Rejection of modern science leads to....?

[gluadys]

Modern science is a search for order in the chaos.
In effect, they search for the design, while denying the idea of designer.

.

Where does modern science deny the idea of a designer? Science neither denies nor affirms the idea of a designer, because a designer is metaphysical and science does not comment on metaphysical entities.

Since many scientists are theists, it doesn't make sense to say they are denying a designer.

 

[chaoschristian]

Numenor wrote:

What do you think the effects would be of science regressing to holding Creationism as true?

The effects would already have taken place in order to establish the conditions for your scenerio. Science is neutral. Its a tool. The scientific community, however, is made up of people who are most definetely fallible and prone to irrationality. So what you are really asking is, "What changes would have to take place in the scientific community in order for Creationism to be accepted as valid science?"

What you are looking at is a massive reversal, an immense sea change, a total inversion of the current conditions. Basically you would have to think through what possible events or string of events would have to occur in order for the majority of the scientific community to abondon rationality.

Here are some possibilties off all the top of my head:

1. Creationists win on the political front in an overwhelming manner. Overwhelming in that the majority of local school boards, county and state Depts of Ed and the national Dept of Ed are all now run by Creationists who undertake a systematic effort to dismantle safeguards against creationism along with a systematic effort to insert creationism not only into the curriculum, but into teacher evaluation and review standards as well.

2. Creationsists infiltrate higher education to such an effective degree that an unbroken string of several generations of science teachers and scientists now accept creationism a priori.

3. God manifests on Earth to every single person simultaneously and let's us all know beyond a doubt that the Genesis account is the literal truth.

I think that the core of the evolution vs creationism debate is really a struggle to find balance between rationality and irrationality and how each one of us comes to grip with what will balance for us, how we express, and how we let our own and shared experiences effect that balance.

 

[shernren]

I think it isn't really a question of "rationality vs. irrationality", so much as a question of different sets of presuppositions. It is perfectly rational to be a YEC, but given the current trend of scientific evidence it means putting into effect some disturbing presuppositions regarding the nature of science and reality.

 

[chaoschristian]

I think it isn't really a question of "rationality vs. irrationality", so much as a question of different sets of presuppositions. It is perfectly rational to be a YEC, but given the current trend of scientific evidence it means putting into effect some disturbing presuppositions regarding the nature of science and reality.

You made me realize that I didn't clearly express myself with my post.

What I wanted to say is this:

For those Christians who look beyond using ONLY the Bible as a guide to understanding Creation, is it a matter of balancing rationality with irrationality. From a strict rationalist perspective, belief is completely irrational. It defies logic (tautology and Occam's Razor for example). Yet we know in our hearts that if we rely solely on our reason and senses then we are also missing something. Rationality alone does not yield the complete answer.

In essense this makes one who chooses this path an exile - My faith is challenged by those who don't understand my reliance on science, and my sanity is challenged by those who don't understand my faith!

You are correct - the way we define rationality is going to be bounded by our presuppositions, and our presuppositions are going to be informed by how we balance science and faith.

 

[gluadys]

In essense this makes one who chooses this path an exile - My faith is challenged by those who don't understand my reliance on science, and my sanity is challenged by those who don't understand my faith!

That sums it up pretty well.

 

[vossler]

For those Christians who look beyond using ONLY the Bible as a guide to understanding Creation, is it a matter of balancing rationality with irrationality. From a strict rationalist perspective, belief is completely irrational. It defies logic (tautology and Occam's Razor for example). Yet we know in our hearts that if we rely solely on our reason and senses then we are also missing something. Rationality alone does not yield the complete answer.

In essense this makes one who chooses this path an exile - My faith is challenged by those who don't understand my reliance on science, and my sanity is challenged by those who don't understand my faith!

Interesting points!

Can one not use the Bible as the primary means of understanding Creation and rely on science only where the Bible doesn't speak? For example, the Bible clearly states that God created in six days, so even if science were to appear to prove otherwise, the Bible is truth and it clearly addresses this point so science should never be allowed to supercede God's Word. Unfortunately the real issue is relativism. Truth is relative to my own understanding or interpretation. If my own knowledge is in conflict with the Word then it must be the Word that is somehow being misunderstood. So, we then bear our knowledge onto God's Word in order for it not to conflict with my understanding of it.

You are correct - the way we define rationality is going to be bounded by our presuppositions, and our presuppositions are going to be informed by how we balance science and faith.

Very true!

 

[shernren]

Yes, there have been good points here. But one particular phrase in chaoschristian's post caught my attention:

"balance science and faith"

... do we have to? When I look at that phrase the picture comes to mind as if a Christian has only a certain amount of mental capacity and he has to choose how much science and how much faith. An either-or proposition. If I choose 70% science I can't have another 70% of faith - I can only have 30%. That's what the statement brings to mind.

And I simply can't reconcile myself with that. I am planning, if God wills, to become a Christian scientist ... how can I do that believing that to be a Christian is one thing and to be a scientist is another? Will I make less of sermons because I read journals?

To me, faith is really "reason gone courageous". I cannot generalize this statement to everyone else. This is my particular bent and my great struggle is to learn how to identify with and edify those who don't have my particular bent. But for me ... faith is simply reason that factors in God.

Or let me put it another way:

Faith, the Christian "faith", is trusting in who God is as revealed in His historical dealings with His people and with me.
Science is faith in the natural order - trusting in the rules that govern creation as revealed by experimentation and observation.

Therefore I don't see faith and science as being opposite. They are two sides of the same coin. There's no "either-or". If I have more "faith" in God, I know Him better as Someone who is dependable and trustworthy, and who has made a good and trustworthy creation ... a creation which can be understood by science. Conversely, the more I study science, the more I see God's beauty, majesty and wisdom - the more I want to put my faith in Him. Having more of one gives me more of the other.

 

[chaoschristian]

Interesting points!

Can one not use the Bible as the primary means of understanding Creation and rely on science only where the Bible doesn't speak? For example, the Bible clearly states that God created in six days, so even if science were to appear to prove otherwise, the Bible is truth and it clearly addresses this point so science should never be allowed to supercede God's Word. Unfortunately the real issue is relativism. Truth is relative to my own understanding or interpretation. If my own knowledge is in conflict with the Word then it must be the Word that is somehow being misunderstood. So, we then bear our knowledge onto God's Word in order for it not to conflict with my understanding of it.

Yes, one can use the Bible as the primary means of understanding Creation and rely on science only where the Bible doesn't speak. However, I don't agree that that is either the best way to seek to understand Creation or the best way to interpret the Bible.

See you and I are looking at the Bible from very different perspectives. You refer to the Bible as God's Word. I do not believe the Bible is God's Word. I believe that Jesus is God's Word, and that the Bible is a collection of God's words, from which we can discern God's Truth. I see the Bible for what it is, one of many tools that God has provided to us in our quest to be in relationship with Him and His Creation. The Bible is not one cohesive book, but a collection of stories written at different times by different people in different styles for different purposes. The concept that the Bible is to be viewed as a cohesive, monolithic whole is one that I can only surmise is a modern one that is a direct result more of how the Bible is presented (as a single unit book) than of any inherit value or correctness in that concept. Remember that Christianity existed for sixty some years before the appearance of the first written Gospel and for some three hundred years before the compilation of the Bible under the auspices of Emperor Constantine. I think that says alot about the nature of the Bible right there. I have no doubt that the Bible contains the Divine Truth of God's Will. I also have no doubt that it is no easy task to discern that Truth.

Because you and I are looking at the Bible from such different perspectives, it is going to take some work for us to understand one another. And that' ok, it always takes hard work to undertake anything of value.

 

[chaoschristian]

Yes, there have been good points here. But one particular phrase in chaoschristian's post caught my attention:

"balance science and faith"

... do we have to? When I look at that phrase the picture comes to mind as if a Christian has only a certain amount of mental capacity and he has to choose how much science and how much faith. An either-or proposition. If I choose 70% science I can't have another 70% of faith - I can only have 30%. That's what the statement brings to mind.

And I simply can't reconcile myself with that. I am planning, if God wills, to become a Christian scientist ... how can I do that believing that to be a Christian is one thing and to be a scientist is another? Will I make less of sermons because I read journals?

To me, faith is really "reason gone courageous". I cannot generalize this statement to everyone else. This is my particular bent and my great struggle is to learn how to identify with and edify those who don't have my particular bent. But for me ... faith is simply reason that factors in God.

Or let me put it another way:

Faith, the Christian "faith", is trusting in who God is as revealed in His historical dealings with His people and with me.
Science is faith in the natural order - trusting in the rules that govern creation as revealed by experimentation and observation.

Therefore I don't see faith and science as being opposite. They are two sides of the same coin. There's no "either-or". If I have more "faith" in God, I know Him better as Someone who is dependable and trustworthy, and who has made a good and trustworthy creation ... a creation which can be understood by science. Conversely, the more I study science, the more I see God's beauty, majesty and wisdom - the more I want to put my faith in Him. Having more of one gives me more of the other.

It is not a matter of balancing a set of scales so that you have equal measures of science on one side and faith on the other. Nor is it a matter of deciding much much science or faith to pour into a 10 dl cup when you aren't allowed to exceed the 10 dl.

What I was getting at is that science and faith have different characteristics and different natures, and for a Christian who embraces both science and the Bible, it is going to be a matter of balancing those properties against one another in order frame one's sense of the Truth.

While I agree with you in that science and faith are ultimately complimentary, one cannot deny the fact that they have characteristics that are set in opposition to one another.

Take for example prayer. I know as a matter of faith that prayer has a positive impact on my life and the lives of others. However, I would be hard set to empirically prove this. From a scientific perspective , prayer is unsubstantiated. Yet from a faith perspective is not only substantial, it is essential. This is why faith is irrational - I believe in something for which I have no tangible, verifiable proof that cannot also be explained by other, simpler concepts or proven to be outright false.

So which do I abondon in this example, faith or science? Or do I hold onto both recognizing that I may not be able to reconcile the difference but that I do need both in order to seek the Truth?

So in your own example, keep going to church and keep reading your science journals. Your struggle will lie in finding out how to discern the Truth that emerges from your experiences.

Finally I agree, the more I allow science to inform my understanding of Creation, the more I am inspired and awestruck by God's creative powers.

 

[shernren]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say (except that it's "complementary" in the third paragraph, not complimentary - minor nitpicking XD) ... but I guess I've been burnt too badly by the idea that faith is blind faith. People taking Hebrews: "faith is believing in that which we do not see" a different way. Dealing with Christians who believe that, and with non-Christians who believe that Christians believe that, has led me to formulate things how I have: that faith is in essence not blind (choosing not to know) but simply the act and living-out of knowing God.

 

[disciple777]

What do you think the effects would be of science regressing to holding Creationism as true?

Then, we will have true Science. In those days, we had men and women who were believers in Christ. They were the pioneers of Scientific discovery. IF creation is accepted as the way we came into existence, then true Objective Science will flourish. Our schools will excel. We will produce First class students in every field. They will understand and practise Critical thinking. Today, out studets are indoctrinated to believe that Evolution is a fact.

 

[disciple777]

There will be no true Science if either Creation/ Intelligent Designer is eliminated.

 

[Deamiter]

Note this was moved from Theistic Evolution to Origins Theology as the whole thread is full of debate.

PLEASE if you cannot read threads in the opposing group's forum without disagreeing publicly, just stay out of the other group's forum altogether! This hasn't been tightly enforced, but do be aware that warnings will be given for repeated debating in either of the theistic evolution or creationism forums.

You can ALWAYS start a similar thread in the open area to discuss topics in the two restricted forums. Just keep the debate in the origins theology forum so the two specific forums stay "safer" for partisan discussion.

 

[artybloke]

There will be no true Science if either Creation/ Intelligent Designer is eliminated.

There will be no true theology if creationism or ID is accepted. Creationism/ID is essentially about trying to find evidence of the existence of God in the world. This is contrary to the greatest insight of the Genesis story. This insight is that God stands over and above the Universe, not in it. Anything within the universe is part of the creation. If you could find a god within the universe, you wouldn't be finding the God who created the universe, but an idol, a part of the created order. The God who created/creates the universe is not a part of that created order.

That is the great insight of monotheism. And that's what creationism/ID leads away from. Looking for God in science is looking for an idol. Maybe that god is the biggest most pwerful being in the universe, but it is not the creator of the universe.

Anyone with access to the British newspaper The Guardian should turn to this week's Face to Faith column. It's not yet up on their website, but ex-Dominican priest, now working with the Catholic Worker movement, called Gabriel Markus, talks about this very thing. He brings in PseudoDionysus, Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhardt in as authorities.

I think he's very right, myself. To me, to search for God's existence in the universe as if he were just some big planet you could discover with a big enough telescope is idolatrous. That's what trying to turn the Genesis creation accounts into science does. In fact, one could say that the creation account in Genesis is actually a carefully worded refutation of the attempt to find God (or gods) in the world of created things. It occurs to me that the writers of these accounts had the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian accounts of gods battling each other, creating each other, having sex with each other etc specifically in their sights.

The Babylonians etc followed gods who were part of the universe, gods that could be falsified or confirmed by science; Jews, Christians and Muslims follow the creator of the universe. But the creator cannot be the created; he is not to be discovered in a science lab.

 

[tamtam92]

There will be no true theology if creationism or ID is accepted. Creationism/ID is essentially about trying to find evidence of the existence of God in the world.

I disagree. Creationnism is about taking the Bible literally, and showing that it can get along with science.

Believing in Creation doesn't mean you're not a scientist, it just means that you believe God more than men. I men think something and God say it was different, it can't be God who is wrong, so the men are definitely wrong.

 

[gluadys]

I disagree. Creationnism is about taking the Bible literally, and showing that it can get along with science.

And the attempt to show that one can take the Bible literally and be consistent with science has been and is a failure.

Believing in Creation doesn't mean you're not a scientist, it just means that you believe God more than men. I men think something and God say it was different, it can't be God who is wrong, so the men are definitely wrong.

But its not about believing God rather than human beings. It is about believing human beings who insist the creation accounts are to be understood literally over the revelation of God's creation itself. When God's creation says one thing and human interpreters of scripture (not scripture itself) say another thing, I agree, the humans are definitely wrong.

 

[Merlin]

> What do you think the effects would be of science regressing to holding Creationism as true?

Interresting presupposition.
Wat if creationism turned out to be a move forward, leaving the trappings of evolution behind?

 

[Numenor]

> What do you think the effects would be of science regressing to holding Creationism as true?

Interresting presupposition.
Wat if creationism turned out to be a move forward, leaving the trappings of evolution behind?

But Creationism was left behind in favour of evolution and an ancient earth... how would this be a step forward?

 

[vossler]

I'm sorry, I had lost sight of this thread until it was put into the regular origins theology area.

See you and I are looking at the Bible from very different perspectives. You refer to the Bible as God's Word. I do not believe the Bible is God's Word. I believe that Jesus is God's Word, and that the Bible is a collection of God's words, from which we can discern God's Truth. I see the Bible for what it is, one of many tools that God has provided to us in our quest to be in relationship with Him and His Creation. The Bible is not one cohesive book, but a collection of stories written at different times by different people in different styles for different purposes. The concept that the Bible is to be viewed as a cohesive, monolithic whole is one that I can only surmise is a modern one that is a direct result more of how the Bible is presented (as a single unit book) than of any inherit value or correctness in that concept. Remember that Christianity existed for sixty some years before the appearance of the first written Gospel and for some three hundred years before the compilation of the Bible under the auspices of Emperor Constantine. I think that says alot about the nature of the Bible right there. I have no doubt that the Bible contains the Divine Truth of God's Will. I also have no doubt that it is no easy task to discern that Truth.

I could dispute some of the specific claims you make here but then that would probably derail this thread, so I shall withhold that desire for another time.

Yes we do look at the Bible from entirely different perspectives. I've always wondered how one can glean God's truths if we didn't have God's Word as a source document. I know you stated "the Bible is a collection of God's words, from which we can discern God's Truth." yet if one is to truly believe that, what is the stretch to then call the Bible the Word of God? Whenever I hear the Bible is "one of many tools" God has provided in our desire for fellowship I immediately cringe. I see it as a means of minimizing God's Word so that it can fall into agreement with man's desires or knowledge. I don't know of another source of truth, in reference to what we should know, that even remotely compares to the Bible. As such, we should, in a sense, revere it as a source impregnated with holy and absolute truth.

Because you and I are looking at the Bible from such different perspectives, it is going to take some work for us to understand one another. And that' ok, it always takes hard work to undertake anything of value.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[shernren]

Then, we will have true Science. In those days, we had men and women who were believers in Christ. They were the pioneers of Scientific discovery. IF creation is accepted as the way we came into existence, then true Objective Science will flourish. Our schools will excel. We will produce First class students in every field. They will understand and practise Critical thinking. Today, out studets are indoctrinated to believe that Evolution is a fact.

That's right! The US has no right to indoctrinate students into believing things you can't prove in class, like:

- atoms have different isotopes
- light has a finite speed (i've never seen a high-school experiment able to prove this)
- neutrons exist
- matter warps space-time
- the sun is a ball of gas [oops - my bad; it's plasma...]
- there is an ozone hole
- germs make people sick (any biology students ever proved it in class?)
- evolution explains a lot of the fossil record.

Once students are freed from the yoke of such indoctrination, then true objective science will flourish and we will produce first class students in every field!

[sigh]

Interresting presupposition.
Wat if creationism turned out to be a move forward, leaving the trappings of evolution behind?

What if Newtonian gravity turned out to be a move forward, leaving the trappings of GR behind?
Or the theory of phlogiston turned out to be a move forward, leaving the trappings of oxygen behind?



I hope I'm not going too far with these parodies ...