is creation outside of science's scope?

[archaeologist]

i do not know if this has been talked about yet but over the years and after many discussions with non-believers, and progressive creationists i have been led to believe that creation is not a scientific issue as it remains outside of science's reach.

it is surely a theological one but not a scientific one because if one looks at the creative act, one would see that God did it in a fashion that leaves no doubt, who is God.

it was not done via the scientific rules or laws as all such items were created at that point in time as well. God was not subject to such laws but created them to make the world and the universe work as he wanted them.

according to the article--Big Bang Theory---from MSN Encarta we find the following:

"because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. there isno way at present to detect the origin of the universe. further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang."

such a statement adds fuel to the thinking i propose. science is very limited and for the most part follows secular thinking and constructs which have no foundation in God, in fact science is structured to omit God, which then puts restrictions on the kind of evidence that can be considered when investigating this issue.

is creation outside the reach of science? if it follows secular ways and thinking then the obvious answer is ---yes.

 

[jive4005]

In my 57 years, I have never seen science and God at odds. The God I serve and know is ALL capable. He can do (and does do) all He sees fit. If He wants to do anything in His own particular way... I say YES!

I've been interested in science for a long time. I follow scientific news and love astronomy and geology. I have seen and handled fossils. I have looked at the heavens thru very high powered equipment.

I see nothing in the Bible that keeps me from believing in God our His power. I note that God is very methodical. I see that in the universe.

Bottom line... it all works for me! No conflict.

His,
Rev J

 

[busterdog]

In my 57 years, I have never seen science and God at odds. The God I serve and know is ALL capable. He can do (and does do) all He sees fit. If He wants to do anything in His own particular way... I say YES!

I've been interested in science for a long time. I follow scientific news and love astronomy and geology. I have seen and handled fossils. I have looked at the heavens thru very high powered equipment.

I see nothing in the Bible that keeps me from believing in God our His power. I note that God is very methodical. I see that in the universe.

Bottom line... it all works for me! No conflict.

His,
Rev J

If science says there is a position beyond which it cannot inquire, which is pointed out in the OP, then they are not at odds in that respect.

And when that boundary at a point in time is admitted, how is it so clear that everything after that point remains unaffected by the the same fundmental mystery? It is the fundamental assumption that the boundary is clear that put science and theology at odds.

Perhaps the OP had in mind a question about how neatly that boundary can be defined. However, his point was still an excellent one.

"A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange evelopment, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created
heaven and earth... Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Jastrow R., "God and the Astronomers", 1992, pp106-107).

 

[gluadys]

it is surely a theological one but not a scientific one because if one looks at the creative act, one would see that God did it in a fashion that leaves no doubt, who is God.

I don't know that this is true. In any case, there will be dispute as to whether it is true. The apostle Paul tells us that those who disbelieve God are left without excuse because creation itself testifies to the reality, power and glory of God. Yet it is certainly true that people can persuade themselves to keep their eyes closed and their ears shut to this testimony.

Also, I don't know that we can assume that the fashion in which God created would leave no doubt that the universe was created. The world looks as it looks and it looks pretty natural. For some people this implies no divine intervention. I find that illogical. Why wouldn't God make nature look natural? If one demands a sign that goes beyond what we conceive as natural, God is not obliged to provide it. Is the universe itself not sign enough?

such a statement adds fuel to the thinking i propose. science is very limited and for the most part follows secular thinking and constructs which have no foundation in God, in fact science is structured to omit God, which then puts restrictions on the kind of evidence that can be considered when investigating this issue.

I wouldn't say science is structured to omit God. Rather science is constructed to study creation, but is incapable of studying the Creator. So there are limits on what science can study, but it does no service to speak of those limits as if they were biased toward atheism. Whether it is acknowledged or not, modern science actually has deep roots in a Christian world-view.

is creation outside the reach of science? if it follows secular ways and thinking then the obvious answer is ---yes.

Creation, as an existing, physical reality, is precisely what science studies. But that it owes its origin to a Creator is a different question. And that is beyond science to determine.

Some things can only be truly known spiritually and not proven by reason or science. This was known long before the modern era. When Thomas Aquinas wrote his masterful summation bringing the thought of Aristotle in line with Christian theology, he was aware that Aristotle treated the universe as an eternal reality. Clearly this was not in line with the Christian doctrine of creation. But Aquinas could find no basis in human logic that proved the universe was not eternal. He concluded that this shows a limitation on human reason, and that we can only affirm creation by faith in revelation.

Even today, when we have discovered the origin of the universe in the Big Bang, we cannot by science or reason, show that the universe was created. The limits of our finite reason and our powers to investigate the conditions in which the Big Bang occurred mean we cannot show whether the Big Bang was God's creatio ex nihilo or the natural consequence of some earlier physical reality.

So as Christians we are still thrown back on faith in the truth of divine revelation when we affirm "I believe in one God Almighty, creator of heaven and earth and of all things seen and unseen."

Science has no power to contradict that truth, but no power to affirm it either.

 

[shernren]

according to the article--Big Bang Theory---from MSN Encarta we find the following:

"because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. there isno way at present to detect the origin of the universe. further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang."

such a statement adds fuel to the thinking i propose. science is very limited and for the most part follows secular thinking and constructs which have no foundation in God, in fact science is structured to omit God, which then puts restrictions on the kind of evidence that can be considered when investigating this issue.

is creation outside the reach of science? if it follows secular ways and thinking then the obvious answer is ---yes.

Having said that, my pragmatic point of view is this: Scientists have already looked back 13.7 billion years. Even if they can't look into the crucial few seconds before those years, that's still many, many orders of magnitude too long for the YECs.

 

[crawfish]

I really don't know about that. I've got reservations next week at the "Big Bang Burger Bar"...

 

[mark kennedy]

i do not know if this has been talked about yet but over the years and after many discussions with non-believers, and progressive creationists i have been led to believe that creation is not a scientific issue as it remains outside of science's reach.

it is surely a theological one but not a scientific one because if one looks at the creative act, one would see that God did it in a fashion that leaves no doubt, who is God.

it was not done via the scientific rules or laws as all such items were created at that point in time as well. God was not subject to such laws but created them to make the world and the universe work as he wanted them.

according to the article--Big Bang Theory---from MSN Encarta we find the following:

"because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. there isno way at present to detect the origin of the universe. further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang."

such a statement adds fuel to the thinking i propose. science is very limited and for the most part follows secular thinking and constructs which have no foundation in God, in fact science is structured to omit God, which then puts restrictions on the kind of evidence that can be considered when investigating this issue.

is creation outside the reach of science? if it follows secular ways and thinking then the obvious answer is ---yes.

It depends on what you mean by science, theology is a science just not one limited to naturalistic explanations the way modern science is. However, in answer to your question, I would say absolutely. Creation is not only beyond the reach of science, science as it is understood in modern times is an inferior way of discovering our true history.

Don't get me wrong, science has powerful tools both mental and physical that do great good. They have no telescopes that can detect our origins, they are doing good to find an occasional artifact or written record.

The sacred truth of creation is beyond the reach of these utilitarian devices and the vain false assumptions of modern secularists. Science is subordinate to God's revelation as an epistemological primary source. The problem is that like most human institutions and indeed the entire creation, it has been subjected to vanity.

To put it plainly:

"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." (Romans 8:23:25)​

Creation is not just beyond science, it is above it. Science walks by sight but we walk by faith in the one who loved us and gave himself for us.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[archaeologist]

a lot to talk about. let's start at the top--

In my 57 years, I have never seen science and God at odds

are you talking about where science has proven the word of God or are you excluding such things as evolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism and so on? do you hold to an O.E.C. position or a Y.E.C one?

i think you need to be more specific as to what you are referring to as as those that hold to such thinking will tell you science and the Bible do disagree.

Perhaps the OP had in mind a question about how neatly that boundary can be defined. However, his point was still an excellent one

sorry, that is a good point but i was thinking more along the lines of secular thought and how it is not in line with God thus it conjures up many alternatives to the Biblical record.

science is limited because it sticks to a natural explanation yet creation was not natural which would automatically put it outside of science's reach. how can the fallible determine how God created and how can it observe the creation act? it is done and over with andthere is nothing that can be done to recapture that time frame so it can be studied.

The apostle Paul tells us that those who disbelieve God are left without excuse because creation itself testifies to the reality, power and glory of God.

right but we do not need science to see that, just our eyes. the other week i was at a zoo in Seoul and one could just see through the variety of birds and animals what God did. we do not need science to explain anything to us, God made it quite simple.

also such thinking reminds me of how the r.c.c. used to hold to latin only when it came to their masses. kind of like a control problem --science is the only way tokow God and that is just not true.

I don't know that we can assume that the fashion in which God created would leave no doubt that the universe was created

God has done this throughout the Old Testament . he doesn't share the credit nor the glory nor does he do things which leaves room for doubt who did it. i.e. gideon and his 300 soldiers.

I wouldn't say science is structured to omit God

there is a good book by dr. del ratzsch called ' the battle of beginnings' within its pages he lists many, many definitions and opinions of secular sciencists and organizations--i will list just 2:

pg.162-- "...a major driving force underlying each is a conviction that proper science can make no reference to, no appeal to or no explanatory use of anything beyond the purely natural. The supernatural, the miraculous, is strictly out of bounds in science.'

pg.163--"...the NCSE says that 'by the very definition of science of science [scientists] cannot offer God's interventionas the cause for whatever they seek to explain. In addition, science ias practiced in modern times is neccessarily naturalistic...explanations founded on miracles cannot be allowed."

read the book it is quite good. God is not allowed in science especiallyif one wants to get money or credibility.

is precisely what science studies

secular thought is not what God wants His people to follow. the question or questions you must ask yourself-- 1. How do you know science got it right?

2.how do you know that a limited field such as science, vulnerable to all the wiles and corruption of the evil one is going in the right direction?

Scientists have already looked back 13.7 billion years.

please expand this and demonstrate how they came to this ability. we cannot even see into yesterday how can scientists think they can look back billions of years? considering that human time was created after the heavens and the earth.

I really don't know about that. I've got reservations next week at the "Big Bang Burger Bar"...

this is just uncalled for ,off topic and an attempt to derail a good discussion.

 

[Assyrian]

Why both using the word 'science' to describe theology if you don't mean a science like modern science? The alternative is a medieval science like astrology and alchemy and I know you don't like theology being lumped in with them. But the only time theology was called a science was back when alchemy and astrology were sciences too.

They have no telescopes that can detect our origins

Actually they do use telescopes to look at the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[archaeologist]

another question one needs to ask: should christians practice science like the secular scientist? or should they heed to what God says and follow those directives instead?

 

[Tinker Grey]

How do you distinguish those two things? How does one practice science like a secular scientist? How does doing so consitute an "instead of heeding God"?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

hmm

 

[gluadys]

right but we do not need science to see that, just our eyes. the other week i was at a zoo in Seoul and one could just see through the variety of birds and animals what God did. we do not need science to explain anything to us, God made it quite simple.

Well that is going a bit far. We don't need science to explain salvation to us. but science is very useful for explaining how to find oil, how to navigate by the stars and how to protect yourself against infectious diseases. As well as a host of other matters of greater and less importance that we didn't learn directly from God but had to figure out for ourselves.

also such thinking reminds me of how the r.c.c. used to hold to latin only when it came to their masses. kind of like a control problem --science is the only way tokow God and that is just not true.

Science is not a way to know God. It is very useful for learning about the created world, but not useful for learning about the Creator.

God has done this throughout the Old Testament . he doesn't share the credit nor the glory nor does he do things which leaves room for doubt who did it. i.e. gideon and his 300 soldiers.

Science, as far as I can see, is not concerned with assigning credit for natural wonders, but with understanding them. Understanding them doesn't take anything away from God's glory. In fact, it often makes us see even more clearly how amazing nature is--to the greater glory of God.

there is a good book by dr. del ratzsch called ' the battle of beginnings' within its pages he lists many, many definitions and opinions of secular sciencists and organizations--i will list just 2:

pg.162-- "...a major driving force underlying each is a conviction that proper science can make no reference to, no appeal to or no explanatory use of anything beyond the purely natural. The supernatural, the miraculous, is strictly out of bounds in science.'

pg.163--"...the NCSE says that 'by the very definition of science of science [scientists] cannot offer God's interventionas the cause for whatever they seek to explain. In addition, science ias practiced in modern times is neccessarily naturalistic...explanations founded on miracles cannot be allowed."

read the book it is quite good. God is not allowed in science especiallyif one wants to get money or credibility.

I have no problem with the definitions. Science studies nature and natural processes and nothing else.

What I have a problem with is defining that as "omitting God" or "not allowing God in science".

Is God excluded from nature? How is the study of nature a study that omits God? How is the study of natural process a study that doesn't allow God? Where is God absent from nature?

secular thought is not what God wants His people to follow. the question or questions you must ask yourself-- 1. How do you know science got it right?

I can follow the evidence and see how scientific conclusions are logically derived from it. This is what I would expect in a world ordered by God.

2.how do you know that a limited field such as science, vulnerable to all the wiles and corruption of the evil one is going in the right direction?

All fields of human thought and endeavour are vulnerable in this way--theology and bible study too. How do you know the preaching you hear at any time is going in the right direction?

Science is no less, but also no more, vulnerable to corruption that any other human activity. It also has fairly good practices aimed at weeding out bias and error. Not perfect, but better than in many other fields.

please expand this and demonstrate how they came to this ability. we cannot even see into yesterday how can scientists think they can look back billions of years? considering that human time was created after the heavens and the earth.

Its not that difficult when you remember that God is upholding the order of the universe. That's a guarantee that nature is not playing tricks on us.

 

[archaeologist]

how to navigate by the stars

science didn't do that.

[QUOTEhow to protect yourself against infectious diseases][/QUOTE]

don't need science for this either. common sense will do a lot for a person.

As well as a host of other matters of greater and less importance that we didn't learn directly from God but had to figure out for ourselves.

so you are saying that science is the final authority for all of mankind to get the answers they need?

It is very useful for learning about the created world, but not useful for learning about the Creator.

sorry but if you are learning about the created world, you are learning about the creator

What I have a problem with is defining that as "omitting God" or "not allowing God in science".

you do not get it. if one attributes what we see to the big bang theory or to evolution, how is that including God? it isn't --neither are of God.

I can follow the evidence and see how scientific conclusions are logically derived from it. This is what I would expect in a world ordered by God.

i will ask these questions again: 1. how do you know that science got it right? 2. how do you know that science is true especially when it is a fallible area of study and people are deceived?

for the restof your post--you omit certian mitigating factors which affect this 'logic' and research. ryan and pittman found some great evidence inthier work inthe black sea but as they were going through the thinking process, they made a right turn and attributed what they found to 'the ice age' and not noah's flood.

how do you know there was an ice age? the Bible doesn't speak of one so how can you accept such an idea and attribute what God did to something that never existed?
you can't prove anice age nor can scientists, so how canyou trust what they are saying. scientists put one at millions of years ago, yet what they found may well be left over evidence for the flood.

how can you trust science when they do not include God or what he has done

read the book andyou will get a better picture of the field you seem to defend.

 

[Assyrian]

you do not get it. if one attributes what we see to the big bang theory or to evolution, how is that including God? it isn't --neither are of God.

I remember helping deliver a new calf on my brother in law's farm, messy, wonderful, really cool for a teenage boy. Is it wrong to attribute the calf to mammy and daddy cattle doing what they do best? Does a vet 'not allow God' when he describes the biology involved?

 

[gluadys]

science didn't do that.

Yes, actually it does. The science of astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. And you need to know astronomy to navigate. Especially south of the equator where you cannot see the North Star. The people of Tahiti and other Pacific Islands developed a very sophisticated astronomy to guide them across the ocean.

don't need science for this either. common sense will do a lot for a person.

Lots of things seem to be common sense after you learn about them. But even doctors did not have the common sense to wash their hands until late in the 19th century. And it took hard science to convince them it was necessary to prevent the spread of infection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

so you are saying that science is the final authority for all of mankind to get the answers they need?

Perhaps you should read that part of my post again where I said:

We don't need science to explain salvation to us.

and

Science is not a way to know God.

Does that sound like I think science is the final authority?

sorry but if you are learning about the created world, you are learning about the creator

So if I bring you a loaf of bread and have you do a chemical analysis of it, what can you tell me about the baker? If you eat it and find it tasty, what does that tell you about the baker?

you do not get it. if one attributes what we see to the big bang theory or to evolution, how is that including God? it isn't --neither are of God.

So if I attribute eggs to birds that excludes God? If I attribute a mud slide to heavy rain, that excludes God?

Just how does anything in nature--including the big bang and evolution--exclude God?

btw, did you know that the initial idea of the big bang came from a Christian and was resisted by atheistic scientists because it sounded too much like creation?

will ask these questions again: 1. how do you know that science got it right? 2. how do you know that science is true especially when it is a fallible area of study and people are deceived?

I am not going to bother typing in the same answers. The questions haven't changed and the answers are the same. See my previous post.

you know there was an ice age? the Bible doesn't speak of one so how can you accept such an idea and attribute what God did to something that never existed?

Did you know it was a creationist who fought tooth and nail against Darwinian evolution who proved that the ice age happened? His name was Louis Agassiz.

Many creationists hold that the flood brought on the ice age. One doesn't need to be an atheist to accept that an ice age happened. One doesn't even need to be an old-earther.

how can you trust science when they do not include God or what he has done

I haven't seen any evidence yet that science does not include God. I have only seen evidence that you exclude God from the nature he created. You think nature can exist without God. You think that whenever we find a natural, scientific explanation for something, we have booted God out of that part of the universe.

Science only seeks to find those natural causes. It doesn't claim that nature excludes God the way you do.

 

[crawfish]

don't need science for this either. common sense will do a lot for a person.

You realize, not all infectious diseases are spread by sexual activity and drug use. You catch most of 'em from simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

so you are saying that science is the final authority for all of mankind to get the answers they need?

No, that's not what we're saying. God offers spiritual salvation. Study of creation answers the whens and hows - only God can tell us the whys.

We're saying the bible and science offer TWO DIFFERENT sets of data. The bible is the ultimate authority on our spiritual life, and ultimately the most important of the two. It is NOT a science manual, nor is it a history text, and to use it as such belies its true purpose.

sorry but if you are learning about the created world, you are learning about the creator

No kidding. That's what we're saying. If you learn something about creation, you're learning something about God. If you learn something that seemingly conflicts with what the bible says, then it's possible you're reading something into God's word that He didn't intend.

you do not get it. if one attributes what we see to the big bang theory or to evolution, how is that including God? it isn't --neither are of God.

I think you're the one who doesn't get it. Big Bang and evolution are only tools; not a replacement for God, but a replacement for the method that Genesis literalists interpret as being the way things happened. We STILL believe that God is behind the processes, guiding them through supernatural means.

i will ask these questions again: 1. how do you know that science got it right? 2. how do you know that science is true especially when it is a fallible area of study and people are deceived?

The great thing about science is, it's self-correcting. If enough evidence contradicts a theory, then that theory WILL be dropped. No, we don't know that science has it right; what we do know is that the evidence already disproves a YEC viewpoint, even if it doesn't prove bb/evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since I believe God is behind the process, it really doesn't matter what the process is - I have no faith invested in bb or evolution, but no resistance to either as well.

People also get deceived by bad interpretations of bible scriptures. This doesn't invalidate theology, does it?

how can you trust science when they do not include God or what he has done

read the book andyou will get a better picture of the field you seem to defend.

God doesn't always work though "supernatural" - or unrepeatable, untestable - means. He often works through very natural means to cause things to happen. By putting God's supernatural power behind elements of creation, we AUTOMATICALLY eliminate those elements from consideration by study; and thus, if we're wrong, we end up not studying a natural law that might help us in some way.

Only by assuming God worked in "natural" means can we keep the purity of both science and religion complete in scientific study. If we believe God's supernatural power is ultimately behind it all, then what is "natural" and "supernatural" hardly matters anyway.

You wouldn't read the bible to learn about the migration patterns of ducks. You wouldn't read it to learn how to build an internal combustion engine. The bible is remarkably BAD at helping us with things it wasn't written for. I say, stick to the true purpose and you'll be enlightened. The rest is just fluff anyway.

 

[crawfish]

this is just uncalled for ,off topic and an attempt to derail a good discussion.

Hey, I'm just trying to lighten the mood. If you can't throw in an apt "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" reference every now and then...

 

[crawfish]

another question one needs to ask: should christians practice science like the secular scientist? or should they heed to what God says and follow those directives instead?

Now, this is quite an offensive leading question. Talk about derailing a discussion - saying, "if you don't believe the bible like I do then you're obviously not following God's instructions".

Bottom line is, we believe that you and your ilk are subverting the bible by reading things into it that it doesn't intend. You make something literal that should not be taken literally. It's a harmless subversion on the personal level - not affecting one's salvation one whit - but harmful on the cultural level where it's evident that many Christians are closing their eyes to reality in a desperate attempt to hold onto outdated interpretations of scripture.

So yes, we can practice "true religion" and "true science" at the same time, with no conflict, because we have faith that they cannot conflict with each other, and faith that God will grow our knowledge of the bible as we gain knowledge of science.

 

[archaeologist]

The science of astronomy is one of the oldest sciences

sailors probably were well ahead of astronomers and if the two ever met it would be a lucky meeting during the ancient world.

sailors knew long before astronomers did.

Does a vet 'not allow God' when he describes the biology involved?

ranchers and farmers were taking care 'of business' long before there were vets or science.

anyways--- people, especially christians, put too high a value on science as if it has some special mandate or magical power to discover some secret that we can already see or discover ourselves.

science does omit God, just check the definitions given by any secular scientist or scientific organization or even their attitudes. evolutionary scientists make life difficult for anyone who even considers a theological theory (this was done recently and i would have to dig the article up again).

yes there is a difference between secular science,methods, thinking, than the christian way. one leads to God while the other leads to alternatives, which are not of God.

then one must assess the situation when science says one thing and God says another. if one agrees with science (when it disagrees with the Bible) then they declare that God is a liar.

if one listens to secular science then they are listening a fallible field filled with bias, corruption, deceivement and so on and are ignoring God who is infallible, incorruptable and so on.

so if God says he did it in 6 24 hour days and science says, it took longer, who are you going to listen to?