Is it pointless to try to mesh science with religion?

[matthewgar]

Now I think they can be combined, but something I keep seeing here is, the creationists argue for literal interpetation of the bible, us TE's argue for evolution and such meshing with the bible, atheists argue that the bible is complete bunk or mostly. But no one has ever been convinced to change their minds based on these arguments. No atheist or creationist becomes a TE based upon arguments of how well the bible does or doesn't mesh with science. Same with leaving Chrisitanity, or becoming a creationist.

In the end it boils down to religious only arguments or science. A creationist no matter how much we debate the idea of the bible being a interpetation won't ever be convinced, in the end it's wether they accept the information about evolution, or can put their beliefs aside for what science finds.

No AE or TE is ever convinced by the mental gymnastics done by creationists to make science fit their beliefs, it's religious or emotional things that change their mind, they are changed theologically, not scientificly, the change in science beliefs are later.

Anyone else find this? I mean has any of you that are creationists, did you ever become that because you knew evolution and such properly, and then someone made a bunch of arguments for the flood and fall of man and you were convinced? Or is it more likly that you were convinced of the fundementalist side of things, and the rest is just trying to mesh your beliefs, something that comes later.

I mean I don't see any atheist being convinced of the scientific arguments for creationists, or theistic evolution, it's the theological arguments, or something that changes in their lives that brings them to Christ, and again the rest is just ad hoc reasoning.

Same with a Atheist, the anthropic principle, the ogical arguments, creationism or Theistic evolution will never convince any atheist, it will again be something in their lives that changes their minds, and then they look for things to back it up.

And a creationist becomes a TE or a atheist, after they can't deny the science any more and accept it.

Bleah alot of rambling and long post, just wondering peoples thoughts, I mean it's good for convincing yourself, but going from atheist to creationist, it's theological information and stuff that changes someone, and from creationist to atheist it's science information that changes, and the trying to argue the both I don't think ever does anything directly.

 

[miamited]

Hi Matt,

No one, I don't think, is denying that science is a valid field of study. The argument, for me, is that there are certain places in which people use 'science' to argue answers that cannot be scientifically valid. First thing is miracles. The Scriptures state that our God is a God of miracles. The very definition of miracle is that it is an event that happens outside of the normal and natural causes of things. Therefore, by definition anything that God has done from the miracle of the creation to the miracle of Jesus' birth cannot, read this very carefully, CANNOT be explained by the scientific method. It is an impossibility by definition.

That science can prove that iron that oxidizes with oygen in the atmosphere creates rust, no problem. There are millions upon millions of things that science can 'prove'. However, by definition science cannot prove miracles. Now, I don't know about you, but when I read the opening verses of Genesis, I know that however God is doing it, the creation of all things in this realm is a miracle. Therefore, science cannot prove or substantiate what occurred. However, because we are a wicked people who seek some kind of answer to everything in the creation we are forced to 'make up' using 'verifiable' facts of the creation, how the creation came about. But wait, the 'coming about' of the creation was a miracle of God. It can't be scientifically proven.

I know that there are plenty of people on this site and in fellowships all across the globe that will deny what I have said. However, while our use of the word 'miracle' is today a little befuddled, after all, we call things that might have a chance in a million occurence a 'miracle', but this is not the true definition.

There's a story that my pastor told one Sunday of a young confederate soldier who was shot through the scrotum and the lead ball passed through his reproductive organs, picked up a few sperm and nearly instantly lodged in a young woman's womb who was down range of the soldier. The woman became pregnant and everyone called it a miracle. But it isn't really. Under the right conditions if a living sperm comes into contact with an egg in the ovum, then the chances are pretty good that the woman will become pregnant, after all, it happens hundreds, if not thousands of times every day around the globe.

That pregnancy, while it is certainly not a normal way for sperm to be introduced to an egg, was no miracle. A miracle was when Mary became pregnant with Jesus. No sexual union, no sperm and yet she was pregnant. Science can't explain such a thing, but if pressed to give an answer, then they will come up with some kind of story. This is exactly what mankind has chosen to do with the creation. It's a miracle. All of this creation was merely spoken into existence. No first cause of some black hole or super concentrated energy. God, the living God, merely spoke and said, "Let there be,..." and everything was made. Friend, there is no 'scientific' explanation for that.

But, just like Adam was formed as a fully grown male, if some forensic pathologist had studied him the day after God formed him he would concluded that he was maybe 25 or 30 years old. But the truth would have been that he didn't even exist 48 hours before. However, the forensic pathologist would have shown you pictures of his internal organs and all the measurements of his body and solidly convinced you and I that he was 25 or 30 years old.

This is exactly what is going on with the earth and the universe. The earth is made of matter and that matter is put together and 'built' in a way that our scientific analysis explains that it is billions of years old. Just as with Adam, Everything was made to work and however it needed to be made to work is how God made it. When we look at the earth and the universe we see various 'things' that in our limited understanding we have to explain as best we can. Just like the pathologist looking at Adam would have to explain a 6' male standing in front of him with a full head of hair and gangly arms and stout legs and all of his limited knowledge would absolutely bet the farm that he was at least 20 years old, but he hadn't even existed 48 hours ago.

Miracles are unexplainable events that occur outside of natural processes and so by definition we cannot explain the creation through natural processes.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[juvenissun]

Some are changing.
Ask yourself, if you do not know that anyone ever changes, why are you keep arguing here? I predict, like many others, you will leave this forum pretty soon.

 

[singpeace]

Science does mesh with creationism and even confirms scripture. The problem is that so few people; creationists and evolutionists know about this.

These are just a few of the hundreds of scientists that are also creationists or have converted to Christianity because they claim that science and especially recent scientific discoveries provide the best evidence for divine design by a deistic Creator.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist), Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy), John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA), Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist), Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics), Roger Penrose (mathematician and author), George Ellis (British astrophysicist), Tony Rothman (physicist), Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist), Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics), Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia), Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois), Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater), Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics).

 

[solarwave]

I think you are probably right. Since Genesis can be interpreted in many different ways showing that science and the Bible can go together might not be seen a convincing because of prior attachment to another interpretation and no reason to change from that.

For me I was convinced a for a while that there was no evidence for evolution, but then I realised I had more trust in scientists then to certain interpretations of the Bible. So that plus the undeniable evidence for an old universe made evolution make the most sense.

So you are saying to convince someone of TE you need to show the scientific evidence and to convince someone of YEC you need to make them feel emotionally attached to a literal understanding?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Depends on what you mean by "mesh." Coexist? Yes. They can coexist and compliment each other. When you "mesh," that is, put together, you get disastrous results like creationism. When science is guided by an agenda and an assumption that a certain hypothesis (special creation) is correct, it is no longer science. Rather, it has become pseudoscience.

Also, I have seen people change their minds based on argumentation here before. It usually doesn't happen overnight. But there are people who go from one position to the other. Generally it's from YECism to accepting evolution. A lot of times that is accompanied by atheism because those people are still hampered by the notion that a literal reading of the creation account is required for Christianity to be true.

 

[Papias]

These are just a few of the hundreds of scientists that are also creationists or have converted to Christianity because they claim that science and especially recent scientific discoveries provide the best evidence for divine design by a deistic Creator.

Sing, are you aware of the mishmash you posted? I mean, just looking over the list, I see some that are atheists, some that are theistic evolution supporters and reject creationism, and many that don't have degrees in biology (so why does their opinion of evolution matter?), and many that explicitly reject Christianity in favor of deistic God. I guess I'm not sure what the point of your list is.

I mean, did you understand your argument, or did you just copy your list from sites like this one (Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe), which has your same list nearly verbatim?

Lists like this sound like the silly lists of scientists that reject evolution that creationists put up. The fact that these lists show how woefully destitute their arguments are is shown by the fact that they are still only a percent or so of scientists, as shown by things like Project Steve. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

If you want to discuss the widely divergent views of those on your list, and their credentials in biology, then we can if you like.

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

A look at science is not the problem. In fact a look at the data in its completion is what separates the Creationist from the Darwinist. While one is content with stopping at a certian point, the other continues. Funnily enough, it is the position accused of not acknowledging science which is the latter.

 

[matthewgar]

Science does mesh with creationism and even confirms scripture. The problem is that so few people; creationists and evolutionists know about this.

These are just a few of the hundreds of scientists that are also creationists or have converted to Christianity because they claim that science and especially recent scientific discoveries provide the best evidence for divine design by a deistic Creator.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist), Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy), John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA), Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist), Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics), Roger Penrose (mathematician and author), George Ellis (British astrophysicist), Tony Rothman (physicist), Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist), Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics), Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia), Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois), Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater), Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics).

Ehhhh, nice job, throwing in deists, and people that accept evolution then claim they accept creationism, those that accept deism doesn't mean they accept the Christian god, personal god or anything of the sort, such as Antony flew.

Also my point here is, that there are many arguments and people shifting sides. But no amount of theological dancing will covert someone down from creationism alone. WHat motive is there for this, what it is is, the evidence for evolution pulls them down the list, the theology is just there to explain the bible and religion from there. Not saying it's wrong, I agree it's right, but that someone won't stop being a creationist just because people argue blue in the face that the bible must be taken figurativly, it's a case of too much evidence that contradict the literal reading that changes their mind, and then the rest is secondary.

Going up, it's not science, directly, it may be in very few cases on both sides, but I would say the majority it isn't, and certainly not all the way to creationsim.

You might have those that are ignorant of the subject, or those that move up to deism, but someones not going to become Christian, and certainly not a creationist through scientific arguments. It's theological arguments and stuff that bring someone up the chart. There is nothing in the world scientificly that says, "It must have been the Christian god." Many things that might say, "This was a gods doing." people might chose the Christian god, but they go to the Christian god due to theological side of things.

This is my point, I see alot of creationists arguing science, and getting smacked with Pratt's and such, I see alot of arguing over the theological side of wether evolution is compatible or not and going no where.

We TE's can argue till were blue in the face that the bible is compatible with science and it's meaningless, it will be the evidence we show that for some becomes too much to ignore.

I'm not saying it's wrong for creationists to argue science, or Te's to argue theology, my point is does it do anything here for the arguement. When ever creationists try to argue science TE's and AE's just laugh and posts a ton of information why they are wrong. WHen TE's argue theology, creationists just point to the bible and say, "This is the literal reading written by god, what reason do I have to risk my soul on your own fallible interpetation"

What I'm saying is that people should argue to their strengths, creationist fail on science and just don't get anywhere with anyone that knows the science, and TE's fail on the direct meanings of the bible, wich is what the creationists use, just saying, "Evolution is true so these must be interpeted this way" won't work, must show WHY it's true first, show them that their position science wise isn't attenable.

 

[matthewgar]

A look at science is not the problem. In fact a look at the data in its completion is what separates the Creationist from the Darwinist. While one is content with stopping at a certian point, the other continues. Funnily enough, it is the position accused of not acknowledging science which is the latter.

The problem Greg that you fail to realize wich is the entire problem with your position is there is 0 reason to go any further or evidence, or reason too except your need to have science fit your interpetation. Without your interpetation of the bible there is nothing that says, "Well there obviously was a flood even though 0 evidence anywhere for it" All you do is hold a unattenable position science wise where any crackpot idea is sound as long as it fits your beliefs. Just look at all the attempts to make the flood work, every single one of them usually ends up nuking the earth due to science and is impossible.

For the flood and creation to be true, then all of science, even your attempts at it are pointless, because nothing is definite, the science that runs computers, got us to the moon, provides us with power, is the same science you guys all say is wrong. I'm sorry, but there is no science in creationism, just a bunch of hand waving. If the literal bible is true, then it won't be proved with science, wich is okay, but my point here. Trying to argue science from the creationist point fails, because the science fails.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Most people do not change their beliefs because of argument. Converting to (or leaving) a religion is a deeply personal matter - not something that will be changed by stale debate.

This is often why our interpretation is more influencial than the evidence itself. For example, most creationists don't deny the existance of hominid fossils but claim these fossils are not evidence of gradual evolution. Some are clearly extinct apes (australopithecus) while other are extinct humans (neanderthals).

 

[philadiddle]

Some are clearly extinct apes (australopithecus)

I've never heard a detailed argument for this. Do you have a reference? Or are just saying that that's what creationists claim?

 

[Greg1234]

The problem Greg that you fail to realize wich is the entire problem with your position is there is 0 reason to go any further or evidence, or reason too except your need to have science fit your interpetation. Without your interpetation of the bible there is nothing that says, "Well there obviously was a flood even though 0 evidence anywhere for it" All you do is hold a unattenable position science wise where any crackpot idea is sound as long as it fits your beliefs. Just look at all the attempts to make the flood work, every single one of them usually ends up nuking the earth due to science and is impossible.

For the flood and creation to be true, then all of science, even your attempts at it are pointless, because nothing is definite, the science that runs computers, got us to the moon, provides us with power, is the same science you guys all say is wrong. I'm sorry, but there is no science in creationism, just a bunch of hand waving. If the literal bible is true, then it won't be proved with science, wich is okay, but my point here. Trying to argue science from the creationist point fails, because the science fails.

In your first paragraph you speak about the flood. A subject which was never brought up. In your second paragraph you proceed to link the flood and creationism and attempt to refute Creationism with your flood argument. The problem is creation and the flood are two separate events. And evidence for the flood is given everytime the "Ancient Aliens" presentation airs.

 

[philadiddle]

A look at science is not the problem. In fact a look at the data in its completion is what separates the Creationist from the Darwinist. While one is content with stopping at a certian point, the other continues.

This is very true. We have both camps that start with a vague argument about our creation; "God did it" and "God used nature to do it".

One camp just stops at the above statement and the other camp actually tries to explain the "how" behind the statement. Stopping at a certain point is not scientific, which is why that point of view will never be accepted as science.

 

[solarwave]

A look at science is not the problem. In fact a look at the data in its completion is what separates the Creationist from the Darwinist. While one is content with stopping at a certian point, the other continues. Funnily enough, it is the position accused of not acknowledging science which is the latter.

This could probably be taken to apply to both sides. It is probably better to give evidence and reason then say we are better than you because we go the full distance.

 

[matthewgar]

This could probably be taken to apply to both sides. It is probably better to give evidence and reason then say we are better than you because we go the full distance.

Well I think the thing to ask is, does the evidence that science finds lead beyond that point. Just saying, "My interpetation of the bible says science isn't going far enough if it doesn't prove my belief." Isn't good enough. Because the most simple explanation is, there is nothing to go further, science doesn't go further, because there isn't anything to go further. Reminds me of AV's arguments of, "Well if science hasn't found evidence of the flood, it's not looked hard enough, it's a failure of science and they have to keep looking." at some point have to just say, the evidence isn't there.

And for most people I know that have become TE's or AE's from ceationists, it got to a point where, they just couldn't argue any more the creationist point of view. Too many things they were told were false, the evidence just fits too well the other way. Not saying there isn't some theological aspect, but it's ultimatly the evidence for evolution, or against creationism or just the lies of creationism itself that changes people. Theology is a secondary thing done after the primary.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

For example, most creationists don't deny the existance of hominid fossils but claim these fossils are not evidence of gradual evolution. Some are clearly extinct apes (australopithecus) while other are extinct humans (neanderthals).

I've never heard a detailed argument for this. Do you have a reference? Or are just saying that that's what creationists claim?

From Creation Science Wiki

 

[solarwave]

Well I think the thing to ask is, does the evidence that science finds lead beyond that point. Just saying, "My interpetation of the bible says science isn't going far enough if it doesn't prove my belief." Isn't good enough. Because the most simple explanation is, there is nothing to go further, science doesn't go further, because there isn't anything to go further. Reminds me of AV's arguments of, "Well if science hasn't found evidence of the flood, it's not looked hard enough, it's a failure of science and they have to keep looking." at some point have to just say, the evidence isn't there.

And for most people I know that have become TE's or AE's from ceationists, it got to a point where, they just couldn't argue any more the creationist point of view. Too many things they were told were false, the evidence just fits too well the other way. Not saying there isn't some theological aspect, but it's ultimatly the evidence for evolution, or against creationism or just the lies of creationism itself that changes people. Theology is a secondary thing done after the primary.

I agree. If there were a world wide flood we would know about it.

 

[philadiddle]

From Creation Science Wiki

Interesting link. It's a reference to their claims and it confirms what I said that there has never been a strong case put forth to explain why Australopithecus was just an ape.

 

[Greg1234]

This is very true. We have both camps that start with a vague argument about our creation; "God did it" and "God used nature to do it".

One camp just stops at the above statement and the other camp actually tries to explain the "how" behind the statement. Stopping at a certain point is not scientific, which is why that point of view will never be accepted as science.

I said the use of science. One stops at a certain point while the other continues. Funnily enough, it is the one accused of not doing science (creationism), which acknowledges it more fully. In your above quote, you merely accused the one accused of not doing science with not doing science. This was already given. And the engineer did it is the beginning of explanation, whether you consider the direct creation of a 747 to be science or not.