• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why are creationists so threatened by science?

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,322
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Well its not what's considered an essential doctrine to the Christian faith.

Depends on who you ask... especially around here. ;)

I would say the important part would be to accept God as the sole creator and to accept the Fall of man.

Both debatable issues, but we'll set them aside for now.

Whether it YEC or OEC i think they are periphreral concerns. With each comes different interpretations of scripture and these are more of an in house debate.

And what of the "none of the above" option? When I see a mountain of evidence in favor of evolution, natural selection, and Big Bang cosmology, I cannot shut my eyes to it and hide behind either YEC or OEC -- The heart cannot accept what the mind rejects, and the mind must follow truth, no matter where it leads.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,710
2,438
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟197,102.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Jesus did not eat the pass over lamb, He was the lamb. The angels that visited with Abraham were said to have eaten meat. Even though they are spiritual and not of this world. The Bible says to eat whatever people feed you and don't worry about it. When your cooking for yourself, then it is a different story. There are strict laws to regulate the food we are to eat. The point being that to eat animals is a part of the fall. When God redeems and restores mankind then the animals well no longer consume each other. They will eat the grass (grains) like the ox.

Do you have any evidence that Jesus never once participated in participating in the traditional Passover meal? That seems very odd to me.
Zeroa: A roasted lamb or goat bone, symbolizing the korban Pesach (Pesach sacrifice), which was a lamb offered in the Temple in Jerusalem and was then roasted and eaten as part of the meal on Seder night.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,710
2,438
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟197,102.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The evidence is in Isaiah 11 where we see what the world will be like after the redemption. The wolf and the lamb will dwell together. They shall not hurt or destroy.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fat ling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Isaiah 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isaiah 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

It's called apocalyptic symbolism, and may reflect certain spiritual truths about the future heavenly reality, not today's scientific reality. Honestly, you real Isaiah LITERALLY? :doh: Don't you have any respect for the biblical genre's of God's word? Reading the wrong thing literally is like reading Shakespeare to learn how to build a space shuttle. It's just plain goofy! You're totally missing the point of the bible the way you read it. No wonder you're embarrassing us Christians in this forum.
 
Upvote 0

diychristian

Regular Member
Mar 8, 2010
419
5
✟23,085.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
And what of the "none of the above" option? When I see a mountain of evidence in favor of evolution, natural selection, and Big Bang cosmology, I cannot shut my eyes to it and hide behind either YEC or OEC -- The heart cannot accept what the mind rejects, and the mind must follow truth, no matter where it leads.

Evolution to some degree is accepted in both OEC and YEC. Natural Selection is accepted in both as well it just not the catholicon answer to life on earth as it is in secular mainstream. The Big Bang is accepted by OEC's like William Lane Craig, Reasons to Believe staff, Pope Pius XII said it didn't conflict with Roman Catholic doctrine, John Polkinghorne and others.

These scientific concerns are not even a hold up for alot of Christians, which tells me such objections have nothing to do with science. So, are you leading with your heart or your mind? How often in your life do you act by carnal knowledge? What makes those acts/decisions justified and faith in God questionable? I'm not saying have an unreasonable faith. Just curious if reason is the problem.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,322
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Evolution to some degree is accepted in both OEC and YEC.

In OEC, perhaps -- YEC is far more hostile to the subject.

And being "accepted to some degree" isn't going to cut it if the degree is dictated by dogma.

Natural Selection is accepted in both as well it just not the catholicon answer to life on earth as it is in secular mainstream.

"Accepted" as an unwanted byproduct of The Fall. I don't think that's going to cut it either.

The Big Bang is accepted by OEC's like William Lane Craig, Reasons to Believe staff, Pope Pius XII said it didn't conflict with Roman Catholic doctrine, John Polkinghorne and others.

These scientific concerns are not even a hold up for alot of Christians, which tells me such objections have nothing to do with science.

Which is cause for relief -- some of the more vocal objectors around here notwithstanding.

So, are you leading with your heart or your mind?

Depends on the situation.

How often in your life do you act by carnal knowledge?

Not quite as often as I would like -- but I need to get out more. ;)

What makes those acts/decisions justified and faith in God questionable? I'm not saying have an unreasonable faith. Just curious if reason is the problem.

If reason and faith are at odds, then one of them is clearly a problem -- as I said, the heart cannot accept what the mind rejects.

The question is where the problem lies.
 
Upvote 0

diychristian

Regular Member
Mar 8, 2010
419
5
✟23,085.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
In OEC, perhaps -- YEC is far more hostile to the subject.

And being "accepted to some degree" isn't going to cut it if the degree is dictated by dogma.

Thumbing through any mainstream science magazine and you can see secular dogma laced through the articles. Metaphysics is a no-no unless you're trying to disprove God then string theory and multiverses are ok. So are you as critical with them?

"Accepted" as an unwanted byproduct of The Fall. I don't think that's going to cut it either.

Some creationist might have a problem with death and suffering prior to The Fall, but I can't see an argument for mutations and entropy not occurring till after The Fall. With both of these in place the process of Natural Selection is possible pre-fall.


Not quite as often as I would like -- but I need to get out more. ;)

I bet if you thought about it you would find that a large portion of your life is decided by feelings. Your nutritionist says don't eat eat salty foods and you do anyway, it taste good. There's speed limit signs and traffic laws, but you're feeling in a hurry. You take risks with your life, we all do we are more visceral than we like to think. I guess what I'm getting at, are there legitimate reasons for your doubt or are you trying to make sense of a feeling?


If reason and faith are at odds, then one of them is clearly a problem

There are many people who don't see them at odds. I've listed a few in previous posts. Biblically, faith and reason are held in high regards together.


-- as I said, the heart cannot accept what the mind rejects.

So does the heart accept what the mind accepts? Is your heart simply slave to your mind or is it influential?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Thumbing through any mainstream science magazine and you can see secular dogma laced through the articles.

Example?

Metaphysics is a no-no unless you're trying to disprove God then string theory and multiverses are ok. So are you as critical with them?

Is this the same metaphysic that weathermen use to disprove Zeus by claiming that lightning is caused by natural means?
 
Upvote 0
J

Joshua0

Guest
Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature:
The order of nature? I am sorry, I was under the impression that Darwin was based on random chance and disorder. Clearly creationists believe in order. For example Boettner (March 7, 1901 – January 3, 1990):

"It is unthinkable that a God of infinite wisdom and power would create a world without a definite plan for that world. And because God is thus infinite His plan must extend to every detail of the world's existence. If we could see the world in all its relations, past, present, and future, we would see that it is following a predetermined course with exact precision. Among created things we may search where we will, as far as the microscope and the telescope will enable the eye to see, we find organization everywhere. Large forms resolve themselves into parts, and these parts in their turn are but organized of other parts down as far as we can see into infinity."
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The order of nature? I am sorry, I was under the impression that Darwin was based on random chance and disorder.

Then you obviously have not read any of his work. Darwin argued for natural selection, not disorder. He also discussed why descent with modification (i.e. evolution) would result in a nested hierarchy:

Charles Darwin on the Nested Hierarchy
 
Upvote 0
J

Joshua0

Guest
Evidence would be actual examples of this,
That is very difficult to do. You have to go into the natural record and show a time when creation did not devour itself. Also we are told that God created man in His own image and "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Right now the evidence tends to show that animals had flesh eating teeth long before man came along. Some people even try to show bones with scratches on them that they say are from teeth.

Still conflict or not, Christians believe that violence on the earth and animals harming one another is a result of the fall and not a part of God's creation. But is the work of Satan and the angels that followed Satan in his rebellion.
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is very difficult to do. You have to go into the natural record and show a time when creation did not devour itself. Also we are told that God created man in His own image and "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Right now the evidence tends to show that animals had flesh eating teeth long before man came along. Some people even try to show bones with scratches on them that they say are from teeth.

Still conflict or not, Christians believe that violence on the earth and animals harming one another is a result of the fall and not a part of God's creation. But is the work of Satan and the angels that followed Satan in his rebellion.

By "difficult", you mean impossible.

So you don't have any evidence of it, but you believe it anyways.
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The order of nature? I am sorry, I was under the impression that Darwin was based on random chance and disorder. Clearly creationists believe in order. For example Boettner (March 7, 1901 – January 3, 1990):

"It is unthinkable that a God of infinite wisdom and power would create a world without a definite plan for that world. And because God is thus infinite His plan must extend to every detail of the world's existence. If we could see the world in all its relations, past, present, and future, we would see that it is following a predetermined course with exact precision. Among created things we may search where we will, as far as the microscope and the telescope will enable the eye to see, we find organization everywhere. Large forms resolve themselves into parts, and these parts in their turn are but organized of other parts down as far as we can see into infinity."
Your impression is wrong because it's likely that everything you've been told by creationists about Darwin is/was wrong. Darwin's observations and notes are full of descriptions of non-random and order.
 
Upvote 0
J

Joshua0

Guest
By "difficult", you mean impossible.

So you don't have any evidence of it, but you believe it anyways.
We do not have all the information. When we get to Heaven everything will be a lot more plain and clear. We will not have to put up with the lies and the deception anymore. For now we just work with what we have to work with. To continue to learn as much as we can learn. To continue to love God and draw closer to Him.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,322
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Thumbing through any mainstream science magazine and you can see secular dogma laced through the articles.

The only "dogma" they have is to stick with what works, and discard the rest.

Metaphysics is a no-no unless you're trying to disprove God then string theory and multiverses are ok. So are you as critical with them?

Physics and metaphysics are two different topics.

Please now -- you're far too intelligent to play the "See? They do it too!" card. It's beneath you.

Some creationist might have a problem with death and suffering prior to The Fall, but I can't see an argument for mutations and entropy not occurring till after The Fall. With both of these in place the process of Natural Selection is possible pre-fall.

And yet, mutations, entropy, and natural selection are a cornerstone of biology, which in turn, is the foundation for understand life as we currently know it. To call these things unintended byproducts of The Fall leads to the inevitable conclusion that The Fall is as much of a creative force as God Himself, since clearly He never intended for any of it to turn out that way...

That most certainly isn't going to cut it.

I bet if you thought about it you would find that a large portion of your life is decided by feelings.

I don't need to think about it at all -- of course it is.

Your nutritionist says don't eat eat salty foods and you do anyway, it taste good. There's speed limit signs and traffic laws, but you're feeling in a hurry. You take risks with your life, we all do we are more visceral than we like to think. I guess what I'm getting at, are there legitimate reasons for your doubt or are you trying to make sense of a feeling?

Both, of course -- on a visceral level, I have looked at some of those would would presume to call themselves my moral superiors and would-be guides, and find it difficult to believe that they have the Almighty's ear any more than anyone else -- much as they would like to convince me (and everyone else within earshot) -- to the contrary.

On the more rational level, I'm actually quite fascinated with comparative religion and mythology, and have found some striking similarities -- exploring the common thread which runs through most of the world's religions (past and present) makes for fascinating reading.

It always ends up saying more about the followers than God Himself -- theology is less about Divine understanding as it is about the human condition.

The similarities are so striking as to make the differences almost negligible -- while I'm not ready to go full Atheist just yet, I have to come to the conclusion that if there is a God -- eternal and infinite creator of the multiverse -- and if that God indeed wants to be worshiped, He would not allow such a plethora of different means and creeds unless it truly did not matter to Him how He chose to be worshiped. To say otherwise would be to invariably reduce God to -- well, let's just say something not worthy of worship and leave it at that for now.

And so I tend to think on the words of Thomas Paine, "My own mind is my church, the world is my country, to do good is my religion.”

If there is a God, let Him be satisfied with that. If there is not, and there is nothing in the universe but what we make, then let us make good.

There are many people who don't see them at odds. I've listed a few in previous posts. Biblically, faith and reason are held in high regards together.

Indeed -- and after far too many debates on boards such as this, I must continually remind myself that what you describe is the rule rather than the exception.

So does the heart accept what the mind accepts? Is your heart simply slave to your mind or is it influential?

Neither of them can be turned off in the name of convenience, if that's what you're getting at.
 
Upvote 0
A

AgnosticShtick

Guest
I am sorry, I was under the impression that Darwin was based on random chance and disorder. Clearly creationists believe in order. For example Boettner (March 7, 1901 – January 3, 1990):

You SHOULD be sorry. Are you saying that Mr. Boettner told you that Darwin "was based on random chance and disorder"? You don't give enough name for him but do you mean Boettner the Reformed theologian?

The church I grew up in used a Boettner systematic theology in Sunday School. Is that who you meant taught you about evolution?

On second thought, that would be ridiculous. Nobody would consider Boettner an expert on evolution. (Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that you did. I assume there is some scientist named Boettner who you are quoting?)
 
Upvote 0
A

AgnosticShtick

Guest
Are you the poster formally known as "Jamin?"

If "Jamin" somebody who got kicked out?

I remember the name of the Boettner guy from Sunday School in my Reformed Presbyterian church where I grew up. So I looked it up. Sure enough he was born and died in the years Jamin indicated. So that is why he got mad at me. He didn't like me pointing out the error of quoting a creationist on what Darwin wrote.

Creationists love the random evolution argument. It lets them use those poker hand analogies as if they applied to evolution.
 
Upvote 0
A

AgnosticShtick

Guest
The title Why are creationists threaten by science? caught my eye. I think they dislike science because they fear an authority they can't control. Especially when they don't understand that authority.

By authority I don't mean speaking from authority fallacy. I mean the fact that science has authority in our society because it uses evidence and logic and makes sense. It doesn't just say "Listen to us! We have the truth!"

Jamin sounds like he has that kind of fear of science. Generations ago the church could demand that society listen to their authority because there wasn't any other authority. But people no longer trust religion for authority and science has given them so much that is real. It works. It heals diseases. It builds useful gadgets. It makes life easier. How can the church compete with that kind of reality?
 
Upvote 0