The problem with science & evoulution

[ern]

Since science, by defintition, does not study or explain the supernatural, how can one put their faith in a theory built on science. Many of you believe in evolution because, "science shows us the evidence", but if science does not take into account supernatural occurances, how can it have any credibility in a world full of supernatural events and beings.

 

[wblastyn]

Since science, by defintition, does not study or explain the supernatural, how can one put their faith in a theory built on science. Many of you believe in evolution because, "science shows us the evidence", but if science does not take into account supernatural occurances, how can it have any credibility in a world full of supernatural events and beings.

Evolution has nothing to do with "a world full of supernatural events and beings". You could argue that God is behind evolution but you have no way of testing it, so you have to take it on faith.

 

[ern]

Evolution has nothing to do with "a world full of supernatural events and beings".

That's the entire problem with evolution. It doesn't take into account the supernatural, which does exist in this world.

 

[wblastyn]

That's the entire problem with evolution. It doesn't take into account the supernatural, which does exist in this world.

Well neither does the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, etc. Science can't account for the supernatural.

 

[ern]

Science can't account for the supernatural.

Which brings us back to the main point I had, that is science is inadequate to study our world.

 

[wblastyn]

Which brings us back to the main point I had, that is science is inadequate to study our world.

Can you think of something better then?

 

[pudmuddle]

Since science, by defintition, does not study or explain the supernatural, how can one put their faith in a theory built on science. Many of you believe in evolution because, "science shows us the evidence", but if science does not take into account supernatural occurances, how can it have any credibility in a world full of supernatural events and beings.

I see this as a major flaw with evolution from a Christian perspective. It trys to explain a supernatural event by natural means.
And this is one reason that I don't believe it to be true. God's actions can never be explained in full by science.
It is almost comparable to men who try to predict the return of Christ.
Just by the very fact that they set a date, you know that date to be incorrect.
The wisdom of men is foolishness to God.

 

[notto]

Do you have problems with science predicting causes of disease, weather, earthquakes, etc or could these all be due to supernatural as well? Evolution is as much a science as any other area of science. The same methods are used and they describe as much of the world as can be described without the "then a miracle happened" out.

By the logic shown in this thread, there is no way to distinguish between disease caused by germs, or disease caused because God causes it and the germs are just a way of covering it up.

Theories, even ones that call on the supernatural, can be falsified as young earth creation was by the Christian scientists who first investigated it. The evidence did not match the miracle described it the bible as the creation miracle. They had to look elsewhere to find out how creation happened, but they still understood that it is possible that God had a hand in creation, as many theistic evolutionist do.

 

[ern]

Do you have problems with science predicting causes of disease, weather, earthquakes, etc or could these all be due to supernatural as well? Evolution is as much a science as any other area of science. The same methods are used and they describe as much of the world as can be described without the "then a miracle happened" out.

By the logic shown in this thread, there is no way to distinguish between disease caused by germs, or disease caused because God causes it and the germs are just a way of covering it up.

Theories, even ones that call on the supernatural, can be falsified as young earth creation was by the Christian scientists who first investigated it. The evidence did not match the miracle described it the bible as the creation miracle. They had to look elsewhere to find out how creation happened, but they still understood that it is possible that God had a hand in creation, as many theistic evolutionist do.

How can, "Theories calling on the supernatural", be falsified if science does not take into account the supernatural.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Since science, by defintition, does not study or explain the supernatural, how can one put their faith in a theory built on science. Many of you believe in evolution because, "science shows us the evidence", but if science does not take into account supernatural occurances, how can it have any credibility in a world full of supernatural events and beings.

First, it should have no problem describing events that have no major supernatural component. It also should be able to study the natural effects of supernatural events. For example, in the case of a miraculous healing, science can verify that the condition has been been healed even if it cannot explain the mechanism of the healing.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

That's the entire problem with evolution. It doesn't take into account the supernatural, which does exist in this world.

If life was created through an explicit supernatural event, it should be evident somehow. There is no evidence of this at present.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

How can, "Theories calling on the supernatural", be falsified if science does not take into account the supernatural.

Miracles often leave some effect. The world could not have come into being according to a literal reading of Genesis unless God also miraculously altered the evidence to make the Earth look very old.

 

[ern]

If life was created through an explicit supernatural event, it should be evident somehow. There is no evidence of this at present.

All the evidence is in the Bible.

 

[wblastyn]

All the evidence is in the Bible.

The Bible is a book on theology, not science. You are trying to force the Bible into being something that it's not and was never intended to be, it's not supposed to tell us how the universe works, it tells us about our relationship with God.

 

[lucaspa]

Since science, by defintition, does not study or explain the supernatural, how can one put their faith in a theory built on science. Many of you believe in evolution because, "science shows us the evidence", but if science does not take into account supernatural occurances, how can it have any credibility in a world full of supernatural events and beings.

The answer is simple: science does not deny the supernatural. Science gives you the material component of every process. And that material component is reliable.

What creationists do is not really argue the supernatural. Instead, they argue the material component. They say that planets, galaxies, and stars are not created by gravity as the material component of the explanation. They say that natural selection does not design the adaptations we see in biological organisms.

What Creation Science has is a different material component: instantaneous appearance. That component is wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

All the evidence is in the Bible.

Ern, that doesn't address the issue. Ask yourself: What would the universe and biological organisms look like if they really had been poofed into existence 6,000 years ago?

1. No or very little sedimentary rock, because there has not been enough time for erosion to make sediments.

2. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and stars becoming visible thru history as their light first reached the earth.

3. Isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years in the earth's crust.

4. No or very few fossils. And those fossils are those of contemporary organisms. Skeletons of ALL organisms mixed together in the sediments.

5. Clear genetic boundaries between the "kinds" of organisms.

Now, if we had found this physical evidence, then we would all conclude that a literal reading of Genesis 1 was correct. But since the physical evidence God left in His Creation is so different, we conclude instead the quotes in my signature.

 

[lucaspa]

I see this as a major flaw with evolution from a Christian perspective. It trys to explain a supernatural event by natural means.

Science gives you the material mechanism God used to create.

What you overlook by inserting the word "God" is that creation science is a material mechanism by which God is supposed to have created: 144 hours, no more than 20,000 years ago, instananeous formation of entities in their present form, a Flood to make all the geological features on the planet, etc.

Just because we don't know the exact manufacturing process involved in instantaneous formation doesn't make Creation Science any less of a material process. Darwin didn't know the exact mechanism of inheritance when he discovered natural selection, either. Urist didn't know the exact mechanism (or identity for that matter) of bone morphogenetic protein when he discovered that demineralized bone matrix caused formation of bone when implanted under the skin. I still am not sure of the exact mechanism by which the adult stem cells regenerate articular cartilage. However, none of that means that these are not the material mechanisms by which the events happen.

The wisdom of men is foolishness to God.

This only works for creation if you deny three basic Christian doctrines:

1. God created. And therefore left the evidence of HOW He created in His Creation. Denying God as Creator is not good.

2. God is rational and therefore His actions are understandable.

3. God created humans "in his image". Thus, creatures created in the image of God can understand God's messages, either the theological ones in the Bible or the mechanisms of creation in His Creation. You are saying that we cannot understand what God shows to us. If that is the case, then there is no basis whatsoever for Christianity. You have said you can't understand the Bible, either.

Guys, you can't go around "proving" Christianity with Creation Science while at the same time denying the very basis of Christianty!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

All the evidence is in the Bible.

If Genesis is intended to be literal, there should be some independent evidence.

 

[Vance]

Science is merely the study of the natural world, and from a Christian standpoint, a study of God's Creation. It does not, and can not, explain anything supernatural. You are all right so far.

But, science *recognizes* that it can not account for anything that is supernatural, and does not try to do so. As a discipline it does not preclude the supernatural, it is simply not equipped to deal with it, and so doesn't.

And yet, it's job is *still* to do the best it can in describing the natural world around us, even with this accepted and known "blind spot". So, it goes forward and observes, tests, theorizes, at best it can.

And, yes, this will mean that it will, on occasion come across an event actually *had* a supernatural cause, and will be attempting to explain it naturally. This will, of course, lead to a wrong conclusion. Any scientist would acknowledge this, but point out that they do have to go forward since they can't *assume* a supernatural causation.

And, even we as Christians would not want them to. There was a time when Christians (and all religious groups) assigned supernatural causes to all kinds of natural events (demons which were germs, rainbows, etc, etc) and it would have been incorrect for science to have avoided researching the possible natural explanations for those things just because some saw them as supernatural events.

More often, though, the supernatural is not a refutation of the natural laws that science discovers, it is simply a singular *over-riding* of those laws. Science is still correct when it says that Man can not be raised from the dead as a law of nature. God just chose to over-ride that law (which He created anyway) in a given instance.

As for evolution, the problem is that we simply don't know (and no, the Bible doesn't tell us) the degree to which He used natural processses to complete His creation. Science provides us with evidence that indicates that life evolved a certain way. We, as Christians, would say "well, if that is true, then obviously God did it that way." A denial of scientific conclusions is not the only possible Christian response.

 

[pudmuddle]

Science gives you the material mechanism God used to create.

What you overlook by inserting the word "God" is that creation science is a material mechanism by which God is supposed to have created: 144 hours, no more than 20,000 years ago, instananeous formation of entities in their present form, a Flood to make all the geological features on the planet, etc.

Just because we don't know the exact manufacturing process involved in instantaneous formation doesn't make Creation Science any less of a material process. Darwin didn't know the exact mechanism of inheritance when he discovered natural selection, either. Urist didn't know the exact mechanism (or identity for that matter) of bone morphogenetic protein when he discovered that demineralized bone matrix caused formation of bone when implanted under the skin. I still am not sure of the exact mechanism by which the adult stem cells regenerate articular cartilage. However, none of that means that these are not the material mechanisms by which the events happen.

A material process when thing are spoke into existance? Just as one example, Adam was created as a man, not as a baby. If his remains were discovered, he would be assumed to have grown into adulthood like any other man. So, yes, the evidence would contradict the truth. God is not required to show us every detail of how he created through his creation. You are trying to judge God by his standard for man. This is the same arguement atheists use against God killing in the OT. God does not have to follow the rules he sets down for men.

This only works for creation if you deny three basic Christian doctrines:

1. God created. And therefore left the evidence of HOW He created in His Creation. Denying God as Creator is not good.

2. God is rational and therefore His actions are understandable.

But not all of God's acts are understandable by human logic. Our minds are finite. His is not.

3. God created humans "in his image". Thus, creatures created in the image of God can understand God's messages, either the theological ones in the Bible or the mechanisms of creation in His Creation. You are saying that we cannot understand what God shows to us. If that is the case, then there is no basis whatsoever for Christianity. You have said you can't understand the Bible, either.

Guys, you can't go around "proving" Christianity with Creation Science while at the same time denying the very basis of Christianty!

The Bible was written for man, so it was written so man could understand it. Again, God is under no obligation to explain everything to us in the natural world. The very fact that we don't understand leaves room for awe and mystery. He leaves room for our faith to work.
"Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe."

God created angels, one of which is now Satan. Can we truly understand how this happened? No, therefore we do not understand all of creation, but we can believe.