Science > or < Scripture?

[Papias]

Blake worte:

The issue is that many Christians are trusting what Scientists are telling us about our origins, without giving any regard to the framework that these scientists are interpreting the world through.

You speak as if those scientists were somehow not Christians. A huge chunk of them are Christians, using specifically a Christian framework and coming the conclusion of evolution.

Biologists (in particular) will likely be interpreting the world through the framework of materialism, that there is no god, and all that exists is matter. This is quite the opposite of a christian, who beleives that God does exist, and created everthing, and most definitely there is more that exists than just matter.

You don't seem to understand the difference between methodolical naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The methodological naturalism we all use (including yourself) means simply to look for natural causes first, and if they are sufficient, to see that God is acting through the natural causes he made.

Thus many of the biologists you refer to are Christians, and fully believe that there is a God, and he created by using evolution. That's not the opposite of the Christian, it is a Christian.

Remember that the majority of the support for and research in evolution comes from Christians. Evolution is mostly a Christian position, and atheist supporters of evolution are a minority compared to Christian supporters of evolution.

Papias

 

[Biblewriter]

Remember that the majority of the support for and research in evolution comes from Christians. Evolution is mostly a Christian position, and atheist supporters of evolution are a minority compared to Christian supporters of evolution.

Papias

This is utter nonsense! There are indeed many who call themselves Christian who believe in evolution, but those among them who are actually Christians are few and far between. It is widely known that there have been repeated calls for the dismissal of anyone who openly confesses the name of Christ in essentially every field of science that even touches the dogma of evolution.

 

[solarwave]

In order to be a Christian, you must believe something, specifically regarding Jesus Christ. I realize that Darwin may have been a religious Christian of some kind but the have no opinion with expressing regarding the person and work of Christ seems to be a strong indication to me that Darwin was not a Christian.

What is it that specifically that must be believed?

Just because he had nothing down in writing that we know of doesn't mean that he didn't believe.

Darwinism is based on a preference of natural law over supernatural interpolation, it says that expressly in the preface to On the Origin of Species. The book is one long argument against special creation specifically and by direct interence, God. I have studied this my friend, these people are unambiguous. We have the same problem in the modern age, all you have to do is look in a mirror and say, 'hi I'm a Christian'. No standards, not qualifications, no point of reference, no rational basis for the profession.

Most of us most of the time think like this though and has explained much of the physical world. Are we wrong to think the earth goes round the sun beause it makes the world less centered around us and less directly directly by God?

Christians look at the same evidence and still conclude a creator, it's as simple as that. From the Darwinian camp it is scientifically untenable that God acted in time and place but reality will not be silenced. What Darwinism does is to organize the evidence around naturalistic assumptions. That's not science, that's supposition.

Science always looks for natural explaination for data.

Evolution doesn't go against Christianity.

 

[bdfoster]

I've been noticing what I see as a disturbing tendancy (not just here but other places as well) that christians are trusting in science more so than scripture. Not that I have a great problem per se but when you see people say things like "scripture was writen by falible man" , and there fore not to be trusted entirely then asert that sceince is to be trusted entirely because of peer review it raises alarms in the back of my head. Now I do realise most scientist are likely well meaning and dedicated, but just like everybody else they have a worldview that comes with presupositions, and to assume that it doesn't effect thier conclusions especialy on a subject with no direct observable evedence such as evolution is poor science in and of itself. Scripture has been some how religated dispite all this to a secondary sorce for truth, what ever happened to 2 Timothy 3 "15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" Or maybe some christians have fallen for the idea that all truth is scientific truth, which is a statement that fails it's own test.

I don't know I feel like I'm rambleing now. Whats your thoughs on all this?

Just for the record I am in no way pointing this thread at anyone, it's just a trend I noticed that disturbs me.

I really hate to see people put science in a competition with scripture. They are not of the same kind and cannot compete with each other. Scripture is a thing, science is not. Science is a noun but it is not a thing, or an object to be studied. Scripture can be studied and the study of scripture is theology. The study of nature, or as we Christians think of it, creation, is science. Science can compete with theology but not with scripture. God gave us both objects of study, nature and scripture. I think it is inappropriate to put either field of study over the other one.

Of course all of this assumes that we are able to have knowledge, that we can know things, that our minds are not just illusion. The most basic knowledge is sensory perception. If we see something happen we know, as surely as we know anything, that it happened. Nature is just as valid a source of knowledge as scripture, assuming both are interpreted correctly.

 

[shernren]

It is widely known

But of course, you don't have any evidence.

that there have been repeated calls

Evidence for even one such call!

for the dismissal of anyone who openly confesses the name of Christ in essentially every field of science that even touches the dogma of evolution.

I guess that must be why my Honors thesis was thrown out for mentioning God in my acknowledgments ... oh wait, it wasn't. Such sloppy atheist purgers we have here at the ANU.

 

[marktheblake]

The thing is there is evidence and Christians can see this too.

Of course Christians can see the evidence, *everyone* sees the evidence. But evidence does not talk, it has to be interpreted, and to do that you need an interpretory framework.

Thus many of the biologists you refer to are Christians, and fully believe that there is a God, and he created by using evolution.

Exactly my point and they interpret the evidence through that framework.

 

[Papias]

Bible wrote:

This is utter nonsense! There are indeed many who call themselves Christian who believe in evolution, but those among them who are actually Christians are few and far between.

So let me get this straight. So you agree with me (and with the Gallup data) that the majority of those who support evolution in the United States call themselves Christian, and so you say it is "utter nonsense" because you personally consider those Christians not to be Christian enough for you?

wow. I can't imagine where people get the idea that some Christians have "holier than thou" attitudes.

It is widely known that there have been repeated calls for the dismissal of anyone who openly confesses the name of Christ in essentially every field of science that even touches the dogma of evolution.

Hmm. So Dr. Collins, the evangelical Christian in charge of the NIH, Dr. Ayala, winner of the Christian Templeton prize and a world class geneticist at the University of California and ordained Dominican Priest, and Dr. Kenneth Miller, outspoken Christian biology professor at Brown University, have all been fired?

Seems nobody told them they were fired, because it looks like they are all still there. Would you like more prominant Christians in Biology and science?

Maybe you'd like to back up your "widely known" with some evidence?

I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.

Is your writing about the Bible as accurate and welcoming as your last post?

Papias

 

[Biblewriter]

Bible wrote:



So let me get this straight. So you agree with me (and with the Gallup data) that the majority of those who support evolution in the United States call themselves Christian, and so you say it is "utter nonsense" because you personally consider those Christians not to be Christian enough for you?

wow. I can't imagine where people get the idea that some Christians have "holier than thou" attitudes.

A Christian is someone who has trusted Jesus Christ for the salvation of his soul, someone who has admitted that he or she is a guilty sinner, deserving of hell, and has accepted a pardon based solely on the fact that Jesus took the punishment that deserve.

A person who claims to be a Christian, but who does not trust Jesus for the salvation of his or her soul is only a professing Christian.

And I have personally felt the prejudice against non-believers in evolution, from my university days in which I was told that I was living a lie because I was an advanced biology student who did not believe in evolution to professors who raged against the gall of the student in their vlasses who dared to openly state that he did not believe in evolution.

This continued in my professional career, where, as an engineer working on ecological projects, I was told I would be fired if I spoke of my faith to anyone. I personally know of many other Christians who were treated the same way.

 

[marktheblake]

I personally know of many other Christians who were treated the same way.

One only has to read these forums to know that anyone with a Christian outlook in academia is going to be ostracised by many.

 

[solarwave]

Of course Christians can see the evidence, *everyone* sees the evidence. But evidence does not talk, it has to be interpreted, and to do that you need an interpretory framework.

Sure and the evidence points best towards an old earth and the other things that go with that.

 

[marktheblake]

Sure and the evidence points best towards an old earth and the other things that go with that.

So you agree "Sure" then you deny again. You are making that conclusion by attempting to understand the creationist position through your own paradigm. In other words you are only arguing your bias.

Creation does not prove Evolution wrong and vica versa. They are completely opposing paradigms.

 

[solarwave]

So you agree "Sure" then you deny again. You are making that conclusion by attempting to understand the creationist position through your own paradigm. In other words you are only arguing your bias.

Creation does not prove Evolution wrong and vica versa. They are completely opposing paradigms.

Its not as if I am ignorant of why YEC believe what they do.

Im not sure what it is you are trying to prove. YEC goes against evolution.

 

[Papias]

Bible wrote:

It is widely known that there have been repeated calls for the dismissal of anyone who openly confesses the name of Christ in essentially every field of science that even touches the dogma of evolution.[/font]

To which I pointed to many prominent biologists who are professed and open Christians, then asked Biblewriter for some evidence for his view that Christians aren&#8217;t allowed in science.

Then, Bible wrote:

And I have personally felt the prejudice against non-believers in evolution,

Whoa there buddy! You just changed your claim. You first stated that Christians were not welcome in science, then, when I showed that this is demonstrably false, you changed the claim to say what evolution deniers were not welcome in science.

Would you like to go back to defend your original claim (perhaps by showing when Dr. Ayala, Collins, and Miller were pressured to step down), or would you prefer to retract your original claim? Or would you like to at least acknowledge that you changed your claim?

Bible wrote:

in my professional career, where, as an engineer working on ecological projects, I was told I would be fired if I spoke of my faith to anyone. I personally know of many other Christians who were treated the same way.

OK, so let me make sure I understand. A private employer, who is trying to run a business, works hard over the years to establish a customer base and reputation. Then he hires you, and you abuse your employer&#8217;s hard earned customer list by taking it to use for your own personal proselytizing activities. At which point your employer acts with extreme mercy by simply asking you to stop, instead of taking further action. By treating you so kindly, he runs the risk of further damage to his own private business, a risk he&#8217;s bearing out of the generosity of his heart to you.

And then you whine and complain about it here, as if you were somehow wronged by your misuse of his business, and go on to complain that other employers haven&#8217;t sacrificed their hard earned businesses by letting other Christian employees drive away customers by taking their employer&#8217;s customer lists for their own personal proselytizing activities?


I think we as Christians would make Christianity look better if we acted out of fairness, and when we make a mistake an fail to act ethically, show contrition and humility.

Papias

 

[marktheblake]

YEC goes against evolution.

yes, and vica versa.

 

[solarwave]

yes, and vica versa.

I know

 

[Biblewriter]

Bible wrote:


To which I pointed to many prominent biologists who are professed and open Christians, then asked Biblewriter for some evidence for his view that Christians aren’t allowed in science.

Then, Bible wrote:



Whoa there buddy! You just changed your claim. You first stated that Christians were not welcome in science, then, when I showed that this is demonstrably false, you changed the claim to say what evolution deniers were not welcome in science.

Would you like to go back to defend your original claim (perhaps by showing when Dr. Ayala, Collins, and Miller were pressured to step down), or would you prefer to retract your original claim? Or would you like to at least acknowledge that you changed your claim?

I have checked out your references to the men you cited, and see that these men indeed profess to be Christians. But each of them is also a loud advocate of Evolution. I do not see these views as compatible, but some seem to find a way to rationalize such a contradiction.

The Bible indeed declares that the present population of mankind is descended from a single man and woman who were distinctly created, and that this took place about four thousand years before the time of Christ.

Jesus himself said, "had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46-47

Bible wrote:



OK, so let me make sure I understand. A private employer, who is trying to run a business, works hard over the years to establish a customer base and reputation. Then he hires you, and you abuse your employer’s hard earned customer list by taking it to use for your own personal proselytizing activities. At which point your employer acts with extreme mercy by simply asking you to stop, instead of taking further action. By treating you so kindly, he runs the risk of further damage to his own private business, a risk he’s bearing out of the generosity of his heart to you.

And then you whine and complain about it here, as if you were somehow wronged by your misuse of his business, and go on to complain that other employers haven’t sacrificed their hard earned businesses by letting other Christian employees drive away customers by taking their employer’s customer lists for their own personal proselytizing activities?


I think we as Christians would make Christianity look better if we acted out of fairness, and when we make a mistake an fail to act ethically, show contrition and humility.

Papias

This employer made it completely clear that the problem was not in the amount of time I devoted to such activities, but with the fact that I did them. They further made it wholly unacceptable by saying that it applied 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And I was not the only employee required to sign this paper. every employee in the office was required to sign it.

But I would not expect a person of your persuasion to accept a command from the Lord "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" as compelling.

 

[Papias]

Bible wrote:

I have checked out your references to the men you cited, and see that these men indeed profess to be Christians.

I'm glad we agree that professing Christians are welcome in science.

The Bible indeed declares that the present population of mankind is descended from a single man and woman who were distinctly created, and that this took place about four thousand years before the time of Christ.

If you'd like to discuss that, the main forum is the place to do it. In here, we can only agree with you or be silent.

This employer made it completely clear that the problem was not in the amount of time I devoted to such activities, but with the fact that I did them. They further made it wholly unacceptable by saying that it applied 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And I was not the only employee required to sign this paper. every employee in the office was required to sign it.

Of course he would have done so. The issue is not your time (which I assume you can manage), but that you were taking his list of contacts and using it for your own ends, whether that was proselytizing or selling your own widgets. You may well have driven away customers and hurt his business. I'm a little bit amazed that anyone would try to defend your behavior. It's one thing for Christians to sin, but failing to even show contrition after being caught is beyond the pale.

But I would not expect a person of your persuasion to accept a command from the Lord "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" as compelling.

When I preach the gospel, I try to do so ethically. For instance, I would not consider it OK to break into a radioshack take a megaphone to use to preach, and then turn around and suggest that it's OK because I was preaching the Gospel.

You do understand that a businesses list of customer contacts is one of the most valuable assets a business has, right?

Papias