift, or transition fossils.

Those are all a problem for (Young Earth) Creationism, but not for ID as such.

 

[Bible2]

[Re: Leviticus 11:20]
KJV has birds. This more an example of bad
translation then anything else but it is still not
scientifically valid in the NIV.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be
an abomination unto you" (Leviticus 11:20, KJV).

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be
detestable to you" (Leviticus 11:20, NIV).

The KJV translated the original Hebrew word as
"fowls" in Leviticus 11:20 because the same Hebrew
word had just been used in Leviticus 11:13 to refer,
not to flying insects, but to other flying creatures
such as birds and bats: "Among the fowls; they shall
not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and
the ossifrage, and the ospray... and the bat"
(Leviticus 11:13,19). The KJV intended "fowls" to be
understood in the archaic sense of the original
Hebrew word, which could refer to any flying
creatures, whether birds, bats, or insects.

To best reflect the broad meaning of the original
Hebrew word, both translations could have
consistently used the phrase "flying creatures" in
both Leviticus 11:13 and Leviticus 11:20.

That the Hebrew refers to some flying creatures
walking on "all four" in Leviticus 11:20 cannot mean
that the Bible is trying to make some sort of
scientific statement that flying insects have only
four legs, for anyone could see in the time that
Leviticus was written that flying insects have six
legs. The ancient Hebrew phrase translated as
"walking on all four" in the context of flying
insects is not intended to be understood literally,
but instead is simply a way of distinguishing those
flying creatures with more than two legs, which walk
with their body in a horizontal position, in the same
manner as four-legged animals.

In science a fact is an observation of the universe.

But even scientific facts can be expressed using non-
literal phrases. For example, scientists can say "The
sun will rise at 6:05", not because they're trying to
make some sort of scientific statement that the sun
will literally rise, but simply to refer to when the
sun will appear to rise from the horizon in the same
manner as something which literally rises in the sky.

radioactive half-life, genetic drift, or transition
fossils.

None of these would be incompatible with what the
Bible teaches.

One's Christian faith need not affect one's view of
science.

 

[Catherineanne]

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?

Even a scientist will admit that evolution is a theory, just as gravity is. It is just that a scientist, or a Christian who does not feel the need to discredit science, can accept that it is a very good theory.

One day, no doubt, a more elegant theory will be formulated, and will fit the evidence more closely, but for now it is the best we have. But it certainly does not answer all the questions, nor provide a full solution.

In my personal opinion, it is pointless throwing out the whole theory of evolution because of the gaps, and deciding to revert to 4,000 year old thinking. But I can understand others chosing to do this, because they need greater certainty. That is their choice.

But in the end, all science is based on belief, just as all faith is. There is very little difference.

 

[Criada]

Speaking as a Christian and a zoologist, I find evolution a very hard one to accept. Microevolution, fine. But macroevolution? It just doesn't work!
Generally, there is no conflict between my faith and my science.
God created it and made it work. As scientists we look at how it works!

The more we learn about the world and all it contains, the more I am awed by the One who created it and holds it together!

 

[Bible2]

all science is based on belief, just as all faith is.

Some people will believe whatever scientists have
observed, but then they'll say it's foolish for
people to believe what the apostles observed:

"We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when
we made known unto you the power and coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his
majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).

"That which was from the beginning, which we have
heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we
have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the
Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we
have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you
that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was
manifested unto us) that which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have
fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with
the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ"
(1 John 1:1-3).

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost
and with power: who went about doing good, and
healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God
was with him. And we are witnesses of all things
which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in
Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him
God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen
before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with
him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us
to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is
he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick
and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that
through his name whosoever believeth in him shall
receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:38-43).

 

[Bible2]

The more we learn about the world and all it
contains, the more I am awed by the One who created
it and holds it together!

"God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), and "By him all things
consist" (Colossians 1:17); "In him we live, and
move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28). This means
that God's Spirit is the power behind the continued
existence of all matter and energy. Spirit is then
the Grand Unifying Theory of all physics.

If E=MC2 (superscript 2), could then S=EC2
(superscript 2); that is, could spirit have the same
relation to energy as energy has to matter?

In the future, could science in some way "discover"
spirit to be the most basic force of the universe,
only to then fall under the spell of the coming
deceptions of evil spirits?

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the
latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving
heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils"
(1 Timothy 4:1).

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed... Even him,
whose coming is after the working of Satan with all
power and signs and lying wonders"
(2 Thessalonians 2:8-9).

Could Satan and the Antichrist portray their
miraculous spiritual powers as "scientific proof"
that they are the real God, convincing the whole
world to worship them?

"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto
the beast: and they worshipped the beast"
(Revelation 13:4).

 

[Key]

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, as in the "Theory Of Evolution" is just that, it is a Theory, and given that we are discovering new things all the time, and learning what we thought was correct was wrong as a constant mutable factor, it is "Just a theory" it is not a Fact.

However, Adaptation is as close to a fact as biology can get, but is not Evolution, as something can evolve and not adapt, and something can adapt and not evolve.

So in that sense, I would say that Christians that use these terms do have a very strong grasp on what Science is, and what Evolution is, as such, if this bothers you, I can not for the life of me, see why. It is proper application of the tools that are open to us.

God Bless

Key

 

[B3li3v3r4ChRiSt]

I always kind of believed both.

I don't really know, to be honest.

x

 

[ContentInHim]

KJV has birds. This more an example of bad translation then anything else but it is still not scientifically valid in the NIV.



ToE is a theory which means that it fits facts. So in order to disbelieve ToE you have to either disbelieve those facts or have Creation fit those facts. So do you believe Creation fit's the facts or that the facts are wrong?

Well, if you want to make this a debate, I'll answer this but then the thread will be moved.

I have problems with the KJV, personally, except for all the Psalms I memorized as a child. They sound funny in other translations.

 

[dvd_holc]

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 is a theory which some people have faith in. And I have a B.S.M.E, Mech. Engineer. Science is trying to explain God's created order. Scientist get things wrong, also. Scientist aren't the monoply on rational thought. Also, there has been experiments that have proven that wave (sound) passing into a matter in a form of a liquid has produced a field (light).

 

[Buttermilk]

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?

Theistic Evolutionist with an honours degree in bioscience here

If you want to know more feel free to PM me

 

[DarkProphet]

Theistic Evolutionist with an honours degree in bioscience here

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.

 

[ashbei0972]

I am majoring in biology. So I have had to deal with this myself.
Science expleains nature and God's domain is the spiritual world which we cannot explore with the tools and methods of science. It has to be examined with your heart and soul.
I think these perspectives can exist in one person so that they enrich your experience. Sure, science explains the natural world. But, it does nothing in the face of questions like "Why are we here?" "What comes after death?" and "Why was the universe set into motion?"
Also, I would like to point out that evolution can easily be considered a tool of God. It doesn't have to be the enemy of religion, it just gives us a glimpse of how God works.

I recommend "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins for more on this very subject.

Also a sidenote: "Theory" colloquially means an idea or a on the spot explanation. But, in the scientific world, it means a well proved and well tested hypothesis. This is the basis for much argument between the scientific and religious community.
God Bless!