What is the relationship of science to theology?

[rmwilliamsll]

what prompts this thought is both a discussion in my church's men's bible study friday and this thread http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9341422#post9341422
since the thread is in a protected forum where i can not debate i will respond more fully here, which is open to all sides.


here is my fellowship post, trying to show the symmetry of the argument:

Take the useful metaphor of the two books: God's book of Works and His book of Works.

Your criticism:

But this ignores the theological conception of the Fall. The fall effected everything, including nature and man’s mind. Thus, nature no longer is perfect and nor is man, but God’s inspired word has not fallen. Therefore we should follow it and interpret all things through its light.

is that the book of Works is necessarily compromised by sin.
why isn't the interpretation of the book of Words likewise compromised by sin? especially given so many people claiming to be Biblical Christians yet teaching very different things.

it appears to be that the criticism you place on science is likewise appropriate to Biblical interpretation. Both books must be read and interpreted by people.

perhaps the best illustration i've seen on the matter is at:
http://www.christianmind.org/chr/illus/conflict.htm
please take a moment to look at the paralleliness of the two systems of thought: science and theology.

but rather than seeing this thought that both science and theology have interpreters--us who are fallen, sinful and simply wrong headed, i see a reply

I think the rationale of people like Ross and Plimer can be summarised by their complete disregard and contempt of Genesis as a historical record of Creation. They correctly recognise that if interpretted as a historical record, Genesis contradicts the mantra of evolution.

which is not only wrong, but is nothing more than name calling.
Ross in fact, treats Gen 1 has an historical record, that is why he works so hard to align science and the days of the week in a compatiblist manner. To label Ross as contempuous of Genesis is wrong, it does nothing to further understanding of the issues, attempts to poison the well, and furthers an agenda of radical polarization where if you are not YEC then you are not a true Christian.

 

[Micaiah]

This was posted in the CO forum, and I consider it contrary to the intent of that forum to post it in this area.

Firstly, if our interpretaion of Creation contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture, then your interpretation is wrong. Genesis is plainly intended as a historical record of Creation.

There is no indication in Genesis that God created all lifeforms using evolution over millions of years. That is a figment of the imagination. It states that all life was created by God in six days.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This was posted in the CO forum, and I consider it contrary to the intent of that forum to post it in this area.

it is an important issue and you posted where i can not debate it. it is a public forum, and i did not quote you by name as the poster but gave credit and an original link. all acceptable online etiquette.

Firstly, if our interpretaion of Creation contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture, then your interpretation is wrong. Genesis is plainly intended as a historical record of Creation.

likewise Dabney STRONGLY contented that slavery was the literal and proper way to interpret the Scripture. Yet very few Christians support his view. Why?
again heliocentricism displaced geocentricism in most of the church. against the obvious, literal, historical, man in the pew, common sense interpretation. Why?
the hermeneutic of the conservative church has been modified at least on these major topics. What makes evolution so different that Christians can not hold to a viewpoint different than yours and still be Christian?

There is no indication in Genesis that God created all lifeforms using evolution over millions of years. That is a figment of the imagination. It states that all life was created by God in six days.

why should there be any indication. Gen 1 is a polemic against idols and a framework to show God as creator-king. telling us how He created is not the purpose. Besides, humanity had a lot to learn first before it was ready to learn molecular biology....*grin*

my big point is that i can debate arminians, debate RC's, and lots of others, without my faith in the Lord being the fundamental question, rather than the issues of the debate. this is the result of YEC radically polarizing the debate and attempting to align their position as the only possible Christian conservative orthodox what-have-you position. Thus making discussion impossible on the issues-poisoning the well.

For instance, i believe the arminian theology is deficient and defective, but i dont believe that the faith of my arminian brethren online is the issue. In like manner, i believe YECism is sincerely wrong, misquided, dangerous and is a social phenomena that is leading the Church into serious error and problems. But it is not the faith of the participants that is in error or even under discussion, but rather the content of their theological systems. Yet some YEC's consistently make the issue out to be OEC or TE faith itself, not the principles of the issues under discussion. This approach may be good debate technics to score points with your audience but it will not in the long run, nor probably even in the short run, yield a dialogue which will persuade or convince, but rather harden positions.

that is the point of more than one poster recently here, trying to get YECism to lay off the personal attacks and talk about the issues.

 

[Micaiah]

Haven't seen any posts making those accusations lately that lately. Seems the TE's are getting a bit rattled, and the only way to cope is to try and ban YEC's from exposing their deception.

Back to your thread topic. The answer is a simple one. There is not conflict between what Scripture asserts as fact about Creation, and what actually took place. The plain teaching of Genesis is that our world was created in six days. There is a growing body of evidence, in spite of the massive campaign to discredit the Christian teaching, that what the Bible says is true.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Haven't seen any posts making those accusations lately that lately. Seems the TE's are getting a bit rattled, and the only way to cope is to try and ban YEC's from exposing their deception.

Back to your thread topic. The answer is a simple one. There is not conflict between what Scripture asserts as fact about Creation, and what actually took place. The plain teaching of Genesis is that our world was created in six days. There is a growing body of evidence, in spite of the massive campaign to discredit the Christian teaching, that what the Bible says is true.

ok.
what evidence?

my degree is in biology, i have never seen a thread of evidence supporting a young earth, defining kinds, or supporting a 6 day miracleous creation.

where can i find it?
or better yet, show us 1 good piece of evidence we each can research and understand.

 

[Micaiah]

Firstly, how about all these posts that show YEC's claiming TE's are not Christians. I for one have never said that. I have pointed out on several occasions that I do not believe a person is excluded from being a Christain if they are a TE. You owe an apology if you are unable to come up with the alleged posts for misreprenting what YEC's are saying.

So your degree is in biology. What has been your main area of work?

Can you explain how information is added to the DNA and provide the multiple examples of where we see such mutations occuring today for evolution to be even remotely possible. From what I know, none have been found so far. Not saying they never will, but remember if evolution from 'slime to scientist' has a reasonable chance of happening, there should many examples.

Evidence for Creation? If your knowledge of the human body doesn't convince you of a Creator, no evidence I can give will.

 

[GodSaves]

What is the point to this? I am sorry all, but I don't understand why we must copy/paste ideas from the 'only' forums so we can argue. Why aren't we taking the time we use to argue and use it to witness to non-believers? Why must we tear down Christianity constantly by arguing amongst each other? You never solve anything by arguing your opinion at someone. You will never change anyones belief this way, you will only root them more in their beliefs.

We are sent to preach salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. We were not sent to condemn.

 

[Micaiah]

This thread was posted to discuss the relationship between science and theology GodSaves. I'd suggest you start another thread or look at the one I started in the CO forum if you want to discuss your issue. If you think posting here is a waste of time then don't.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Haven't seen any posts making those accusations lately that lately. Seems the TE's are getting a bit rattled, and the only way to cope is to try and ban YEC's from exposing their deception.

Back to your thread topic. The answer is a simple one. There is not conflict between what Scripture asserts as fact about Creation, and what actually took place. The plain teaching of Genesis is that our world was created in six days. There is a growing body of evidence, in spite of the massive campaign to discredit the Christian teaching, that what the Bible says is true.

Mod hat on

No one is banning anyone from discussing evidence, or holes in a theory. What can't be done in Christian Forums are those things which violate rule 1

[noflame]


specifically that part of rule 1 where it says that you may not acuse someone of not being a christian. YEC and TE should have conversations as brothers and sisters in Christ. Saying that TE go against the word of God is against rule 1. Saying that YEC are dangerous to the Body of Christ is against rule 1. Stick to facts and evidence and have a good discussion. If you can't, then the warnings will come down like rain. Pointing fingers and complaining of moderator bias will not help you. This goes for everyone.

Mod hat off

 

[notto]

Can you explain how information is added to the DNA and provide the multiple examples of where we see such mutations occuring today for evolution to be even remotely possible.

You still haven't told us what you use as a definition of information. Your other posts were responded to with lots of knowledge on mutations and additions to the DNA, even some information on novel genes and protiens. How can you make the above statement without a measurable definition of information with which to base it on, and without ignoring the evidence that has already been presented to you?

 

[gluadys]

Evidence for Creation? If your knowledge of the human body doesn't convince you of a Creator, no evidence I can give will.

There it is again. The shifting of the discussion from the real issue to a not-so-subtle accusation that TEs are not Christian.

TEs are convinced of a Creator. That is a faith we share with you. So stop pretending that belief in God and Creation is the issue. It's not.

You were not asked about "creation".

You were asked about evidence for a "6 day miraculous creation".

Different question entirely.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Firstly, how about all these posts that show YEC's claiming TE's are not Christians. I for one have never said that. I have pointed out on several occasions that I do not believe a person is excluded from being a Christain if they are a TE. You owe an apology if you are unable to come up with the alleged posts for misreprenting what YEC's are saying.

So your degree is in biology. What has been your main area of work?

Can you explain how information is added to the DNA and provide the multiple examples of where we see such mutations occuring today for evolution to be even remotely possible. From what I know, none have been found so far. Not saying they never will, but remember if evolution from 'slime to scientist' has a reasonable chance of happening, there should many examples.

Evidence for Creation? If your knowledge of the human body doesn't convince you of a Creator, no evidence I can give will.

i see that the radical polarization of (either creationist=YEC) or (evolution=atheism) was addressed, so i won't add my voice to that.


The question is what kind of Creator is God.
the only way to answer the question is to look at Creation. It is radically continguent, which means that it relies of God's sustaining Providential care to exist moment to moment. And continguency means that God could have created in any number of ways and that only an examination of the evidence in Creation will tell us how.

That being said.

Look at choking to death. Our windpipe and our food/water plumbing are the same. People die because of this, and not just a few people. I am thinking of the issue because i nearly died 2 weeks ago choking on a small piece of breading from fried chicken. it is not just the manner of it being suboptimal and that there are a number of known ways to fix the problems. only not within the dual nested hierarchical structure that describes living organisms. Why?

Likewise the best single piece of evidence, imho, for evolution is the GLO pseudogene in vit C synthesis. Millions of people have died from scurvey throughout history. If God created Adam de novo, why did He include a deficiency mutation shared only with chimps?

there 2 interesting pieces of data, from your example of the human body, that lead me to believe that God used evolution techniques to create living things.

and again. what are the particulars that lead you to a YEC view?

.....

 

[FromTheAshes]

Also the 6000 year old earth is open to a lot of problems, completely ignoring the evolution debate. We must accept accelerated C (with no corrisponding energy increase, violating Einstein's equations), accelerated decay (with corrispondingly less energy released, violating energy conservation (First law of entropy), and supernovas that never occured (light created in transit) or that the earth was, for most of its history sitting on the border of a Black Hole which caused a time compression (which still doesn't help the decay problem).

 

[Micaiah]

specifically that part of rule 1 where it says that you may not acuse someone of not being a christian. YEC and TE should have conversations as brothers and sisters in Christ. Saying that TE go against the word of God is against rule 1. Saying that YEC are dangerous to the Body of Christ is against rule 1. Stick to facts and evidence and have a good discussion. If you can't, then the warnings will come down like rain. Pointing fingers and complaining of moderator bias will not help you. This goes for everyone.

I requested examples of posts made by myself where I have apparently accused TE's of not being Christian. You are making the same accusation. Please substantiate this accusation, or retract it with an apology.

The TE's problems are primarily theological. It is futile spending hours debating on a scientific level when there is no agreement on a theological level.

I presume that this forum is for theological and scientific debate. In such debate, it is normal for people to have their logic and attiudes scrutinised and exposed where they are deficient.

Is that the intent of this forum? Is it permissible?

 

[Micaiah]

I am still waiting on a response on whether it is permissible to copy items from the CO forum and post in this forum. That to me seems to defy the intent of the CO forum.

 

[Micaiah]

You still haven't told us what you use as a definition of information. Your other posts were responded to with lots of knowledge on mutations and additions to the DNA, even some information on novel genes and protiens. How can you make the above statement without a measurable definition of information with which to base it on, and without ignoring the evidence that has already been presented to you?

Hey Notto, when you can grasp the meaning of the word 'day', we'll progress to genetic information, okay. Priorities.

 

[Micaiah]

There it is again. The shifting of the discussion from the real issue to a not-so-subtle accusation that TEs are not Christian.

TEs are convinced of a Creator. That is a faith we share with you. So stop pretending that belief in God and Creation is the issue. It's not.

You were not asked about "creation".

You were asked about evidence for a "6 day miraculous creation".

Different question entirely.

I'd like to respond to this post, and I'm sure you had something in mind when you made the comment, but as it stands it just doesn't make any sense to me. Then again, I never did understand TE speak.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It makes perfect sense.

Creation - the doctrine that God is the creator of all things. All Christians subscribe to this doctrine.

Creationism - the movement that seeks to replace mainstream science with creation specifically by special acts of supernatural nature by God. Not all Christians subscribe to this doctrine.

See the difference?

 

[Vance]

Here are some of your statements regarding theistic evolution just over the last few days. This is not attacking the doctrine, but attacking the holders of the beliefs themselves. You can not possibly say that you are not casting doubt on the true Christianity of TE’s with these statements.

“TE's trust man's theories on origins and reject the plain truth taught in the word of God. Rejecting God's truth that forms the basis of Christian doctrines on sin, suffering, and salvation while at the same time claiming to be Christian is a serious matter.”
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9302688#post9302688


You have also called TE a heresy and those who believe it “compromisers”

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9341638#post9341638

You have said that TE’s treat the Scripture with contempt

http://www.christianforums.com/t883375

“To twist and distort that which is plainly stated is characteristic of the satan, the father of lies.”
So, here you are equating what TE’s do with Satan.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9310257#post9310257

 

[gluadys]

I'd like to respond to this post, and I'm sure you had something in mind when you made the comment, but as it stands it just doesn't make any sense to me. Then again, I never did understand TE speak.

I was referring to the conversation between yourself and rmcwilliamsll.

You made this statement in post #4 (all emphasis added).

The plain teaching of Genesis is that our world was created in six days. There is a growing body of evidence, in spite of the massive campaign to discredit the Christian teaching, that what the Bible says is true.

rmcwilliamsll replied:

my degree is in biology, i have never seen a thread of evidence supporting a young earth, defining kinds, or supporting a 6 day miracleous creation.

Note those three items carefully. Do they ask about creation in general or about a specific kind of creation? Do they ask for convincing evidence of a Creator? No. Why would they. This is the Christians Only forum. All posters here believe in Creation and in the Creator. Why would any of us need convincing of what we already believe?

Yet look at your response:

Evidence for Creation? If your knowledge of the human body doesn't convince you of a Creator, no evidence I can give will.

You totally ignored the three items for which you were asked to supply evidence from the growing body of evidence which you claim exists, and instead insinuated that a fellow Christian is asking for evidence of Creation and of a Creator.

Isn't that as much as saying that rmcwilliamsll is not a Christian?