What I don't understand . . .

[Vance]

. . .is the insistence that "science" is somehow a biased source of evil and that the scientific method can not be trusted as means of investigating God's Creation. In another thread, someone made the comment: "and we know which side science is on."

Which side science is on?

Science isn't a person. Science is a discipline, an area of study and a methodology. It can have no agenda. There are scientists who do have agendas, and the ones with the most dramatic agendas, and the ones that let that agenda effect their analysis and conclusions the most are Creation scientists. No need to dispute this since they admit it.

There are other Christian scientists who do not have this Creationist agenda to fulfill, but obviously do not have any agenda contrary to Christianity either. And they reach the same conclusions in almost every area as those who might have anti-Christian agendas. So, the agenda is obviously not driving the conclusion. Yes, those with an anti-Christian agenda will often attempt to use these conclusions to further their ends, but that does not mean the conclusions themselves are incorrect.

What I find odd is that every YEC will rely upon science and the results of the scientific method a hundred times every day. A dozen things within their very reach at a given moment are the products of science. They are kept healthy by science, communicate and travel via scientifically derived methods, etc, etc. And all these things they take for granted every day are developed using the exact same naturalistic methodology that is used to determine the age of the earth and the methods of evolutionary development.

But, somehow when it comes to the age of the earth and evolution, these scientific methods are obviously just scientific mumbo-jumbo, unreliable and incapable of reaching any trustworthy answers.

All very odd.

 

[MLML]

They are kept healthy by science, communicate and travel via scientifically derived methods, etc, etc. And all these things they take for granted every day are developed using the exact same naturalistic methodology that is used to determine the age of the earth and the methods of evolutionary development.

I tend to think it is God who keeps me healthy, and allows the things that which I use to be available. I think I am beginning to understand this debate here.

Some look to thank science for what they have. Others look to thank God for what they have.

I just don't put that much importance on science as many of you te-ist do. God didn't call us to study science, He called us into fellowship with Him.

Maybe you can point out in the theories of evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis where it says, Thank you God.

Do you know in all of Thomas Aquinas works, he never once said thank you God?

Ah well, just a different way we both have when looking at things.

 

[TwinCrier]

Science is benign, but the actual scientists are mostly unregenerated.

 

[grmorton]

Science is benign, but the actual scientists are mostly unregenerated.

AGreed, but that is largely because Christianity has presented an apologetic which is factually and observationally false. Why would they want to believe that?

A case in point, this is a picture of 10 years worth of plant growth found in a core taken from 7000 feet down in a Colorado well

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/roots.gif

This is a 3 inch part of a 3 foot section of the core which had these kind of roots. I estimate there are 250 layers of root growth in this well. That is, about 250 years worth of growth. That is about how long it takes an oxbow lake near a river to silt up. The deposit this was taken from was a fluvial/ox bow lake deposit.

YEC says this is impossible. So it is no wonder that the scientists are unregenerate--we drive them away.

 

[Vance]

MLML, you are missing the point. It is not that we are not thanking God for the natural world He has given us at all. He gave the scientists the materials to work with, He gave them the processes to discover. I praise Him for all of that every day. The point, again, is that you accept and use the benefits that science has given you every single day in hundreds of ways. Maybe you are not aware of this.

It is God who heals, but He often heals through scientists (doctors) and through processes of science (medicine, treatments). The food you eat is kept fresh by science, the house you live in is ehanced a dozen ways by science. The glue which holds you desk together is a chemical compoud developed by scientists. The phone you use, the car you drive, the road you drive on, the electricity that powers a dozen things you use every day, etc, etc. Or, the things you MAY need, like a fire extinguisher, medicines, medical equipment, etc. All of these are developed or enhanced through the naturalistic methodology of scientists. It works, and you simply accept it.

And, even in areas that you don't think effect you very much, you STILL accept the scientific results of scientists using the scientific method. Theories of gravitation, processes like photosynthesis, asexual and sexual reproduction, chemical reactions of dozens of types, answers to questions like why things rust, how big the sun is and what it is made of, what is at the center of the earth. You accept science's explanation of all these things (and rightly so) because the method they have for finding them out WORKS.

But this is the same process that is used to determine the age of the earth and how life has developed on this planet. But all of the sudden with these areas, YEC's don't just question the conclusions, they act as if the entire area of scientific investigation and analysis and conclusion is just a bunch of guesswork, unreliable and not worthy of consideration. It is the SAME process! The SAME methodology! It just makes no sense to accept it in a thousand areas as reliable and accept it's conclusions without question or concern, then act as if it mumbo jumbo in another area.

When was the last time you thanked God for your computer working or your lights coming on? For that aspirin taking the pain away or your car starting up? Why then would you expect people to be thanking God for any other natural process God created? I agree we should be thanking God for ALL of these things, since God gave the scientists the ability, the curiousity and the materials to work with.

Next time you go into surgery, just tell your doctor your are opting not to go through with it because God didn't really call him to study science, but just to fellowship with Him. Tell that doctor you just have no trust in Man's scientific conclusions, so you can not rely on the machines, the medicines or the procedures he has planned to remove that tumor or repair your heart.

Skip by the gas station next time your car needs gas because that fuel is a chemical compound developed by scientists using the unreliable and untrustworthy scientific methodologies, and just ask God to keep your car running without reliance of Man's knowledge and scientific inquiry.

Don't put that sunscreen on, go ahead and let your house burn down if it catches on fire, don't give your baby that fever reducer, don't read that book, since the pages are treated with preservatives and held together by glue. And what are you doing using a computer that obviously can't work since science just can't be trusted to provide any of the answers to how this natural world works?

 

[TwinCrier]

It's not the facts of how nature works that gives us problems; it's not the conclusions drawn, it's the exclusion of God. It's not the chemistry that provides a better laundry detergent, it's the palewntology that says we're the offspring of critters. It's the drawing conclusions that God is benign which cannot convince our hearts that know different.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It's not the facts of how nature works that gives us problems; it's not the conclusions drawn, it's the exclusion of God. It's not the chemistry that provides a better laundry detergent, it's the palewntology that says we're the offspring of critters. It's the drawing conclusions that God is benign which cannot convince our hearts that know different.

the line of reasoning you want to research is the difference between methodological and philosophic naturalism/materialism.

If you look at J.P. Moreland you ought to get the strongest Christian arguments that science ought not to be methodologically naturalist.

 

[Vance]

It's not the facts of how nature works that gives us problems; it's not the conclusions drawn, it's the exclusion of God. It's not the chemistry that provides a better laundry detergent, it's the palewntology that says we're the offspring of critters. It's the drawing conclusions that God is benign which cannot convince our hearts that know different.

No, it does not exclude God, it just explains how God did things. HOW God did things is the same whether it is a believer describing it or a believer. If the person describing it is not a believer, they are not going to ascribe the event to God. A believer will ascribe that same event to God. Take photosynthesis. If a scientist is describing that natural process, they will not mention that God created the process. Most likely even a Christian will not mention God even though he understands that it is part of God's workings in this world.

The fact that someone describes a process without mentioning God's role can not, in any way, be used as an argument that the process does not, or did not, happen. As Christians, we acknowledge God in the process, so there is no problem there. You, personally, accept hundreds of natural processes of God's Creation which are not ascribed to God by science, so why this one process?

And why is God not benign? I think God is very benign.

 

[MLML]

Vance you have carried your reasoning to where I never claimed. I don't exclude everything, I just prefer to thank God, rather than science. Simply that.


Maybe you can point out in the theories of evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis where it says, Thank you God.

 

[TwinCrier]

You, personally, accept hundreds of natural processes of God's Creation which are not ascribed to God by science, so why this one process?

Because it's wrong and I reject error.

 

[Vance]

" Maybe you can point out in the theories of evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis where it says, Thank you God."

On the lips and in the minds of every Christian who accepts these processes as developed and used by God. Most scientists who are Christian accept evolution and an old earth (by a wide margin).

And why do you accept photosynthesis even though you will never see a science book ascribe it to God? You DO accept that photosynthesis works just as the scientists describe it, correct?

Why do you accept ANY scientific principle about our universe, then, since none of them are specifically ascribed to God by any other than those that understand God is in all things?

 

[Vance]

Because it's wrong and I reject error.

Fine, then it is NOT because the scientists who are presenting it don't mention God. You seem to recognize that the fact that it is believed by those who don't believe in God, as well as those who do, is not an argument against evolution and an old earth in the least, but restrict your opposition to whether it is a scientifically well-supported theory. This is the right approach.

I just think you are wrong about whether it is wrong, but that is another discussion.

 

[MLML]

" Maybe you can point out in the theories of evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis where it says, Thank you God."

On the lips and in the minds of every Christian who accepts these processes as developed and used by God. Most scientists who are Christian accept evolution and an old earth (by a wide margin).

And why do you accept photosynthesis even though you will never see a science book ascribe it to God? You DO accept that photosynthesis works just as the scientists describe it, correct?

Why do you accept ANY scientific principle about our universe, then, since none of them are specifically ascribed to God by any other than those that understand God is in all things?

Maybe you can point out in the theories of evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis where it says, Thank you God.

I meant in the theories themselves, in case you didn't understand.

I really am not concerned with what the population believes, if I were I would call myself and Christian and act opposite of one.

Again, Vance you have not read what I wrote, but rather went off on your own tangent. If you were to read what I wrote you would have seen I said I don't have problems with science, nor technology. I use it everyday, for my work, and free time. I have studied different aspects of science, I find it rather fascinating. I just don't go and thank science or scientist, nor technology or technologists for what they have discovered. It is God who has allowed all things, who has done all things. So my thanks go to Him rather than men. And we are speaking here about what we use, science and technology. God made it possible for me to be able to use this laptop I type on, not you nor anyone else. So I thank God.

Vance, you and others really need to try and understand something here. Because I say what I do, doesn't mean I am saying you or others don't. Because I say I don't doesn't mean I am saying you or others do. Please keep that in mind when reading what I write.

I, unlike many here, will come out say who I am talking to and what I believe of that person from what they write. I won't hide in a no name message.


Lastly, population has never been a strong argument to me. Because most Christians who are scientists believe evolution, thus.... I don't care. As I said, if I were to follow this line of reasoning I would call myself a Christian and act the opposite. Because, I do not believe 84% of America are true Christians as Newsweek stated. If this were true, there wouldn't be rise in so many trying to eliminate Christ from Christmas. Are you aware in the United States there is a town that will not allow christmas trees, nor any other thing associated with Christ. I guess freedom of religion is out the window, but wait 84% of the U.S. are Christians...

 

[Vance]

MLML, you are still missing the point. You say you do not accept evolution because it does not include some reference in the scientific explanations thanking God for it.

Fine, but then my question is very simple. If that is your logic, then why do you accept ANY scientific theory which does not include a thank you to God right in the explanation?

If you think it is somehow an argument AGAINST evolution, why is it not an argument AGAINST photosynthesis? Why do you apply this in a pick-and-choose manner?

This is not a tangent, but a simple question about your approach.

 

[MLML]

MLML, you are still missing the point. You say you do not accept evolution because it does not include some reference in the scientific explanations thanking God for it.

I don't believe I have told you or another that I don't accept evolution because it doesn't give thanks to God or make reference to Him. I believe this is a mis-interpretation by you.

Fine, but then my question is very simple. If that is your logic, then why do you accept ANY scientific theory which does not include a thank you to God right in the explanation?

Again, read my response above. It is the te-ist who claims evolution was done by God. It is the te-ist asserts the scientists don't have bias' and don't look to see this world without God. So I simply asked you a very simple question, where in those theories does it say thank you to God. You assert the scientist aren't against God and many are for Him, so I ask where is the thanks to the One who created in those theories.

The simple answer that you don't want to give is there is no thanks to God.

If you think it is somehow an argument AGAINST evolution, why is it not an argument AGAINST photosynthesis? Why do you apply this in a pick-and-choose manner?

This is not a tangent, but a simple question about your approach.

Again, read above. Yes, your argument against me is a complete tangent because it doesn't even come close to properly representing what I have said.

 

[Vance]

Why is the theory of evolution any different than any other theory or scientific proposition? Why do not expect to see such "thanks" in every other area of scientific analysis? Why do you single out evolution among the thousands of conclusions reached by science?

No, you will not find a "thanks to God" in the general presentation of the theory of evolution, unless it is a Christian who is giving the presentation. But what does this tell you? Is it any argument whatsoever for NOT accepting it?

If you say yes, then the question becomes VERY relevant, why is it not equally an argument against accepting photosynthesis?

 

[Stinker]

Why is the theory of evolution any different than any other theory or scientific proposition? Why do not expect to see such "thanks" in every other area of scientific analysis? Why do you single out evolution among the thousands of conclusions reached by science?

No, you will not find a "thanks to God" in the general presentation of the theory of evolution, unless it is a Christian who is giving the presentation. But what does this tell you? Is it any argument whatsoever for NOT accepting it?

If you say yes, then the question becomes VERY relevant, why is it not equally an argument against accepting photosynthesis?

The theory of Evolution and the theory of Intelligent Design are both (general) theories because neither are VERIFIABLE.

In order for a theory to be a (scientific) theory it has to be VERIFIABLE.


So, both Evolution and Creationism will remain in the realm of Philosophy to be debated.

 

[MLML]

Why is the theory of evolution any different than any other theory or scientific proposition? Why do not expect to see such "thanks" in every other area of scientific analysis? Why do you single out evolution among the thousands of conclusions reached by science?

I believe I am in the Origins forum, so this would be about origin issues, correct? So there wouldn't really be a need to discuss other points in where no thanks are given to God. But that wasn't my point.

You continually say I miss the point and I wonder how many points you have missed of mine. Since you are so insistent that scientists are not biased, and that most of them aren't against God, but rather most believe Him to be real, I ask where is the thanks.

You seem to argue that the thanks to God is not needed. I find that rather sad. That is one of the problems with this world and the ones who call themselves Christians - 84% in America - hardly any thank God enough.

No, you will not find a "thanks to God" in the general presentation of the theory of evolution, unless it is a Christian who is giving the presentation. But what does this tell you? Is it any argument whatsoever for NOT accepting it?

It tells me the theory was made by men who didn't have any concern for God.

If you say yes, then the question becomes VERY relevant, why is it not equally an argument against accepting photosynthesis?

Because they have no concern for God doesn't mean I reject the theory. I just know where the source stands. I reject the theory because it is inconsistent, unsupported, and contradictive to the Bible.

As I have said previously, you want to believe in evolution, by all means go for it. If one feeding on milk needs to hold to evolution while being a young Christian, fine by me. I wouldn't subject a young Christian to the meat of scripture until they are strong enough from the milk - Gospels.

Where I have a problem with you Vance and others who have stated the same here, is the fact that you have previously stated that one can dismiss Genesis, as being something that really happened, that it is not a salvation issue, and that parts of the Bible are in error. You nor any other man/woman has the right to decide and preach what parts of the Bible are or aren't salvation issues.

You have previously stated in some post I read that Jesus Christ being conceived of the Holy Spirit is not a salvation issue. I would conclude you are not well versed in the Bible by that statement. In Psalms it talks about sin being inherited through conception between a man and a woman. Your statement concludes Christ was born with sin in Him, and that my friend is a salvation issue. Christ was sinless, and He took on the sin of world at His death, so that we sad creatures who take everything for granted could be saved.

The only way you get around the issue is to add to the Bible, and that in Proverbs and Revelations says we should not do.

 

[Vance]

A new Christian?! I have been a Christian for 30 years. Not well-versed in Scripture? Wrong again, I have studied the Scripture prayerfully and with the Spirit's guidance for that long as well.

Let's walk through your points:

1. No, I didn't say scientists were not biased. I said SCIENCE was not biased. If the theory is sound, it does not matter what the bias of the scientist is. I never said most scientists believe in God, most do not. But both those who DO and those who do not accept evolution. So, it is definitely NOT any bias which compels the theory, it is the evidence.

2. No theory in science is ever proven. Theories are just explanations of the data that we see and observe. We have evidence, observable and verifiable that shows evolutionary development over billions of years. The theory evolution is just the best explanation for that data that we have. And it is a very good theory because it fits all the data, makes accurate predictions and has not been falsfified.

3. I never said we should not give thanks to God. I just said that you don't seem to expect this in every other scientific proposal, so why evolution? This is NOT a difficult question, but you refuse to answer it.

4. You say that their refusal to "give thanks to God" within their theory shows that it was developed by people with no concern for God. But this does not follow. When I write a legal brief, do I need to include at the end "and all thanks be to God for law and justice" or it would mean I have no concern for God? The presence or absence of a reference to God is no indication whatsoever of the presenters concern for God. The presentation of scientific proposals is an explanation of how the natural world works. God set up this natural world to work without His direct and immediate intervention unless He chooses to. This is why both believers and non-believers come to the same conclusion regarding how it works.

Again, I ask, do you expect to see a "thank you" to God when a scientist explains photosynthesis? Or gravity? Or germ theory? Why not?

5. I have never said we can dismiss Genesis? Where did you get that? I don't know of ANY TE on this forum who has said that.

6. And, no, I do not believe the Scripture is EVER in error. I believe God has presented His message to us inerrantly. I just don't think the message He is giving is literal history and science, so to the extent it does NOT describe literal history accurately is NOT an error.

7. Even most of the YEC's here will agree that whether you read Genesis 1 and 2 literally or figuratively is not a salvation issue. What did Jesus say you must do to be saved?

8. We have covered the original sin issue already and I would refer you to that discussion.

 

[grmorton]

Again, read my response above. It is the te-ist who claims evolution was done by God. It is the te-ist asserts the scientists don't have bias' and don't look to see this world without God. So I simply asked you a very simple question, where in those theories does it say thank you to God. You assert the scientist aren't against God and many are for Him, so I ask where is the thanks to the One who created in those theories.

As a TE, I give my thanks to God, not to you, and not for public show like the thanks of a publican. Who are you to say that TE's don't thank God for the wonderful world He made?

And if what is good for the TE ought to be good for the YEC. In all the CRSQ articles I have read, I haven't seen the word 'thank you god' very much. INdeed, I don't think it appears in the RATE book either, nor in the ICC proceedings.