Science and Scripture

[Tree of Life]

We are at the point in our apologetics course where we are examining the claim that science and Scripture are in conflict. The most famous example of this is Darwinism and evolution. Can you think of other instances wherein science and Scripture are in an apparent conflict?

 

[zippy2006]

Social science increasingly rejects the idea that retribution or punishment are ever legitimate, and this would be all the more true when it comes to God.

 

[Tree of Life]

Social science increasingly rejects the idea that retribution or punishment are ever legitimate, and this would be all the more true when it comes to God.

Thanks. This is a legitimate question. Critical biblical scholarship also comes to mind. The scientific approach to Biblical studies is in serious conflict with traditional Biblical interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are at the point in our apologetics course where we are examining the claim that science and Scripture are in conflict. The most famous example of this is Darwinism and evolution. Can you think of other instances wherein science and Scripture are in an apparent conflict?

The fact of evolution only refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis. Christianity does not need a literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact worldwide most Christians appear to accept evolution. It is mostly a problem in the U.S..

 

[Ophiolite]

We are at the point in our apologetics course where we are examining the claim that science and Scripture are in conflict. The most famous example of this is Darwinism and evolution. Can you think of other instances wherein science and Scripture are in an apparent conflict?

I thought this was misleading. Darwinism/Evolution is only in conflict with some interpretations of Scripture. Many Christians (and non-Christians) see no conflict.
I offer this not to initiate yet another discussion on the topic, but merely to correct what, to me, is an error/omission in your phrasing.

Edit: Cross posted with @Subduction Zone .

 

[sesquiterpene]

We are at the point in our apologetics course where we are examining the claim that science and Scripture are in conflict. The most famous example of this is Darwinism and evolution. Can you think of other instances wherein science and Scripture are in an apparent conflict?

Are you wanting to debate the Flat Earthers here about this? Check the conspiracy sub-forum, or do a general search.

 

[Tree of Life]

The fact of evolution only refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis. Christianity does not need a literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact worldwide most Christians appear to accept evolution. It is mostly a problem in the U.S..

I agree. There are other problems that evolution poses for Christian theology even if there's not a literal interpretation of Genesis. But there are ways to reconcile certain forms of evolutionary theory with Scripture.

 

[Tree of Life]

I thought this was misleading. Darwinism/Evolution is only in conflict with some interpretations of Scripture. Many Christians (and non-Christians) see no conflict.
I offer this not to initiate yet another discussion on the topic, but merely to correct what, to me, is an error/omission in your phrasing.

Edit: Cross posted with @Subduction Zone .

I agree there is not a necessary conflict. But there is certainly an apparent conflict.

 

[Tree of Life]

Are you wanting to debate the Flat Earthers here about this? Check the conspiracy sub-forum, or do a general search.

No. I don't think the Bible promotes a flat earth.

 

[Ophiolite]

I agree there is not a necessary conflict. But there is certainly an apparent conflict.

Does not compute. Your statement is incorrect:

• There is a real conflict with some interpretations of Scripture. The conflict is not apparent. It is real.
  
• There is no conflict, real or apparent, with other interpretations of Scripture.

In neither of the two instances is there apparent conflict. I concede there might be an interpretation that does produce an apparent conflict, but it would not be one of the majority, which fit into one or other of the above.

 

[Tree of Life]

Does not compute. Your statement is incorrect:

• There is a real conflict with some interpretations of Scripture. The conflict is not apparent. It is real.

"Real" and "apparent" are not mutually exclusive.

 

[sesquiterpene]

No. I don't think the Bible promotes a flat earth.

Ah, they do! But no, I think debating them is entirely fruitless.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We are at the point in our apologetics course where we are examining the claim that science and Scripture are in conflict. The most famous example of this is Darwinism and evolution. Can you think of other instances wherein science and Scripture are in an apparent conflict?

When we really think about it, science is nothing more than our opinion of the natural, and what the natural means, so in the end it is only man who chooses to confict with scripture.

 

[Tree of Life]

When we really think about it, science is nothing more than our opinion of the natural, and what the natural means, so in the end it is only man who chooses to confict with scripture.

I think science is also our understanding of the physical world and ability to successfully interact with the physical world. The COVID vaccines are here now because of science. It's more than mere opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When we really think about it, science is nothing more than our opinion of the natural, and what the natural means, so in the end it is only man who chooses to confict with scripture.

No, science is much more than opinion. Science consists of testable and confirmable ideas. Now one may perhaps be able to make that claim about various religions, but mere opinion is nowhere near being good enough for the sciences.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think science is also our understanding of the physical world and ability to successfully interact with the physical world. The COVID vaccines are here now because of science. It's more than mere opinion.

It was mans opinion of every test they made to get to a vaccine, that got them to the vaccine. Their opinion was a right conclusuon of the natural learned over time, and that equates to science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, science is much more than opinion. Science consists of testable and confirmable ideas. Now one may perhaps be able to make that claim about various religions, but mere opinion is nowhere near being good enough for the sciences.

"Confirmed ideas" = correct opinions.

Here are three definition of opinion.

Opinion definitions
ə-pĭn'yən
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
noun

A piece of testimony that is not usually admissible when given by a layperson, as in contrast to an opinion given by an expert witness.
noun

The definition of an opinion is a belief, impression, judgment or prevailing view held by a person.

Mine is the third, so I suppose it all depends on what definition we use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Confirmed ideas" = correct opinions.

Here are three definition of opinion.

Opinion definitions
ə-pĭn'yən
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
noun

A piece of testimony that is not usually admissible when given by a layperson, as in contrast to an opinion given by an expert witness.
noun

The definition of an opinion is a belief, impression, judgment or prevailing view held by a person.

Mine is the third, so I suppose it all depends on what definition we use.

Do you know what an equivocation fallacy is? Even if you go by the "third definition (which looks rather suspicious in its wording) your claim fails.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you know what an equivocation fallacy is? Even if you go by the "third definition (which looks rather suspicious in its wording) your claim fails.

Nope, because of the third definition, the definition I intended when I made my comments, I cannot lose here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, because of the third definition, the definition I intended when I made my comments, I cannot lose here.

Sure you can, even though that is a weak definition. That does not cover the sciences since they are more than mere beliefs or impressions.