is creation outside of science's scope?

[gluadys]

Arguably, it is preferable to do science that way. But, let's understand that we are taking the most truthful, powerful, important and impactful thing there is and presuming to read it out of the equation and calling it taboo for this method of searching out the truth. Does any one else see the humor in that? (Even looking at the more overtly agnostic scientists, shouldn't there at least be the possibility of a God-variable that throws off every calculation?)

That being said, why is it that scientists get so bent out of shape when you suggest that they are headed away from the truth? No one is proposing an inquisition here, but just recognition of a huge variable (actually "cipher" is probably a better term) and some evidence that the "Cipher" has spoken to the issue.

The problem is that God is not a scientific variable, much less a huge variable. God can only be a variable if God is sometimes present and sometimes absent. And God can only be studied as a variable if the scientist has some sort of control over when God is present and when God is absent. Failing that, God would have to provide the scientist with some sort of clear indication of when God is influencing the experiment and when he is not.

The scientific indications are that if God is a sometimes visitor to the realm of scientific investigation, he does not choose to let us know when he is there and when he is not. So we are forced to conduct science on the premise that God is always present or never present. Either way, God is not a scientific variable.

 

[gluadys]

so you are saying that science is greater than God's word? so you are saying that science is greater than God? that is heretical.

No, we are saying that human understanding is limited and fallible and sometimes needs to be corrected by science. Our understanding and capacity to interpret correctly is just as limited and prone to error when we are studying scripture as when we are studying literature or mathematics.

What is heretical about acknowledging human imperfection? What is heretical about acknowledging that human imperfection applies to human study of scripture as much as to any other study?

 

[laptoppop]

No, we are saying that human understanding is limited and fallible and sometimes needs to be corrected by science. Our understanding and capacity to interpret correctly is just as limited and prone to error when we are studying scripture as when we are studying literature or mathematics.

What is heretical about acknowledging human imperfection? What is heretical about acknowledging that human imperfection applies to human study of scripture as much as to any other study?

The problem is in your phrase "corrected by science" -- this sets up some sort of generic "science" as ultimate authority -- even over the revelation of an omnipotent God.

"Science" has its place -- its usefulness. But it is NOT the ultimate authority. -and- Truth is not determined by popularity or consensus -- even if a view is widely accepted in the scientific community.

When our understanding of Scripture disagrees with our understanding of nature, BOTH should be checked. If there are multiple explanations for the actual physical evidence, such as the geologic strata, then we should prefer the explanation that agrees with the revelation of a loving God.

 

[gluadys]

The problem is in your phrase "corrected by science" -- this sets up some sort of generic "science" as ultimate authority -- even over the revelation of an omnipotent God.

I think you are reading more into what I say than is intended. As you say, science has its usefulness. Sometimes it is useful as a corrective of human error. What makes that a claim that science is being given the status of an ultimate authority? You are objecting to words you have put in my mouth, not to what I actually said.

If there are multiple explanations for the actual physical evidence, such as the geologic strata, then we should prefer the explanation that agrees with the revelation of a loving God.

Of course, the point you are avoiding is whether or not there really are multiple explanations for the geologic evidence. I know it is your opinion that multiple explanations exist. But you are also aware that most geologists, including Christian geologists, do not agree with that opinion. Most would say there is no more basis for entertaining "flood geology" interpretations of the geologic strata than for entertaining Ptolemaic interpretations of celestial motion.

If I am convinced that your alternative explanation of geology is viable, I will consider revising my interpretation of scripture. Will you consider revising your interpretation of scripture if convinced that your preferred interpretation of geological evidence is erroneous? Or would you still insist that your understanding of scripture has greater validity than your understanding of science?

 

[laptoppop]

I think you are reading more into what I say than is intended. As you say, science has its usefulness. Sometimes it is useful as a corrective of human error. What makes that a claim that science is being given the status of an ultimate authority? You are objecting to words you have put in my mouth, not to what I actually said.

Perhaps I am. It is a concern I have from various posts over a long period of time -- that "science" is thought of as a superior source for truth. I think we need to be very aware of the presuppositions and limits of our methodologies.

 

[archaeologist]

No, we are saying that human understanding is limited and fallible and sometimes needs to be corrected by science.

i read the same thing here as laptop. this says on science and scientists have the capibility to understand the world. this would be news to God who did not use one scientist to write a book of the Bible.

my initial response would be--- and scientists are ot human thus they have no fallibility or limitedness? i am sorry but science is run by secular humans who are influenced greatly by the evil one AND you want to turn God's word over to a field like that?

Sometimes it is useful as a corrective of human error

so now you are saying that science is like God--without error? sorry but science has o ight to nor authority to be seen as the go to field for all understanding. that is something God reserved for Himself, science in its present form can't even determine what happened yesterday, and you want to trust a field that is incapable of omnipresence?

 

[Digit]

I don't think it is outside science, it is however quite a complex issue. If we could draw a definite link that would affirm Creationism, then we would know the Biblical account is historical and thus know about creation via that. However until non-Creationists view Creationist scientists as using the very same science they use, that may be a pipe-dream. It's hard to affirm a view of origins when people dispute the very nature of the methods you use to validate it, despite them being identical, if not basing many of your theories off of common methods and evidence.

If we do not have a historical account of creation, then that's another matter entirely, as you rightly point out, we cannot go back to that moment in time. However by and large, the human race I feel has only touched the tip of the iceberg in terms of our intellect. Consider we haven't even fully explored our planet, let alone the rest of the planets in our system, not to mention this galaxy and beyond, I feel there may be many more answers out there and things we haven't even imagined yet.

Cheers!

Digit

 

[archaeologist]

[QUOTEI don't think it is outside science, it is however quite a complex issue][/QUOTE]

think about it. the book 'Origins: 14 Billion years of history' repeatedly states that scientists cannot find the answers to the many questions they are investigating. (i am too tired to search for specifics tonight--sorry)

time and time again, all we hear is 'we don't know...'; 'we think...' and so on. if creation wasn't outside the scope of science, you would hear more definitive answers and fewer questions.

remember science was created after the heavens and the earth, it is a creation and subject to the fall of man just like everything else.

one of the weaknesses in science's arguments is that they assume time started at the moment of creation, the big bang and so on. yet if you look at the Biblical account, you will see that time was created AFTER gen. 1:1.

that fact alone distorts and undermines any time frame science can propose

However by and large, the human race I feel has only touched the tip of the iceberg in terms of our intellect.

i can agree with this but the point i am trying to make is that believers in Jesus Christ need to be able to discern what is of God and what isn't, even inthe field of science and thenshun that which is not of God.

adopting the evolutionary theory or the big bang concept is adopting a human construct , which is not ordained by God but by those who do not believe in Him. to allow suchthinking into one's belief structure just gives anopen door for the evil one to get in and work his deceptions.

one cannot assume that science is exempt from the fall of man and is unaffected by adam and eve's sin. it isn't thus one cannot look to science to provide anything if they are using secular means, thinking, methods and so on.

one cannot say they follow God then turn to that which is not of God no matter how hard they justify it.

 

[Digit]

i can agree with this but the point i am trying to make is that believers in Jesus Christ need to be able to discern what is of God and what isn't, even inthe field of science and thenshun that which is not of God.

adopting the evolutionary theory or the big bang concept is adopting a human construct , which is not ordained by God but by those who do not believe in Him. to allow suchthinking into one's belief structure just gives anopen door for the evil one to get in and work his deceptions.

one cannot assume that science is exempt from the fall of man and is unaffected by adam and eve's sin. it isn't thus one cannot look to science to provide anything if they are using secular means, thinking, methods and so on.

one cannot say they follow God then turn to that which is not of God no matter how hard they justify it.

Ding! We have a winner. I agree completely.

Digit

 

[Citanul]

one of the weaknesses in science's arguments is that they assume time started at the moment of creation, the big bang and so on. yet if you look at the Biblical account, you will see that time was created AFTER gen. 1:1.

Regardless of your views on creation, time had to have begun at the moment of creation. There's no way you can say that time began after the universe was created as the word "after" only has meaning if time already existed.

 

[archaeologist]

Regardless of your views on creation, time had to have begun at the moment of creation. There's no way you can say that time began after the universe was created as the word "after" only has meaning if time already existed.

please explain how you come to this thought, as i try to use sources in my posts i would prefer to see some credible sources and links to back yourself up.

of course you have to be specific for we are talking about human time as all science is conducted in that frame of reference. thenyou have to determine where time is tied to. the heavens and earth or light and darkness? normally, it is tied to light and darkness. but let's see what you have to say.

 

[busterdog]

The problem is that God is not a scientific variable, much less a huge variable. God can only be a variable if God is sometimes present and sometimes absent. And God can only be studied as a variable if the scientist has some sort of control over when God is present and when God is absent. Failing that, God would have to provide the scientist with some sort of clear indication of when God is influencing the experiment and when he is not.

The scientific indications are that if God is a sometimes visitor to the realm of scientific investigation, he does not choose to let us know when he is there and when he is not. So we are forced to conduct science on the premise that God is always present or never present. Either way, God is not a scientific variable.

God's active intervention is sometimes present and sometimes absent at different levels. We can beg the question of where and how, but God's intervention is not a "steady state."

Does God have to provide anything to the scientist? Well, as James wrote, "You have not because you ask not." With my kids, if, for example, I want their rooms clean, I may get all sorts of reasons why they can't clean there rooms. I insist that before we get to such matters, that we establish that we at least want a clean room, if only to be obedient. Funny how everything changes when you actually want something and ask for it. For some Christian scientists, this is not an issue. But for many, it is pointless to raise the issue of how God communicates and whether He can be involved in science, since so few even desire that He be present and even fewer ask.

So, the question of desire remains for all of us in all of our professional undertakings, regardless of how practical it would appear to us. If we don't desire Him to be in what we are doing, it will indeed appear less and less practical.

Need that be a public issue? Well, that does raise problems of practicality. But, that doesn't change what the truth is and how you pursue it. I am not counseling anyone to endure feelings of embarassment gratuitously. If indeed you desire to make the acknowledgement, I am sure God will make the way for it to be done appropriately, with time.

But, practicality is only part of God's mercy for us. It is not a subject where the truth itself is changed. So, the question of what God is supposed to do for scientists is quite beside the ultimate point of inquiring after the truth.

One public issue is, for example, intelligent design. The manifest goal of most of science is to exclude ID, which to me is just about the lowest common denominator approach to religion in science. They really ask very little. But, most scientists just want them out. They don't want to help them along with "better" science, they don't want to reach an understanding -- they want them out. Apparently this is because particular ID scientists demonstrate bad science in the opinon of many. Never mind that their goals might be agreeable to many, such as those here. They want God unacknowledged.

If there were a desire to incorporate God into science as cipher, or variable, I also think YECs would be given the benefit of the doubt more frequently. Words like "scorn" for the YEC study of "kinds" would disappear.

 

[crawfish]

The problem is in your phrase "corrected by science" -- this sets up some sort of generic "science" as ultimate authority -- even over the revelation of an omnipotent God.

"Science" has its place -- its usefulness. But it is NOT the ultimate authority. -and- Truth is not determined by popularity or consensus -- even if a view is widely accepted in the scientific community.

When our understanding of Scripture disagrees with our understanding of nature, BOTH should be checked. If there are multiple explanations for the actual physical evidence, such as the geologic strata, then we should prefer the explanation that agrees with the revelation of a loving God.

Science is just a process for arriving at the truth. Theories are just a way to assemble the evidence (facts) into a coherent whole. It is NOT an authority in and of itself - however, when we discover that things are NOT as our interpretation of the bible says they are, then the only result is the question our interpretation of the bible. Perhaps, just perhaps, God isn't saying what we think He is. For instance, there is ample - ample- evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. To accept what seems to be the "simple truth of the bible" flies in the face of mounds and mounds and mounds of evidence - we must either dismiss the bible entirely as a falsehood, or figure out if that is REALLY what God meant. I'm going with the latter.

Is the bible the ultimate authority on writing C++ code? On skyscraper construction? On electrical circuits? No, I think we'd all admit it isn't. It is the ultimate authority on things spiritual, on our salvation, on the nature and purpose of our God. To use it in a way for which it wasn't intended is to misuse it.

 

[crawfish]

i can agree with this but the point i am trying to make is that believers in Jesus Christ need to be able to discern what is of God and what isn't, even inthe field of science and thenshun that which is not of God.

adopting the evolutionary theory or the big bang concept is adopting a human construct , which is not ordained by God but by those who do not believe in Him. to allow suchthinking into one's belief structure just gives anopen door for the evil one to get in and work his deceptions.

one cannot assume that science is exempt from the fall of man and is unaffected by adam and eve's sin. it isn't thus one cannot look to science to provide anything if they are using secular means, thinking, methods and so on.

one cannot say they follow God then turn to that which is not of God no matter how hard they justify it.

Satan attacks us in many ways, and the focus on this issue is one of His more clever plans. He knows he can discredit us by having such focus put on the literal words of Genesis, so that the underlying spiritual meaning is lost or lessened. He attacks our credibility by making us cling to our mistaken beliefs despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

You and the other creationists may be tired of the whole flat-earth/geocentricism arguments, but the truth is the people who held onto those beliefs were pure and concerned with keeping the "simple truth of the bible", the very same as you. As it turns out, it has not affected our faith on whit that they were wrong; none of us have a problem with a spherical earth or the fact we're just an insignificant dot in the context of the known universe.

The more I think of it, perhaps there is a place for both creationists and TE's. You are concerned with the faith of now; we are concerned with the faith of the future. Someday, your belief will have to change as evidence mounts to even greater levels, and I suppose we are laying the foundation for that change. God is a complex God, and I do believe He has a purpose for all of us.

 

[Citanul]

of course you have to be specific for we are talking about human time as all science is conducted in that frame of reference. thenyou have to determine where time is tied to. the heavens and earth or light and darkness? normally, it is tied to light and darkness. but let's see what you have to say.

I have no idea what you mean by saying that time "is tied to light and darkness".

I'm talking about time as in that thing which is part of the structure of the universe. To say that anything happened before time began (which is what you appear to be saying) is meaningless, just light it's meaningless to talk about anything being north of the North Pole.

 

[Digit]

Science is just a process for arriving at the truth. Theories are just a way to assemble the evidence (facts) into a coherent whole. It is NOT an authority in and of itself - however, when we discover that things are NOT as our interpretation of the bible says they are, then the only result is the question our interpretation of the bible.

Hello Crawfish,

May I ask why? Why is that the only path open to us? Why is the default option to question the Word of God, rather than our fallable understanding and interpretation of the evidence in nature as we find it? Why when there are possibilities outside of those presented to us by secular science, should we not consider them, but instead suddenly do a 180 on scripture and decide the creation account was an illustrative story.

This wasn't an issue when evolution was not so prominent or widely adopted, no one thought it was an illustrative story then, yet now that we have widespread acceptance of evolution, suddenly there is all this evidence that the creation account is, of course, an illustrative story, not historic.

I absolutely and comprehensively cannot shake the feeling that something about that simply does not add up.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Digit]

I have no idea what you mean by saying that time "is tied to light and darkness".

I'm talking about time as in that thing which is part of the structure of the universe. To say that anything happened before time began (which is what you appear to be saying) is meaningless, just light it's meaningless to talk about anything being north of the North Pole.

He is talking about the first day.

Genesis
"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

I am still out as to whether this truly indicates the creation of time, however I can see why it would and also my mind has issues grappling with a universe without time, I can't seem to bend around to it.

Digit

 

[crawfish]

Hello Crawfish,

May I ask why? Why is that the only path open to us? Why is the default option to question the Word of God, rather than our fallable understanding and interpretation of the evidence in nature as we find it? Why when there are possibilities outside of those presented to us by secular science, should we not consider them, but instead suddenly do a 180 on scripture and decide the creation account was an illustrative story.

This wasn't an issue when evolution was not so prominent or widely adopted, no one thought it was an illustrative story then, yet now that we have widespread acceptance of evolution, suddenly there is all this evidence that the creation account is, of course, an illustrative story, not historic.

I absolutely and comprehensively cannot shake the feeling that something about that simply does not add up.

Cheers,
Digit

I understand that this is an uncomfortable concept. We want to believe that we have full access to to totality of truth in scripture; we want to believe that our understanding of scripture will stay constant over the years, that we have a full measure of what it means.

Unfortunately, history has proven that wrong. Science has forced us to rethink our understanding of certain scripture from that standpoint, at least. For example, there is no longer any argument over whether Job referred to literal "four corners of the earth" - we know that the meaning cannot be a flat earth. I'm sure there was a time when people read that and just assumed, as the secular world around them assumed, that the earth was flat and the meaning was obvious.

I'm not saying we abandon the bible's "obvious view" entirely when science speculates something. I do believe, though, that when evidence mounts that some fact of existence we've assumed by reading the bible turns out to be contrary to reality, we should definitely consider that our understanding of scripture might be wrong. When I look at the facts that show that the universe cannot possibly be 6,000 years old, I find I must reject the YEC belief. When I read the evidence on the order things happened according to science, it makes it impossible to accept the biblical order as literal.

I would prefer to pull ALL scientific speculation from the bible; instead, let science discover on its own. It will correct itself if wrong; and since God created it all, it cannot POSSIBLY lead down any path but God. That will prevent such arguments from affecting our faith in the future.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm sorry if my came across as condescending. It was unintentional.

if i had a choice, i would look for a church that followed God's direction which would include that women be silent in the church.

It's nice to see that you are consistent on this point. What about head coverings?

when it comes to a topic of culture and that culture dictates what the rule is then we have lifted up that culture's dictates above the word of God.

It seems to me to be fundamentally flawed to ignore the cultural context in which anything was written -- including the Bible.

It is perfectly reasonable that if in addressing that context we discover that the specifics are simply inapplicable and hence proceed to generalize to an overarching truth and dispense with the specifics.

I don't think it is quite correct to say that TE or any other theological perspective is giving culture sway over God.

Physical reality is God's truth about physical reality. Any interpretation of scripture that contradicts God's revelation in nature is suspect. This isn't a cultural issue, it's a epistemological issue.

if God is God and His word is His word, then His directives do not change because culture changes.

I disagree. It seems that Jesus did just that.

some peopl ewould be shafted if it did change.

Argument from consequence. Irrelevant.

God's word is the what we are to follow not the dictates of culture or science or archaeology.

Science and archaeology do not dictate, prescribe, or proscribe ... they describe.

Again, it is epistemology not culture.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would not even agree with that statement.

That's fine. But I'm happier with the clarification.

I would say that the revelation of an infinite, all-knowing God should be trusted on whatever He chooses to reveal.

Nature is God's revelation of physical reality.

In terms of how scientists should incorporate Truth and reality into their investigations --

1) Be aware of the limits of the scientific method. Specifically, be cautious of conclusions as opposed to the evidence itself. Do not look for "science" to reveal ultimate Truth.

2) If the results of scientific investigation conflict with your interpretation of scripture -- analyze BOTH very carefully.

3) If there are two ways to interpret evidence (such as the geologic strata), choose the method more consistent with Scripture - even if it may be less probable.

I have no problem with these statements. Not a single TE would have a problem with them -- at face value.

But, the problem comes when our YEC brethren insist that by accepting TE that we've ignored all of the above.

Over and over again, YECs insist that we remove God from our assumptions. AND, I would submit, that your above statements are not what those accusations are getting at.

Or, do you think that we TEs don't do the above? (Stating that because we disagree with you, we must not won't cut it. )