Share good examples of Christian Science

[chad kincham]

Since all the groundbreaking, paradigm creating scientists were god-believing creationists, including Francis Bacon, the father of the modern scientific method - who thus gave us modern science- I’d say there are tons of examples of the OP occurring.

You have those such as the founders of macro physics (Newton) and quantum physics, astronomers, genetics (Mendel)...

Those like Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, William Thompson Kelvin, Max Plank, and even Albert Einstein - who were either Christians or believed in a deist God as the architect and creator of the Universe.

 

[chad kincham]

Strobel's 'Case for a xxxx' aren't good and they certainly aren't science. They provide nothing new or of interest about the natural world, possess no real explanatory or predictive power and aren't subject to revision should more/better information come along.

They are apologetics. Intended to appeal to the sort of Christians that are so insecure in their faith they can't handle understanding the natural world as it actually is. Instead, they cling or revert to increasingly bizarre versions of biblical literalism that require outright rejection of the vast amount of progress made in understanding the world in the last 100 to 150 years.

And yet there are many ex agnostics and atheists who were reached via apologetics.

 

[chad kincham]

Anything by James Tour, professor at Rice University. He's one of the most influential scientists in the world. He recently produced a number of videos debunking origin of life theories that reject God as the author of life. He has also debunked evolution.

He is an evangelist who leads people to Christ regularly. He preaches at his church. Very few scientists have been willing to debate him. The reason is obvious. They cannot win.

And he has produced over 160 peer reviewed articles and has over 200 patents.

 

[chad kincham]

What is "Christian" science and how does it differ from just regular science?

‘Regular’ science is today defined as atheist science - with a presupposition of materialism and naturalism.

 

[sjastro]

I don’t see how this is relevant since all civilizations derived from hunting & gathering at some point. Before they knew how to farm and tend livestock they had to hunt and gather food.

You don't see the inconsistencies that if the wheel was invented 5500 years ago then by your logic the hunter gathering stage only lasted for around 500 years, yet European settlers found the original Australians knew nothing about the wheel in the late 18th century?

Then there is the evidence of that other great technological advance, the use of fire which greatly extends beyond the 6000 year old limit.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0164

 

[Aussie Pete]

And he has produced over 160 peer reviewed articles and has over 200 patents.

Yes, the somewhat overused word "genius" applies to Professor Tour. He also has a heart for the lost. I get an email every week, not about his work but his ministry. It would be wonderful if more people were praying for him. He gets a lot of flack for refuting origin of life theories.

 

[Gene2memE]

And he has produced over 160 peer reviewed articles and has over 200 patents.

None of which are related to evolutionary biology.

If you want to know why James Tour's arguments concerning evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are terrible, here's a good overview:

And, here's a more limited response to a particular video he published:

And, while I'm referencing Bill Ludlow, here's an excellent series of interviews he conducted with former creationists about why they are no longer creationists.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I don’t see how this is relevant since all civilizations derived from hunting & gathering at some point. Before they knew how to farm and tend livestock they had to hunt and gather food.

There was agriculture in the very beginning. The evidence for that was lost on Noah's flood. He knew how to farm. The first thing he did was plant a vineyard. Interesting set of priorities.

 

[NxNW]

He gets a lot of flack for refuting origin of life theories.

Which origin of life theories has he refuted?

 

[Aussie Pete]

None of which are related to evolutionary biology.

If you want to know why James Tour's arguments concerning evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are terrible, here's a good overview:

And, here's a more limited response to a particular video he published:

And, while I'm referencing Bill Ludlow, here's an excellent series of interviews he conducted with former creationists about why they are no longer creationists.

I have seen a lot of Jim Tour's videos. I am no genius, but what he has to say is way more convincing than OOL's "just so happened" bulldust. Crick said that spontaneous formation of life was so implausible that it almost seems like a miracle. He was almost right. It it a miracle. Hoyle thought that life had to come from outer space because it could not happen without some external force. Of course, that poses the question of where that life comes from.

Surely 70 years plus of OOL experimentation shows that it is impossible for life to occur by accident. But researchers plow on regardless, seeking some kind of alchemy because real science produces nothing.

 

[Gene2memE]

There was agriculture in the very beginning.

That's not what the available evidence points to.

The strongest available evidence points to a progressive development of agriculture over a period of about 15,000 years, commencing roughly 23,000 years ago in the Southern Levant.

The evidence from sites in Israel, Western Turkey and Northern Egypt was that humans started selecting and planting various strains of seeding grasses around early permanent settlements, before progressing to fruits and vegetables.

There's less strong evidence that agriculture started and then fizzled at a couple of locations in South Asia and the Papua New Guinea highlights potentially as much as 30,000 years ago - but this is less definitive and open to interpretation. There's also been some finds that suggest cultivation of wild plants occurred around the Horn of Africa as much as 60,000 years ago.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Which origin of life theories has he refuted?

I suggest that you watch his presentations and see for yourself. But basically the chemical soup theories, which are variations on a theme that somehow chemicals arranged themselves into a form that suddenly, for no reason, became alive.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's not what the available evidence points to.

The strongest available evidence points to a progressive development of agriculture over a period of about 15,000 years, commencing roughly 23,000 years ago in the Southern Levant.

The evidence from sites in Israel, Western Turkey and Northern Egypt was that humans started selecting and planting various strains of seeding grasses around early permanent settlements, before progressing to fruits and vegetables.

There's less strong evidence that agriculture started and then fizzled at a couple of locations in South Asia and the Papua New Guinea highlights potentially as much as 30,000 years ago - but this is less definitive and open to interpretation. There's also been some finds that suggest cultivation of wild plants occurred around the Horn of Africa as much as 60,000 years ago.

Available evidence has frequently proven to be incomplete. From time to time I see blaring headlines that state evolution has been turned on its head because of part of a tooth has been found in an Indonesian quarry. Or something similar. Often these headlines end up being fake news. I also note that the wild statements are usually followed up by the quietest possible retraction. We would not want to wake people up now. They might begin to suspect that the scientific world is not the shining example of pure ethics that they like to portray.

 

[Vap841]

Christian Science, what’s that?

 

[Gene2memE]

Available evidence has frequently proven to be incomplete.

All evidence is incomplete. This is the nature of the sciences, particularly ones that rely on finding evidence from the past. However, the only thing that overturns the available evidence is more evidence.

For your earlier statement ("There was agriculture in the very beginning") to be true, you'd need to demonstrate when "the very beginning" was and that agriculture was practiced then. You'd also need to explain the available evidence that humans progressively developed agriculture across multiple, independent sites over the course of many thousands of years.

Essentially, you'd need to overturn the picture of the Neolithic revolution that's been developed in the last 60 years.

Can you provide such evidence?

 

[NxNW]

I suggest that you watch his presentations and see for yourself. But basically the chemical soup theories, which are variations on a theme that somehow chemicals arranged themselves into a form that suddenly, for no reason, became alive.

I think you're confusing theories with hypotheses. But there are neither theories nor hypotheses that make such claims.

 

[chilehed]

Gravity behaves the same whether you are in Tallahassee or Tibet or on Titan

Didn't it skew to the right for a while in Talahassee at one time?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don’t know, I don’t know of any societies today that solely rely on hunting & gathering. Do you?

There are still quite a few around (Kalahari bushmen of Africa, the Spinifex of Australia, the Sentinelese of the Andaman Islands, the Pirahã of Brazil, the Batak of the Western Philippines), and last I heard, they don't use carts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But basically the chemical soup theories, which are variations on a theme that somehow chemicals arranged themselves into a form that suddenly, for no reason, became alive.

You mean like how metals like iron when exposed to the elements 'suddenly, for no reason', corrode forming oxides; how volcanic sulphur 'suddenly, for no reason' forms sulphuric acid; how minerals dissolved in water 'suddenly, for no reason', precipitate out, forming crystals and other deposits?

IOW, you mean chemistry? Is it so surprising that chemistry occurs when there are chemicals around?

Life is basically just a very complex redox reaction. One light-hearted way of putting it is that the purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide.

BTW, chemical reactions don't always happen suddenly, they can be very slow, but they always have a reason (a cause, an explanation).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From time to time I see blaring headlines that state evolution has been turned on its head because of part of a tooth has been found in an Indonesian quarry. Or something similar. Often these headlines end up being fake news. I also note that the wild statements are usually followed up by the quietest possible retraction. We would not want to wake people up now. They might begin to suspect that the scientific world is not the shining example of pure ethics that they like to portray.

Yeah, although that's a gross exaggeration, it has a grain of truth - any fule kno headlines are often fake news. If you want to be well-informed, don't take headlines or publicity releases, written by attention-seeking non-scientists, at face value, read the peer-reviewed papers that they're based on. There you'll find the real story - which often involves a tentative identification requiring further substantiation.