How, if at all, should science relate with Christianity?: an open exploration thread

[juvenissun]

YECs and TEs are Christians,
Their faith is based upon the Bible, and
The debates among them are related to science and an interpretation of the bible.

We are debating about biblical interpretations. For instance, YECs interpret genesis literally - this contradicts the observed world.

So, are you still insisting that the Bible is not a book with important science messages? Are people debating about the significance of these science messages? You may use the word "interpretation" to dilute the sense of "science" a little bit. But you can not say that the science message in the Bible is not significant and some errors of it are not a problem. If not a problem, why then are people debating about it?

 

[theFijian]

So, are you still insisting that the Bible is not a book with important science messages? Are people debating about the significance of these science messages? You may use the word "interpretation" to dilute the sense of "science" a little bit. But you can not say that the science message in the Bible is not significant and some errors of it are not a problem. If not a problem, why then are people debating about it?

Sorry juvenissun but your logic is all over the place. Imagine that I hold an apple in my hand. You correctly claim it is an apple but I claim it is an orange and we have a disagreement. By your logic if there wasn't a disagreement between us that would prove that it was in fact an orange!

You (and Creationists in general) claim that there is science embedded in the Bible, TEs in general disagree (to put it all in black and white terms). Do you seriously think that because becasue the two sides disagree that in someway proves the Creationist argument?

The debate is precisely because TEs don't believe there is modern (and proto)science embedded in the Bible.

 

[Molal]

So, are you still insisting that the Bible is not a book with important science messages? Are people debating about the significance of these science messages? You may use the word "interpretation" to dilute the sense of "science" a little bit. But you can not say that the science message in the Bible is not significant and some errors of it are not a problem. If not a problem, why then are people debating about it?

I used the word interpretation in reference to the bible, not science.

I do not read the bible as a science book - I read for it's theological truths.

The debate, as I discussed, pivots on peoples biblical interpretation which intersects observed, empirical data. For example - young earth creationism. This is a biblical interpretation that intersects with science.

 

[Mallon]

This series of videos does an excellent job of explaning why the Bible is not an authority on science, and why all historical attempts to make it so have failed:

http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/does-science-contradict-the-bible/

As Christians, it's high time we learn from our past mistakes.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry juvenissun but your logic is all over the place. Imagine that I hold an apple in my hand. You correctly claim it is an apple but I claim it is an orange and we have a disagreement. By your logic if there wasn't a disagreement between us that would prove that it was in fact an orange!

You (and Creationists in general) claim that there is science embedded in the Bible, TEs in general disagree (to put it all in black and white terms). Do you seriously think that because becasue the two sides disagree that in someway proves the Creationist argument?

The debate is precisely because TEs don't believe there is modern (and proto)science embedded in the Bible.

This is your logic:

A,
Not A,
A or (Not A).

That is it.

While I am talking about B.

 

[theFijian]

This is your logic:

A,
Not A,
A or (Not A).

That is it.

While I am talking about B.

Sorry but that bears no relation to what I said, try again.